REVISED AG E N D A
MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, May 27, 2025 ~ 7:00 PM
City Council Chambers
211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach, California
LISA LANDAU
MAYOR
Third District
NATHAN STEELE
MAYOR PRO TEM
Fifth District
JOE KALMICK
COUNCIL MEMBER
First District
BEN WONG
COUNCIL MEMBER
Second District
PATTY SENECAL
COUNCIL MEMBER
Fourth District
This Agenda contains a brief general description of each item to be considered. No action or discussion shall be taken on any item not appearing on the agenda, except as otherwise provided by law. Supporting documents, including agenda staff reports, and any public writings distributed by the City to at least a majority of the Council Members regarding any item on this agenda are available on the City’s website at www.sealbeachca.gov.
City Council meetings are broadcast live on Seal Beach TV-3 and on the City's website (www.sealbeachca.gov). Check SBTV-3 schedule for the rebroadcast of meetings. The meetings are also available on demand on the City’s website (starting 2012).
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, if you require disability related modifications or accommodations, including auxiliary aids or services to attend or participate in the City Council meeting, please call the City Clerk's office at (562) 431-2527 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting.
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
COUNCIL ROLL CALL
PRESENTATIONS / RECOGNITIONS
• International Mucopolysaccharidosis (MPS) Awareness Day Proclamation – May 15, 2025
• Run Seal Beach Presentation
• National Beach Safety Week Proclamation – May 19-26, 2025 • Investment Policy Presentation
• AB481 Military Equipment Presentation
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
At this time members of the public may address the Council regarding any items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City Council. Pursuant to the Brown Act, the Council cannot discuss or take action on any items not on the agenda unless authorized by law. Matters not on the agenda may, at the Council's discretion, be referred to the City Manager and placed on a future agenda.
Those members of the public wishing to speak are asked to come forward to the microphone and state their name for the record. All speakers will be limited to a period of five (5) minutes. Speakers must address their comments only to the Mayor and entire City Council, and not to any individual, member of the staff or audience. Any documents for review should be presented to the City Clerk for distribution. Speaker cards will be available at the Clerk’s desk for those wishing to sign up to address the Council, although the submission of a speaker card is not required in order to address the Council.
Emailed Comment from JO8N
Emailed Comment from Ken Seiff
Emailed Comments from Cher Engelstad
Emailed Comment from Myra Romero
Emailed Comment from Patty TerHaar
Emailed Comment from Tom Mulligan
Emailed Comments from Mike and Julie Westmoreland
APPROVAL OF AGENDA & WAIVER OF FULL READING OF RESOLUTIONS
ORDINANCES
By motion of the City Council this is the time to notify the public of any changes to the agenda and /or rearrange the order of the agenda.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT Nicholas Ghirelli, City Attorney
CITY MANAGER REPORT Patrick Gallegos, Interim City Manager
COUNCIL COMMENTS
General Council Member comments and reporting pursuant to AB 1234.
COUNCIL ITEMS
A. Council Questions Regarding Fiscal Year 25/26 Budget
CONSENT CALENDAR
Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine and are enacted by a single motion with the exception of items removed by Council Members.
B. Approval of the City Council Minutes - That the City Council approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of the City Council Operating Budget Workshop on May 6, 2025, the Special Meeting of the City Council Capital Improvement Program Budget & 5 Year Financial Forecast Workshop on May 8, 2025, and the Closed Session and Regular City Council meetings held on May 12, 2025.
C. Demand on City Treasury (Fiscal Year 2025) - Ratification.
D. Monthly Investment Report (May 27, 2025) - Receive and file.
E. City Council Appointment - It is the request of Council Member Senecal that the City Council appoint Belle Hsu to the Environmental Quality Control Board.
F. Professional Services Agreement with Transtech Engineers, Inc. - That the City Council adopt Resolution 7647: 1. Approving the Professional Services Agreement with Transtech Engineers, Inc. for $453,000 in Building Division staffing services and 65 percent of designated plan check fees for building plan check services for FY 2025-2026; and, 2. Authorizing the Interim City Manager to execute the Agreement.
G. Approving Amendment No. 7 to the Cooperative Agreement No. C-6-1126 with Orange County Transportation Authority for the OCTA I-405 Improvement Project (CIP ST1809) - That the City Council adopt Resolution 7648: 1. Approving Amendment No. 7 to Cooperative Agreement No. C-6- 1126 dated July 29, 2016, as previously amended by Amendment No. 1 dated June 11, 2019, Amendment No. 2 dated January 21, 2022, Amendment No. 3 dated April 25, 2023, Amendment No. 4 dated July 5, 2023, Amendment No. 5 dated June 25, 2024 and Amendment No. 6 dated December 18, 2024, with Orange County Transportation Authority; and, 2. Authorizing the Interim City Manager to execute Amendment No. 7 to Cooperative Agreement No. C-6- 1126.
H. Application for Grant Funds Under the Environmental Cleanup Program Tier 1 Grant Program, 2025 Call for Projects - That the City Council adopt Resolution 7649: 1. Authorizing the Interim City Manager to submit an application for grant funds under the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Environmental Cleanup Program (ECP) Tier 1 Grant Program (Tier 1), 2025 Call for Projects for the 5th Street at Electric Avenue Stormwater Treatment Project (Bridgeport), and to accept any grant funds awarded for the Project; and, 2. Authorizing the City to fund its share of the project costs and any additional costs over the identified programmed amount; and, 3.
Authorizing the Interim City Manager, or designee, as agent to conduct all negotiations, and to execute and submit all documents on behalf of the City of Seal Beach, including, but not limited to applications, forms, agreements, and payment requests, which may be necessary to submit and secure the 2025 ECP Tier 1 grant, the City’s obligations related thereto, and all amendments thereto for the Project.
I. Fiscal Year 2025-26 Statement of Investment Policy and Delegation of Authority - That the City Council adopt Resolution 7650 approving the FY 2025-26 Statement of Investment Policy and Delegation of Authority to the Director of Finance/City Treasurer.
J. Annual Military Equipment Report Review and Introduction of Ordinance to Renew Military Equipment Authorization and Approve Seal Beach Police Department’s Updated Policy 706 in Accordance With Government Code Section 7071 - That the City Council: 1. Review and file the Seal Beach Police Department’s Annual Military Equipment Report for 2024; and, 2. Introduce, read by title only, and waive further reading of Ordinance 1718 to renew the Military Equipment Use Ordinance and update the Seal Beach Police Department’s Military Equipment Use Policy – Policy 706.
K. Implementation of Coastal Commission-Approved Beach Parking Lot Rate Increases - That the City Council adopt Resolution 7651: 1.
Implementing the beach-parking-lot rate schedule approved by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) on May 7, 2025, to take effect July 1, 2025; and,
2. Accepting the CCC’s conditions of approval and directing staff to satisfy the conditions imposed by the CCC; and, 3. Authorizing staff to execute and submit all documentation required by the CCC—including the Notice of Receipt & Acknowledgement, Revised Final Plans, and subsequent compliance reports—within the timelines set forth in the permits.
L. Additional Appropriations and Contracting Amendments for Parking Enforcement Automated License Plate Reader Equipment Purchases from ComSonics and MCMC - That the City Council adopt Resolution 7652:
1. Amending Resolution 7621 to increase the not-to-exceed cost of $214,479.37 to $223,979.36 for the Professional Services Agreement with ComSonics; and, 2. Amending Resolution 7629 to increase the not-to-exceed cost of $49,645.22 to $50,810.00 for purchase of new Mobile Dispatch Terminals and associated necessary equipment.
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
PUBLIC HEARING – None
UNFINISHED / CONTINUED BUSINESS – None
NEW BUSINESS
M. Short Term Rental Update - Receive and file.
ADJOURNMENT
Adjourn the City Council to Monday, June 9, 2025 at 5:30 p.m. to meet in closed session, if deemed necessary.
CITY COUNCIL NORMS:
Adopted on June 12, 2023
• Maintain a citywide perspective, while being mindful of our districts. • Move from I to we, and from campaigning to governing. • Work together as a body, modeling teamwork and civility for our community. • Assume good intent.
• Disagree agreeably and professionally.
• Utilize long range plans to provide big picture context that is realistic and achievable. • Stay focused on the topic at hand. Ensure each member of Council has an opportunity to speak.
• Demonstrate respect, consideration, and courtesy to all. • Share information and avoid surprises.
• Keep confidential things confidential.
• Respect the Council/Manager form of government and the roles of each party. • Communicate concerns about staff to the City Manager; do not criticize staff in public.
CIVILITY PRINCIPLES:
Treat everyone courteously;
Listen to others respectfully;
Exercise self-control;
Give open-minded consideration to all viewpoints;
Focus on the issues and avoid personalizing debate; and, Embrace respectful disagreement and dissent as democratic rights, inherent components of an inclusive public process, and tools for forging sound decisions.
FOLLOW US ON FACEBOOK FOLLOW US ON INSTAGRAM FOLLOW US ON TWITTER/X
@CITYOFSEALBEACH @CITYOFSEALBEACHCA @SEALBEACHCITYCA @SEALBEACHRECREATION&COMMUNITYSERVICES @SEALBEACH_LIFEGUARD @SEALBEACHPOLICEDEPARTMENT @SEALBEACHPOLICE @SEALBEACHPUBLICWORKS
@K9YOSA
@K9.SAURUS
City of Seal Beach
Seal Beach Police Department
Seal Beach VIPs
Police Explorers
City Residents
NAVAL WEAPONS STATION
Thank you Captain O'Brien, Commanding Officer, Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach and Gregg Smith, Public Affairs Officer
200+
volunteers
Diversified Technical Systems, Inc. RECYCLING REDEFINED
SILVER SPONSORS
THANK YOU SPONSORS
Your support powers Run Seal Beach’s BIG heart!
PLATINUM PLUS SPONSOR
GOLD SPONSORS
CONGRATULATIONS
Klaus Quinonez 16:02
Sara Passani 17:18
5K RUN*
Jonas Enders 32:37
Jessica Reyes 40:42
10K RUN
*pictured
registrants from 20 states
847
5k walkers 5k runners
133 1001
10k runners
BY THE NUMBERS
1 k kids fun run
250
KIDS FUN RUN & FUN ZONE
IT TAKES A TEAM
14 Planning
Team Members 1001
10k runners
250
Served 6 Years
Finish Line, Treasurer, Secretary
47:43 10k in 2014
Served 4 Years
Fun Run
1000 Kids!
IN GRANTS
given this year
Supporting Los Alamitos schools, local service organizations & community support groups YOU register. YOU participate. WE give back.
G I V E N I N C U M U L AT I V E G R A N T S
Run with us next year! Saturday, March 28, 2026
pfmam.com
A Division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc.
For Institutional Investor or Investment Professional Use Only – This material is not for inspection by, distribution to, or quotation to the general public City of Seal Beach
Investment Policy Annual Review
May 27, 2025
Robert Montoya, Institutional Relationship Manager
2 Investment Policy Review Process
and Considerations
Annually Ongoing
• Review and address
changes to Code
• Re-evaluate authorized list
of investments
• Re-evaluate maturity limits
and benchmark
• Discuss strategy
implementation
• Monitor and enforce
compliance
• Monitor changes to Code
and best practices
• Provide accurate and
timely information
Considerations
• Language that meets
current industry
standards and practices
• Language that conforms
to requirements set forth
in the applicable statutes
• Considers use of different
investment sectors
• Considers maturity limits
• Incorporates
diversifications and
maturity standards
California Code - Permitted Investment Universe
3 Source: California Government Code Section 53601.
Securities 1 Day 180 Days 270 Days 1 Year 5 Years Over 5 Years U.S. Treasuries ✓ Permitted
Federal Agencies ✓ Permitted Requires Approval
Municipal Securities ✓ Permitted
Negotiable Certificates of Deposit ✓ Permitted
Commercial Paper ✓ Permitted X Prohibited
Bankers’ Acceptances ✓ Permitted X Prohibited
Medium-Term Corporate Notes ✓ Permitted
Asset-Backed Securities (ABS) ✓ Permitted X Prohibited
Supranationals ✓ Permitted
Public Bank Debt ✓ Permitted Requires Approval
Repurchase Agreements ✓ Permitted X Prohibited
Money Market Funds/Bond Mutual Funds ✓ Permitted X Prohibited Local Government Investment Pools ✓ Permitted Foreign Sovereign
X Prohibited
Fixed-Income ETFs
High-Yield Bonds
Private Placements
Convertibles
Non-U.S. Dollar Investment Grade
Emerging Markets Debt
Bank Loans
Domestic Equities (Large, Mid, Small Cap)
Int’l Equities (Large, Mid, Small Cap)
Emerging Markets
Preferred Stock
Equity Mutual Funds and ETFs
Commodities
Real Estate
Hedge Funds
Private Equity
Venture Capital
Tangible Assets
Complex Derivatives, Futures and Options
Disclosures Disclaimer
The views expressed within this material constitute the perspective and judgment of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. at the time of distribution and are subject to change. Any forecast, projection, or prediction of the market, the economy, economic trends, and equity or fixed-income markets are based upon current opinion as of the date of issue and are also subject to change. Opinions and data presented are not necessarily indicative of future events or expected performance. Information contained herein is based on data obtained from recognized statistical services, issuer reports or communications, or other sources, believed to be reliable. No representation is made as to its accuracy or completeness.
PFM Asset Management serves clients in the public sector and is a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc., which is the legal entity providing investment advisory services. U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. is a registered investment adviser, a direct subsidiary of U.S. Bank N.A. and an indirect subsidiary of U.S. Bancorp. U.S. Bank N.A. is not responsible for and does not guarantee the products, services, or performance of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc.
NOT FDIC INSURED : NO BANK GUARANTEE : MAY LOSE VALUE
4 Assembly
Bill 481
Seal Beach City Council Meeting
May 27th 2025
History… why do we need this?
The use of military equipment by municipal police departments is a highly debated topic. Here are several reasons why the Seal Beach Police Department has this equipment:
1. Preparedness for High-Risk Situations
Municipal police occasionally face extreme threats, such as active shooter incidents, terrorist attacks, or heavily armed suspects. Military-grade equipment like armored vehicles or tactical gear can protect officers and civilians in these rare but high-risk scenarios.
2. Enhanced Officer Safety
Military equipment, such as ballistic helmets, body armor, and tactical vehicles, can significantly increase the safety of officers responding to dangerous calls, reducing injuries or fatalities in confrontations involving firearms or explosives.
3. Cost Efficiency through Federal Programs
Programs like the U.S. Department of Defense’s 1033 Program allow local police departments to acquire surplus military equipment at little or no cost. This is a cost-effective way to equip law enforcement agencies with resources that would otherwise be prohibitively expensive.
4. Disaster Response and Rescue Operations
Some military equipment, like drones, armored vehicles, and night-vision devices, are useful for non-combat purposes such as search and rescue, natural disaster response, and evacuation efforts.
5. Deterrence
Visible possession of military-grade equipment can act as a deterrent to would-be criminals or violent actors who might otherwise challenge police authority or plan large-scale attacks.
Assembly Bill 481
Requirements
● Policy
● Governing Body
Approval
● Public Review
● Annual Reporting
Unmanned Aircraft
System (UAS)
DJI MAVIC 2
ENTERPRISE DUAL
DJI Avata
Armored Vehicle
Lenco Bearcat G2
Mobile Command
Post Vehicle (MCP)
Freightliner M2 106
Defense technology
40MM Launcher
40MM Single
Shot Launcher
40 MM Exact
Impact Sponge
Less LETHAL SHOTGUN
REMINGTON
MODEL 870
SHOTGUN
DRAG STABILIZED
12-GAUGE BEAN
BAG ROUND
Rifles
Colt AR-15 .223
GEISSELE AR-15 .223
H&K MP-7
PepperBall Launcher
Tippmann
PepperBall Gun
PepperBall Live X
PepperBall Rounds
RIFLE AMMUNITION
Winchester 5.56MM 55 Gr.
FMJ
Winchester
.223
Remington 55
Gr. Silver Tip
Winchester .223 Remington
55 Gr. Frangible
RIFLE AMMUNITION
L-Tech 4.6 x 30MM 31 Gr.
OTM
L-Tech 4.6 x 30MM 13 Gr.
Frangible
Light sound diversionary devices (LSDD)
Defense Technology No. 15
Stinger Grenade
Combined Tactical Systems
(CTS) Model 7290 Flash Bang
Chemical agents & smoke canisters
Defense Technology Direct
Impact 40MM CS Round
Defense Technology Direct
Impact 40MM OC Round
Chemical agents & smoke canisters
Defense Technology
Spede-Heat CS
Grenade
Defense Technology
CS Triple-Chaser
Separating Canister
Defense Technology
Flameless TriChamber CS Grenade
Chemical agents & smoke canisters
Defense Technology 40MM
CS Ferret Powder Barricade
Penetrating Projectile Round
Defense Technology 40MM CS
Ferret Liquid Barricade
Penetrating Projectile Round
Chemical agents & smoke canisters
Defense Technology
CS Riot Control Continuous
Discharge Grenade
Defense Technology
Pocket Tactical CS Grenade
Kinetic Breaching Tool
Kinetic Breaching Tool
(KBT) Model 3-1000
Long Range
Acoustic Device
(LRAD)
Genasys
LRAD
Model 500X
Robot
Transcend Vantage
Patrol Robot
Questions?
1 Brandon DeCriscio
From: JO8N <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2025 8:05 AM
To: Lisa Landau; Nathan Steele; Joe Kalmick; Ben Wong; Patty Senecal; Patrick Gallegos; Michael Henderson; [email protected]; Gloria Harper; Brandon DeCriscio; Karen Pickering; Ask City Hall; budget; [email protected]; Joe Bailey; Alexa Smittle; Barbara Arenado; Iris Lee; Tim Kelsey; Shaun Temple; Deb Machen; Anthony Nguyen; Nicholas Nicholas; Mike Ezroj; Julia Clasby; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Brian Gray; Nick Bolin; [email protected]; Megan Coats; Jessica Salvador; Chris Hendrix; [email protected]; Jill Ingram
Subject: Public Comment - Final Warning, Fear GOD - Seal Beach City Council Meeting 5/27/25 Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
This Is Your Final Warning. Fear GOD. Legal Action Will Be Considered If The Public Record Is Not Corrected Through These Acknowledgments During The Seal Beach City Council Meeting On 5/27/25:
1. I Request Public Acknowledgment Of Ongoing Seal Beach Police Intimidation To Chill My 1st Amendment Right To Free Speech At Public Assemblies Because Of Viewpoint Discrimination Before/During My Public Comments For Years And Guarantee Of An Immediate End To These Behaviors Or Similar: (A) Directing An Officer To Use A Police Dog To Specifically Target My Person/Belongings/Scent Without A Warrant Or Reasonable Suspicion Of A Crime Additionally Violating My 4th Amendment Right (B) Directing An Officer To Move Behind The Sight Line Of The Camera To Sit In The Public Audience Exactly When I Go Up To Give My Public Comment (C) Physically Moving Directly Next To My Person In The Public Audience Section Before Public Comments At Two Separate December Meetings In Order To Give Me Extra Intimidation During The Pressure Of Greater Audience Attendance Than Usual And Holiday Performances (D) Suggesting/Telling Me Not To Write My Name Down In Order To Be Called Upon To Give My Public Comment
2. I Request Public Acknowledgment Of A Previous Lie By Omission From Seal Beach Police Stating That Psilocybin Mushrooms Are Completely Illegal In California And A Correction Of The Record Stating The Whole Truth That The California Cities Of Oakland, Santa Cruz, Arcata, Berkeley, And San Francisco Have Successfully Mandated Personal Use And Possession Of Certain Psychedelics As The Lowest Law Enforcement Priority.
3. I Request Public Acknowledgment Of The City Attorney's Failure To Recognize At Best And Complicit Encouragement At Worst Of The Ongoing Seal Beach Police Intimidation Specifically Directed At Me, A ~27 Year Resident.
4. I Hereby Request A Public Acknowledgment From The City Attorney Regarding Prior Acts Of Omission And Potential Violations Of My First Amendment Rights. Specifically, These Violations Occurred Immediately After I Publicly Announced The Religious Nature Of My Practice And The Founding Of My Church.
Following This Declaration, The City Attorney Issued A Blanket Legal Statement Asserting That Psilocybin Mushrooms—Referred To By Their Non-Religious, Secular Name—Are “Illegal In California.” This Statement Was Delivered Without Addressing The Constitutional Protections 2 Afforded To Religious Practice, And Was Made In Direct Response To My Religious Expression Invoking The Name Of JESUS CHRIST. This Action Effectively Undermined The Legitimacy Of My Sincerely Held Religious Beliefs And Sacramental Use Of JESUS CHRIST's Flesh And Blood. It Promoted A Preference For Traditional Or Mainstream Christian Interpretations Over Nontraditional Or Indigenous Spiritual Practices. It Also Violated The Establishment Clause And Free Exercise Clause Of The First Amendment To The United States Constitution, Which Together Prohibit Government Hostility Toward Minority Religious Practices, Government Endorsement Of One Religious Interpretation Over Another, Interference With Religious Expression In A Public Forum, And The Chilling Of Protected Religious Speech. Furthermore, The City Attorney Omitted Critical Legal Context, Implying That My Religious Practice Was Categorically Illegal Under State Law—When In Fact, The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) And The Gonzales V. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União Do Vegetal (UDV) Supreme Court Decision Provide A Clear And Recognized Pathway For Religious Exemption To Controlled Substance Laws. The UDV Case Affirmed That A Sincere Religious Use Of A Federally Controlled Substance May Not Be Prohibited Without The Government Meeting The Highest Level Of Legal Justification—Known As Strict Scrutiny. The Burden Is On The Government To Show A Compelling Interest And That It Has Chosen The Least Restrictive Means To Advance That Interest. By Failing To Disclose This Legal Framework, The City Attorney Not Only Misled The Public, But Also Attempted To Dismiss My Constitutionally Protected Religious Rights Through Misrepresentation And Selective Omission.
This Public Statement, Issued By A Government Official In A Civic Forum, Not Only Dismissed The Spiritual Framework I Had Explicitly Articulated, But Also Attempted To Reframe My Protected Religious Exercise As A Criminal Matter—Thus Chilling My Religious Speech, Discrediting The Legitimacy Of My Sacrament, And Reinforcing State Entanglement With Religious Interpretation, Contrary To The Principle Of Government Neutrality In Religious Matters. This Act Of Governmental Overreach Echoes The Historical Violation Of Indigenous Religious Freedom On This Land—An Ongoing Legacy Of Cultural Suppression And Spiritual Violation.
Lastly, I Assert That I Am Under No Obligation To Prove My Religious Exemption Through ManMade Legal Mechanisms Unless And Until I Deem The Matter Ripe. My Exercise Of Faith Exists Prior To And Beyond Civil Authorization, As Protected By The Constitution And Recognized By Precedent. This Is Anchored In The Foundational Principle That Religious Liberty Is An Inalienable Right, Not A Privilege Bestowed Or Regulated At The Discretion Of The State.
5. I Request Public Acknowledgment Of Two Separate Brown Act Violations. During (4), The City Attorney Gave A Public Response To My Public Comment Without Agendizing The Item To Give Me A Chance To Respond With The Omitted Information. During (2), The City Mayor Gave A Public Response To My Public Comment In Which Police Were Asked About Psilocybin Mushrooms. This Item Was Not Agendized And I Was Not Given The Chance To Respond With The Omitted Information. Because The Item Was Illegaly Agendized Twice Without A Public Hearing, I Request A Legal Placement On A Future Agenda With A Chance For The Public To Speak.
If The Public Record Is Corrected By Acknowledgment Of All 5 Issues, Behaviors Are Promised To Change, And Placement On A Future Agenda Occurs During The Seal Beach City Council Meeting On 5/27/25, I Will Drop All Consideration Of Legal Action With Handshakes Of Forgiveness. 42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil Action For Deprivation Of Rights https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983
3 https://steeringlaw.com/police-misconduct-attorney-seal-beach/ https://www.moseleycollins.com/police-misconduct-lawyer-in-seal-beach-ca.html https://pba.memberclicks.net/search-member-directory#/
https://firstamendmentcoalition.org/
https://www.terrapinlegal.com/
https://www.thefire.org/
https://www.aclu.org/
Satan Drives Out Satan All Around Me
The I AM Holds Me Together
Sin Tempts You With Momentary Peace
Division Never Lasts Forever
Love Verbatim Word For Word
Literally, In The Flesh And Blood
Remember Ear Cut By Sword
Here Forever, Good Is Evil's Judge
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ If theft is still a problem in the Target shopping center, it might be time to look into employees giving tips/insider theft. Can Amazon's security be consulted to see vulnerabilities in Target shopping center as I believe Amazon uses Palantir?
If the water and sewer rates are passed, we need to see recognition of exactly where the funds are going to certain parts of the city - I foresee a situation in the future when other, more recently built parts of the city need new pipes and I want a record of the fact that the more recently built parts of the city helped fund older parts of the city before.
If that many pills shown in the drug take back are over prescribed by big pharmaceutical companies, how is that not considered racketeering conspiracy with big insurance companies?
Make an AI Police Lawyer like siri that can be a real time intermediary for police officers and citizens to talk with together in 99% of the time non-violent interaction.
In regards to drug enforcement, the best defense is a good offense - right now alcohol is your offense when it should be cannabis - alcohol is a gateway to cocaine/meth/opioids and cannabis is a gateway to psychedelics.
Why This Russian Drone Developer Isn’t Impressed by U.S. Tech ([Probably Some Propaganda In There] Fiber Optic Cable Drone Seems Most Applicable For Civilian Police - Better Connection, No Enemy Jamming/Detection, More Battery Because Video Feed Does Not Take As Much Energy; Or Large Mother Drone To Improve Connection/Distance Of Wireless; Starlink Naval Drones; Lasers To Destroy Drones) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmfNUM2CbbM
Police warn of small cameras camouflaged in yards across the country https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEQircxHdHQ
4 Experimental drones developed in Chicago area to neutralize mass shooters, disable weapons https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eiz2GzAEVbg
Is This An Organized Crime Syndicate? James Freeman (Local Public Government Is Better Than The Alternative Or Else It Would Create A Vacuum With Less Accountability/Standards/Morality/Etc., But It Is Not The Best - Religion Is)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NaPJKi_MW0
How Police Control the Media (Overly Liberal Video Among Some Overly Republican Videos, But Copaganda Has Obvious Truth In Seal Beach With Terrible Local Journalistic Integrity Regarding My Experience So Far, Unless There Has Been Publicly Published Writing About Cannabis/Psychedelics That I Have Not Seen)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NB0IW8ihS0
Tim Tebow - Fighting For Our Children | SRS #199 Shawn Ryan Show https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeVFs0dVcCc
Notorious Green Beret’s WARNING to Soldiers Coming Home Johnny Glenn Julian Dorey (IMO Adrenaline Addiction Through Constant Survival Competition At War Creates Hyper-vigilance Devoid Of Rest With GOD That Does Not Integrate Into The Marathon Of Life)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0NnjKXZRFc
The Real Threat: Why the U.S. Could Declare War on Chinese Gangs (w/ Former DEA, Ray Donovan) Ironclad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToKNiaMqfwA
Why Other Countries LAUGH at American Homes (Build New Headquarters By The Beach Out Of Concrete/Local Earth Geopolymer)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTghEBfZ_D8
Wasp 3D-prints eco-homes from local raw earth for $1K
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MLJs1KRa0Y
In 2018, the team printed their first home in 10 days using local earth (30% clay, 40% silt, 30% sand), 40% chopped rice straw, 25% rice husk, and 10% lime. “Gaia” cost 900 euros (1,000 dollars) in materials for 30 meters of wall. The round-shaped structure relied on a wooden roof and beams for support.
Why 3D Printing Buildings Leads to Problems (Modular Prefab Concrete For Non-Unique Building Parts + 3D Printed Concrete For Unique Building Parts Seems Like Sweet Spot) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhAwPFIUF_4
Comment:
“I’ve worked closely with a leading concrete 3D printing company for several years now, so I hope my insight into the actual construction process provides some perspective.
First, one clarification: There is no gravel aggregate in 3D printing concrete. It is only sand.
You're right that the vertical integration is very strong in this industry, but there is already internal pressure to break that up. I expect in 10 years or so, you'll see more open-access tools available to architects and construction companies alike. I can't be too specific and honor my non-disclosure 5 agreements, but there is recognition that the ability for architects to play with shape is very limited for now, which also limits the primary advantage of concrete 3D printing over other methods: complex shapes cost the same as simple ones. The primary reasons IMO for the vertical integration is 1) that there has been a high learning curve for the industry and 2) the business case relies on minimizing labor costs and the strategies for dealing with that are still being prototyped. Normally trivial things like laying foundations, running plumbing, tying roof timbers into the frame, and lintels as you mentioned, are difficult for concrete 3D printed construction. It's only in the last year or so that acceptable, repeatable solutions have been identified for most of these and are finding their way into standard design practices.
But even then, there are still maybe 5 or 10 years more of on-the-ground construction needed to establish best practice. It's not too different from the way building materials and building science radically changed in the 1980's, leading to a decade of extremely poorly built houses prone to water damage and short lifespans. It wasn't until maybe 20 years after that best practices for high-quality construction had been standardized.
I would push back on the lack of repairability, though. This has always been an issue with concrete construction, and it's likely to become increasingly common for plaster or stucco finishes to be applied to internal walls, allowing for intrusive renovations to be reintegrated. Structural stability is not likely to be an issue since all walls have reinforcement every half meter anyway and often exceed building strength standards by an order of magnitude. Further, virtually all concrete 3D printing for now is slab-ongrade construction, which already has the same repairability issues you mention but is already widely adopted and has best practices for dealing with things like electrical and plumbing repair. I would also point out that the timber frame construction that we love so much is largely an anomaly unique to the U.S. where wood is abundant and cheap. Concrete 3D printed homes have the (so far unrealized) potential of being many decades or centuries more durable than frame buildings, which will change the design requirements that often contribute to design choices that later need renovations and repairs.
I would also push back on the criticism of how windows and doors are seated in the concrete homes. I don't doubt that many early concrete 3D printed homes were sealed with silicone only, but 1) the gap between windows and walls is already standard in frame construction and addressed with shims, spray foam, and trim and 2) the 3D printing companies have already started to adopt the same building techniques used by frame construction.
Echoing much of what you said, IMO concrete 3D printing has a high potential for unique design that won't be unlocked until architects are given freer access to the tools and pre-fab construction is a necessary companion to this industry, but there is still a lot of building science that is being worked out.
There are already some serious advantges, such as all walls having a native R40 insulation rating, but these will be tempered by the inherent limitations. I don't expect to see a rapid adoption of 3D printed construction for another 5 or 10 years and for the U.S. market share to cap around 20% and primarily remain in the residential and light commercial construction spaces. I also think that the current barewall aesthetic will fall out of favor out in that timeframe since it will prove difficult to clean. I also expect that environmental costs will remain high as long as cement production relies on fossil fuels and concrete aggregate relies on mined sand. I also expect that a future use case for heavy construction is using 3D printing to create forms for much thicker concrete constructions, particularly for foundations, buttresses, and pillars, such as you see in airport construction.” I Investigated Utah’s DEADLY Soda Addiction…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlNJc_OLbYw
6 https://playactivate.com/
Increased sedentary behavior is associated with neurodegeneration and worse cognition in older adults over a 7-year period despite high levels of physical activity https://alz-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/alz.70157 Parkinson's patients who take 'magic mushrooms' see key benefits, study finds https://www.foxnews.com/health/parkinsons-patients-who-take-magic-mushrooms-see-key-benefitsstudy-finds Trump surgeon general pick praised unproven psychedelic therapy, said mushrooms helped her find love https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/15/health/casey-means-psychedelic-therapy Military Land Is 4,336 Acres Or 60.7% Of Seal Beach...
JO8N
On Monday, March 31st, 2025 at 6:34 PM, JO8N <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sunday, March 23rd, 2025 at 4:53 PM, JO8N <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Lisa, Nathan, Joe, Ben, Patty, Patrick, Mike H., Nick G., And Gloria, I am writing to formally express my concerns regarding what I believe to be ongoing violations of the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code § 54950 et seq.) during public meetings conducted by Seal Beach’s City Council. The fundamental purpose of the Brown Act is to ensure that the public has the ability to meaningfully participate in local government proceedings, which includes the right to make public comments and receive fair treatment under open meeting laws.
Specifically, I wish to address the following concerns:
1. Inability to Respond to False or Misleading Statements:
* It has been observed that after I make public comments, members of the council and/or city staff respond to my remarks. However, I am not afforded the opportunity to address their responses within the same meeting, effectively silencing my ability to correct or clarify statements that may be false, misleading, or deceptive by omission.
This directly undermines the principle of open and meaningful discourse as envisioned by the Brown Act.
* The California Supreme Court has reinforced the importance of open and fair discussions in McKee v. Los Angeles Interagency Metropolitan Police Apprehension Crime Task Force (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 354, where the court emphasized that restricting public input while allowing government officials to comment without challenge is inconsistent with the transparency goals of the Brown Act.
2. Prohibition on Addressing Staff:
* The restrictions placed upon me and other members of the public from directing comments toward city staff—especially when they are the ones providing statements that require public scrutiny—appear to be an unreasonable and arbitrary limitation on public participation. Furthermore, this may give the staff a feeling of false sense of security protecting their statements from legal scrutiny. The Brown Act does not prohibit the public from addressing staff members during public comment, and such restrictions seem inconsistent with its purpose of transparency and accountability. 7 * In Chaffee v. San Francisco Library Commission (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 109, the court affirmed that public participation is a fundamental aspect of government meetings and should not be unduly restricted, emphasizing the need for fairness in addressing public concerns.
3. Discussion of Public Comments Without Proper Agenda Notice:
* Members of the council have engaged in discussions regarding my public comments without first properly agendizing the topics I address. This practice violates the Brown Act’s requirement that discussions and deliberations on nonagendized items not take place, as it deprives the public of advance notice and the ability to participate fully in the discussion.
* I am grateful that the city council is listening and willing to speak even momentarily in response to public concerns. However, even an extremely timelimited agendized discussion would add fairness and transparency to misleading statements by staff. By failing to agendize discussions about my comments, the council is creating an imbalance in the exchange of information, which the Brown Act seeks to prevent.
* Additionally, in my public comments, I am using meta-communication to agendize the process by which we agendize. The term “agendize” itself is a completely made-up word that devalues public discourse and reflects a bureaucratic approach that obstructs meaningful public participation rather than facilitating it. This concern aligns with the ruling in White v. City of Norwalk (1990) 900 F.2d 1421, where the court emphasized that public meetings should foster meaningful participation and that arbitrary restrictions on discourse can infringe upon First Amendment rights.
* The word "agendize" does not appear anywhere in the Brown Act (Government Code § 54950 et seq.). The law refers to "placing an item on the agenda" or "agenda requirements," but "agendize" is not an official legal term. It is a bureaucratic jargon word that has become commonly used in government settings but lacks formal recognition in the Brown Act itself.
4. Process for Placing an Item on the Agenda:
* The process for placing an item on a city council agenda varies by jurisdiction, but under the Brown Act, it does not require a unanimous decision by the council.
Instead, different cities have different policies:
* Individual Council Members: Some cities allow one or two council members to request an item be placed on a future agenda. The exact number required depends on the city’s local rules or policies. For example, in Los Angeles, a single council member can introduce a motion to be considered in a future meeting. Similarly, in San Diego, two council members are required to place an item on the docket. * Majority Vote: In some cities, adding an item to a future agenda requires a majority vote of the council at a meeting. This process ensures that council members collectively decide whether an issue warrants further discussion. The City of Berkeley, for instance, follows this model, requiring a majority vote to place an item on the agenda.
* Courts have upheld the importance of agenda-setting transparency. In Preven v.
City of Los Angeles (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 925, the court ruled that public participation in government decision-making is a core right under the Brown Act, reinforcing that the public and individual council members must be given fair opportunities to introduce topics for discussion.
These practices create an unfair and unbalanced environment where public voices are effectively suppressed, while city officials retain unrestricted latitude to control discourse without public challenge. Such actions may constitute a violation of both the letter and spirit of the Brown Act.
I respectfully request that the city review its meeting procedures and take immediate corrective actions, including:
8 * Allowing public speakers the opportunity to address responses made to their comments within the same meeting.
* Eliminating any restrictions that prevent members of the public from addressing staff when their statements are at issue.
* Ensuring that discussions related to public comments follow proper agenda procedures to comply with the Brown Act’s transparency requirements. * Switching to Individual Council Member placing of items on the agenda to emphasize the sanctity of every individual living in Seal Beach Failure to address these issues may necessitate further action, including but not limited to submitting a formal complaint to the appropriate oversight agencies and seeking legal remedies to ensure compliance with state law.
I appreciate your prompt attention to this matter and request a written response outlining the steps the city will take to address these concerns. Please respond within 30 days of receipt of this letter.
P.S. Still Waiting On That Seal Beach City Legal Document Stating The Boundaries Marking The Well. Your Opinion About Me And My Right To Stand In A Public Area Moving My Body Completely To Myself Is Worthless Without The Written Proof Of The Well Boundary. I Submit The Evidence That You Are Able To Be That Close To Gloria’s City Clerk Area, And In Fact, Encouraged To Be In Order To Pick Up, Fill Out, And Submit Necessary Documents, Including Supplemental Material For Public Comments. My Standing In The Exact Symmetrically Opposite Area Was Supplemental Material For My Public Comment About The Decriminalization Of Psilocybin Mushrooms And The Agenda Item Of Daylighting. Lastly, The Wells I Have Seen Are Round In Shape And Symmetrical Without Parts Hanging Off The Side (To Conveniently Fit Your Narrative)
42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
אמן אמן
⭼⭽⭾⭿⮀⮁⮂
ၒၓ⯴⯵⯶
⍾
י ו 8 נ ן
Ἰωάνν8ς
Jo8annes
JO8N
On Tuesday, March 18th, 2025 at 6:11 AM, JO8N <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Lisa, Nathan, Joe, Ben, Patty, Patrick, Mike H., Nick G., And Gloria,
9 I am writing to formally request an investigation into a matter of significant public concern regarding potential interference with my ability to communicate with city officials. Specifically, I have reason to believe that my emails to members of the Seal Beach City Council and city staff may have been intentionally blocked or filtered by someone within city administration in the Fall/Winter of 2024.
As a resident of Seal Beach, I understand that I have a right to communicate with my elected representatives and city staff regarding matters of public interest. Any directive or policy that restricts this communication raises serious legal concerns under the Ralph M.
Brown Act (Government Code §§ 54950–54963), the California Public Records Act (CPRA) (Government Code §§ 6250–6270), and the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
The Brown Act ensures transparency and public participation in local government. Blocking my emails to city officials may constitute an unlawful restriction on my ability to engage in civic matters and access public information. Likewise, the CPRA mandates that governmental communications be open for public scrutiny. If city staff have deliberately restricted my access to communicate with officials, it could be an unlawful attempt to circumvent public records laws and governmental accountability.
Furthermore, the First Amendment guarantees my right to petition the government for redress of grievances. Any action taken by city staff to suppress my communication, particularly if done based on viewpoint discrimination, could amount to a constitutional violation.
Relevant case law, such as Lindke v. Freed and O'Connor-Ratcliff v.
Garnier, suggests that when public officials act in their official capacity, they must not engage in viewpoint-based censorship, including blocking communications from constituents.
To ensure transparency and accountability, I respectfully request an internal review and disclosure of the following:
1. Any internal directives, policies, or communications instructing city staff or IT personnel to block, filter, or otherwise restrict emails from my email address [email protected] or any other specific senders.
2. A list of email addresses, domains, or individuals that have been blocked from contacting city officials and staff in the last year.
3. Any internal discussions or justifications for implementing such restrictions, including whether such actions were directed by city officials or staff members.
4. The criteria and procedures used by the city’s IT department to filter or block external communications.
If such a policy or directive exists, I request an explanation of its basis, legal justification, and the process by which it was implemented. If no such directive exists, I ask that immediate steps be taken to ensure my emails are properly received by their intended recipients.
I would appreciate a written response within 30 days confirming the receipt of this request and outlining the next steps in addressing this matter. If necessary, I am willing to file a formal Public Records Act request to obtain relevant documentation.
Thank you for your attention to this important issue. I look forward to your prompt response and a resolution that upholds public trust and the right to open communication with our local government. 10 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?la wCode=GOV§ionNum=54950
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201 720180SB31
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?la wCode=CONS§ionNum=SEC.%202.&article=I
אמן אמן
⭼⭽⭾⭿⮀⮁⮂
ၒၓ⯴⯵⯶
⍾
JO8N
On Monday, March 10th, 2025 at 6:44 AM, JO8N
<[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Lisa, Nathan, Joe, Ben, Patty, Patrick, Mike
H., And Nick G.,
Police intimidation that chills free speech is well
recognized under First Amendment
jurisprudence. In Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169
(1972), the Supreme Court held that government
action that deters individuals from participating
in public discourse—whether through direct
harassment or other forms of coercion—can
violate First Amendment rights. In Feiner v. New
York, 414 U.S. 632 (1974), the Court
underscored that police conduct which disrupts
or deters political expression, even if ostensibly
aimed at maintaining order, must not infringe on
the constitutional right to free speech.
Moreover, Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491
U.S. 781 (1989) illustrates that any regulation or
enforcement action must be content neutral and
carefully tailored to avoid suppressing speech
based solely on its message. These cases
establish that if police officers single out
individuals for the content of their speech or for
the topics they plan to address—such as
advocating for "psilocybin mushroom"
decriminalization, Religious Freedom, Jesus
Christ or discussing other politically charged
issues—the resulting intimidation can constitute
11 an impermissible infringement on First
Amendment protections.
Additionally, lower court decisions have
consistently found that law enforcement actions
that create a chilling effect on political
participation are subject to strict scrutiny. When
officers position themselves near a speaker, not
to maintain public safety but to deter
expression, it may be seen as targeted
harassment.
In December 2023's Seal Beach City Council
Meeting, Mike H. of police staff entered the
public section of the council chambers. He
decided to sit near me when the choir sang. In
December 2024's Seal Beach City Council
Meeting, Mike H. entered the public section once
again. He decided to stand directly next to me
during the National Anthem and when the choir
sang. As I was in two completely different places
in the room each year, this establishes a
patterned targeting that could potentially be
viewed as apparent police intimidation that
chills my free speech before my public
comment.
In addition, Nick N. and Yosa of police staff have
entered the public section of the council
chambers directly behind the podium in view of
the camera numerous times. This happened
exactly during my public comment, to the point
where I took time away from my allotted time to
acknowledge the repeated pattern. I can only
assume that this was a directive given by Mike H.
of police staff due to his body language and the
potential intimidation's regularity.
“Settle matters quickly with your adversary who
is taking you to court. Do it while you are still
together on the way, or your adversary may hand
you over to the judge, and the judge may hand
you over to the officer, and you may be thrown
into prison. Truly I tell you, you will not get out
until you have paid the last penny." (Matthew
5:25-26)
אמן אמן
12 ⭼⭽⭾⭿⮀⮁⮂
ၒၓ⯴⯵⯶
⍾
JO8N
On Sunday, March 9th, 2025 at 2:22 AM, JO8N
<[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Lisa, Nathan, Joe, Ben, Patty,
Patrick, Mike H., And Nick G.,
I am formally requesting a correction
of the public record pursuant to the
Brown Act (California Government
Code § 54960.1) due to misleading
and incomplete statements made by
city staff during the February 10, 2025
Seal Beach City Council meeting.
Additionally, I am raising concerns
regarding a potential violation of my
First Amendment religious rights in
connection with a previous statement
made by the city attorney when I
publicly announced my Church’s use
of "psilocybin mushrooms" as one of
its sacraments.
Summary of Brown Act Violation
During public comment, I addressed
the council regarding the
decriminalization of "psilocybin
mushrooms". After I had finished
speaking, Lisa asked Mike H. from
police staff a clarifying question about
the legal status of "psilocybin
mushrooms". He responded by stating
that "psilocybin mushrooms" are illegal
under California law but failed to
mention that multiple California cities,
including Oakland, San Francisco,
Santa Cruz, and Arcata, have
decriminalized "psilocybin
mushrooms" for years.
This omission misled the public and
the council by falsely implying that
local governments lack the ability to
deprioritize "psilocybin mushrooms"
enforcement, which is demonstrably
untrue. This is not the first time city
officials have engaged in misleading
statements regarding "psilocybin
mushroom" law. One year ago, after I
announced the formation of my
church, which uses "psilocybin
mushrooms", "N,N-
13 Dimethyltryptamine", and "N,NDMT/MAOI" as sacraments, the city attorney similarly responded that
"psilocybin mushrooms" are illegal
under California law—without
acknowledging religious protections
under federal law.
Furthermore, both the city attorney
and police staff failed to disclose
critical personal information that I
presented regarding my own case: I
was hospitalized after consuming a
psychedelic but not charged with any
crime (which I am eternally grateful
for) and also found in possession of
"psilocybin mushrooms" and "N,NDMT" within Seal Beach. The repeated omissions by both the city
attorney and police staff created a
false narrative that "psilocybin
mushroom" decriminalization has not
been successfully implemented in
some California cities and ignored key
evidence—including my own
experience—showing that local
authorities have already adopted
compassionate de facto
decriminalization practices for the well
being of residents.
Potential First Amendment
Violation Under RFRA & Gonzales
v. UDV (2006)
My concern goes beyond
transparency violations under the
Brown Act. The city attorney’s
response a year ago, when I
announced the formation of my
church, raises serious questions about
whether my First Amendment religious
rights were dismissed or undermined
in violation of the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act (RFRA) and the
Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita
Beneficente União do Vegetal (UDV)
Supreme Court case.
Legal Precedent: Religious Use of
Controlled Substances
In Gonzales v. UDV (2006), the U.S.
Supreme Court ruled that a religious
organization could legally use a
federally controlled substance
("ayahuasca") under RFRA
protections, as the government failed
to demonstrate a compelling interest
in prohibiting its religious use.
14 Under RFRA (42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1),
the government cannot substantially
burden religious exercise unless it can
prove a compelling government
interest and that the restriction is the
least restrictive means of achieving
that interest.
The DEA and federal courts have
recognized that some religious groups
may legally use controlled substances
like "peyote" and "ayahuasca" under
these protections.
By failing to acknowledge these
protections when I announced my
church, the city attorney omitted
critical legal context, implying that my
religious practice was categorically
illegal under state law—when in fact,
federal law provides a pathway for
religious exemptions. This potential
suppression of my religious
expression in a public forum could be
seen as a violation of my First
Amendment rights.
Requested Corrective Actions
To remedy this issue, I formally
request the following:
Public Correction of the Record – The
city must acknowledge the omission
and issue a formal correction clarifying
that:
Multiple California cities have already
decriminalized "psilocybin
mushrooms" despite state prohibition.
Religious protections exist under
RFRA, and the UDV case established
that religious use of controlled
substances may be legally protected
under federal law.
Agenda Item for Further Discussion –
Given the misleading statements
made by city officials, I request that
the council place "psilocybin
mushroom" decriminalization on a
future agenda to ensure the
discussion is based on accurate and
complete information.
Accountability for Repeated
Omissions – The city should
implement training or procedural
safeguards to prevent city officials
from selectively omitting key legal and
factual information, especially when
addressing the contents of public
comments.
15 Legal Review of First Amendment
Implications – The city should review
its public statements and policies
regarding religious use of controlled
substances to ensure compliance with
RFRA and Supreme Court precedent.
Legal Basis for Brown Act
Complaint
Under California Government Code §
54960.1, the city has 30 days to
correct this violation or face potential
legal action to nullify any decisions
made under misleading or incomplete
information. Failure to acknowledge
and correct this omission could be
interpreted as a continued effort to
obscure public access to truthful and
balanced information, violating the
core principles of the Brown Act.
I request a written response
acknowledging receipt of this letter
and outlining the corrective actions the
city intends to take. I appreciate your
attention to this serious matter and
look forward to your response.
אמן אמן
⭼⭽⭾⭿⮀⮁⮂
ၒၓ⯴⯵⯶
⍾
JO8N
Seal Beach City Council – May 27 Statement of findings regarding STR Regulations in CA.
1. Jurisdiction and Coastal Commission Concerns
Staff report re; Application 5-23-0482 for implementation of a STR program in the residentially zoned areas located within the City’s Coastal Zone. Filed 10/20/23 TH15c.The City of Seal Beach obtained a programmatic Coastal Development Permit (CDP) to allow STRs in residential zones, despite not having a certified Local Coastal Program (LCP). This effort culminated in Ordinance 1701, which amended Municipal Code 11.4.05.135 to permit and regulate STRs in residential zones within the Coastal Zone. Importantly, this ordinance designates the City of Seal Beach as the regulatory authority over STR standards, regulations, and permits, however any changes to the STR Program must be submitted to the Coastal Commission Executive Director to determine if a CDP amendment is required. It is important to note that there is no language in the TH15c that indicates the Coastal Commission could arbitrarily increase STR permits in any specific zone (including Zone 3). Any increase would require City action and Coastal Commission review and approval. Until then, the 1% cap remains firm and applies across the entire Coastal Zone.
2. Misconceptions About Background Checks
Airbnb states that while it conducts background checks, these are neither comprehensive nor guaranteed. Checks rely on third-party vendors and public databases, which are vulnerable to false or incomplete information. Moreover, these platforms cannot detect issues if guests use false identification.
Limitations of Airbnb's Background Checks
• Incomplete Coverage: Airbnb's background checks may not cover all criminal records, especially if the records are not publicly available or updated regularly. Autohost • International Variability: Outside the U.S. and India, Airbnb's background checks are limited and may not include criminal records or sex offender registry searches.
AirDNA+7Touch Stay+7Safely Rentals+7
• Identity Verification Issues: The effectiveness of the background check depends on the accuracy of the information provided by the guest. If a guest uses false or stolen identification, the background check may not detect issues.
Airbnb+4Zeevou+4Hospitable.com+4
• Timing of Checks: Background checks are typically conducted at the time of account creation and are not routinely updated. This means that any criminal activity occurring after the initial check may not be detected. Any changes to the STR Program must be submitted to the Coastal Commission Executive Director to determine if a CDP amendment is required.
• Limited to Booking Guest: Background checks are performed only on the individual who makes the booking, not on other guests who may accompany them. Autohost CA Fair Housing Laws
California Assembly Bill 1418 (AB 1418)—effective January 1, 2024—prohibits local governments from mandating or encouraging landlords to perform criminal background checks on tenants or prospective tenants. This legislation aims to prevent discriminatory practices associated with "crime-free" housing programs.
sjud.senate.ca.gov+6NHLP+6sandiegoevictions.com+6Civica Law Group+6California Apartment Association+6NHLP+6
However, AB 1418 does not specifically address short-term rentals (STRs), such as those listed on platforms like Airbnb or Vrbo. The bill's provisions focus on long-term residential tenancies and do not explicitly extend to STRs.
Additionally, as of May 2025, there is no California state legislation specifically prohibiting municipalities from imposing restrictions on short-term rentals (STRs) based on their proximity to schools. Local governments retain the authority to regulate STRs within their jurisdictions, including setting limitations related to location, zoning, and proximity to sensitive areas such as schools.
However, it's important to note that any local ordinances must comply with state and federal fair housing laws, which prohibit discrimination based on protected characteristics. While proximitybased restrictions are generally permissible, they must not serve as a pretext for discriminatory practices. This certainly is not the situation in Seal Beach. It is proximity to school and safety of the children in the community.
3. School District and Law Enforcement Feedback
We consulted the Superintendent of the Los Alamitos Unified School District, who referred us to the Director of Safety and Student Services. He expressed concern and coordinated with the LAUSD legal department, the Orange County Department of Education, and the Seal Beach Police Department. Their review noted that Seal Beach previously enacted a sex offender residency ordinance in 2006, establishing a 2,000-foot buffer around schools. Although not STRspecific, it indicates a precedent for limiting transient populations near schools. Despite subsequent court rulings—Taylor and People v. Lynch—which deemed broad residency restrictions unconstitutional for long term rentals, cities retain the right to regulate STR operations. Background checks for STR’s are generally permissible. Additionally, laws that completely prohibit short-term rental “zone out” laws by cities are not prohibited by state law.
Examples of municipalities with STR Proximity Restrictions:
• Huntington Beach
• Irvine
• Santa Ana
• Garden Grove
• Costa Mesa
• Fountain Valley
• Laguna Hills
• Arroyo Grande
• Escondido
• Richmond
Many other Cities indirectly “zone out” STR’s near schools by broadly prohibiting them in residential neighborhoods zoned as single-family units. • Manhattan Beach
• Santa Barbra
• El Dorado County
• Santa Monica
• Sources: The restrictions above are drawn from each city’s municipal code or adopted ordinance. For example, Arroyo Grande’s Development Code explicitly includes the 500′ school buffer in its short-term rental performance standardsarroyogrande.org, and Escondido’s City Council approved a pilot STR ordinance with a similar 500′ school zone banthecoastnews.com. Richmond’s development code, as amended in Ordinance 27-20 N.S., imposes a 1,000′ separation from schools for permitted home-share rentalslibrary.municode.com.
• Additional Context
• Many other California cities indirectly “zone out” STRs near schools by broadly prohibiting vacation rentals in residential neighborhoods. Since K–12 schools and colleges are typically located in residential or institutional zones, a general ban in those zones keeps STRs away from school sites even without an explicit distance rule. For instance, the City of Irvine and the City of Manhattan Beach completely ban short-term rentals in all residential zonescityofirvine.orgmanhattanbeach.gov, which by default includes areas around local schools. Similarly, Santa Monica allows only home-sharing (and no whole-home STRs) in residential areas, and Santa Barbara treats short-term rentals as hotels (permitting them only in commercial/hotel zones). While these general zoning bans are not school-specific, their effect is that no STRs can operate adjacent to schools in those cities.
• Each city’s approach varies in scope and motivation. Where some use targeted buffer zones around schools to address safety and nuisance concerns (as in Arroyo Grande or Escondido), others opt for broader zoning exclusions to protect housing or neighborhood character, thereby incidentally keeping STRs away from schools. • In California, the regulation of short-term rentals (STRs) is primarily determined by local jurisdictions, which have the authority to establish zoning laws and restrictions tailored to their communities. This means that cities and counties can impose specific regulations on where STRs are permitted, including proximity to sensitive areas such as schools.
• There isn't a statewide California law that specifically prohibits zoning out STRs near schools, local governments have the discretion to implement such restrictions based on community needs and concerns. Therefore, whether STRs are allowed near schools depends on the specific regulations enacted by the local jurisdiction in question.
Safety Concerns:
Drug Trafficking and production
Overview: Criminal networks have exploited short-term rentals as temporary bases for drug use and trafficking. STRs offer anonymity and flexibility for dealing or manufacturing drugs outside the suspects’ own residence. Police and prosecutors have noted that dealers use STRs as stash houses or pop-up drug labs, since hosts and neighbors often don’t immediately recognize them as out-of-place in a neighborhoodwokv.com. In some cities, a proliferation of STRs has even been linked with increases in drug-related disorder and crime nearbyshorttermrentalz.com.
Notable Incidents: Law enforcement and media reports over the past decade have uncovered several alarming cases of drug operations in STRs:
• Large-Scale Stashes: In May 2024, cleaners at an Airbnb in Alhambra, California opened boxes left behind by guests and discovered 235 pounds of methamphetamine stored insidelatimes.com. Police arrived and coincidentally intercepted a U-Haul van returning to pick up the drugs; two suspects were arrested at the scenelatimes.com. Airbnb stated the “reported criminal activity has no place” on its platform and banned the booking guest, assisting police with the investigationlatimes.com. • Drug Lab in a Rental: In late 2024, an Omaha, Nebraska family found their Airbnb guests had turned their home into a meth lab, causing toxic contamination and over $26,000 in damagepeople.com. The homeowners, who had monitored their house via security cameras, saw the renters carrying large bags of white powder and alerted authorities. Omaha police raided the property and busted a meth-manufacturing operation. Airbnb removed the guest and covered the host’s damage costs under its insurance, stating, “The reported criminal activity has no place on Airbnb”people.com. • STRs as Distribution Hubs: In a 2022 case in Tulsa, Oklahoma, a federal defendant rented an Airbnb to sell fentanyl pills. An appeals court opinion describes how the individual’s co-conspirator booked a short-term rental where he stored drugs, and police surveillance caught him dealing from the propertylaw.justia.com. A search of the Airbnb turned up fentanyl, marijuana, scales, firearms, and cash, leading to a conviction and a 20+ year prison sentencelaw.justia.com. Similarly, federal prosecutors in Washington state report that multi-state traffickers used Airbnbs as temporary hideouts; in one 2023 bust, agents raided an Airbnb after a drug deal and seized nearly 45 kg of methamphetamine and 5 kg of fentanyl from the rentaljustice.gov.
Sexual Assaults at Short-Term Rentals
Overview: Reports of sexual assaults involving STRs have garnered national attention and put pressure on platforms to improve safety. Most Airbnb stays are incident-free, but thousands of sexual assault allegations are made each year by guests and hosts, according to a 2021 investigationbusinessinsider.com. These cases range from rape and groping to voyeurism. For years, Airbnb kept many incidents out of the public eye through settlements and mandatory arbitration, making it hard to quantify the true scalebusinessinsider.combusinessinsider.com. In 2021, Bloomberg revealed that Airbnb had a secretive safety team that quietly handled serious incidents, including sexual violence, often paying settlements in exchange for silencebusinessinsider.combusinessinsider.com. The company has since ended its “nodisclosure” settlement practice (post-2017) and dropped mandatory arbitration for sexual assault claims amid public pressurebusinessinsider.com.
Notable Cases: Several high-profile sexual assaults in STRs over the past decade illustrate the problem and its handling:
• New Year’s Eve 2015 – New York City: A 29-year-old Australian woman renting an Airbnb near Times Square was raped at knifepoint by a stranger who duplicated keys to the apartment. Airbnb’s emergency response team rapidly relocated her, paid for her mother to fly to New York, and covered health and counseling coststheguardian.comtheguardian.com. The company quietly negotiated a $7 million settlement with the survivor – one of the largest payouts in its history – on the condition she not blame or sue Airbnbtheguardian.comtheguardian.com. This 2016 incident, kept secret until reported in 2021, highlighted Airbnb’s practice of swiftly “cleaning up” after horrific incidents to avoid bad presstheguardian.comtheguardian.com. • First Lawsuit Against Airbnb (2016 attack): In July 2017, an Airbnb guest named Leslie Lapayowker filed a first-of-its-kind lawsuit against the company after she was sexually assaulted by a “superhost” in Los Angelestheguardian.com. The host, who rented a room to her, allegedly groped and attacked her. The suit argued Airbnb was negligent in screening, since the host had a prior accusation of domestic violence; he passed Airbnb’s background check only because he had no convictiontheguardian.com. Airbnb responded that the “abhorrent behavior…has no place in our community” and removed the hosttheguardian.comtheguardian.com. This case, and others like it, raised questions about platform liability when hosts or guests commit crimes. (Note: Criminal charges were not filed in this particular case, highlighting that many STR assault allegations never result in prosecution even if the victim pursues civil action.)
Prevalence and Hidden Cases: Internal data suggest assaults are a very small percentage of stays, but in absolute terms they are numerous. Ex-Airbnb safety agents told Bloomberg that the company fielded “thousands” of sexual assault reports annually in the late 2010sbusinessinsider.com. Many cases never become public due to nondisclosure agreements or victims choosing privacy. For example, Business Insider noted that with ~193 million Airbnb nights booked in 2020, even 0.1% safety incidents would equate to roughly 193,000 cases (though the vast majority of those are minor issues)businessinsider.com. Airbnb says serious incidents are extremely rare, but it now acknowledges the issue and in 2021 ended forced arbitration, allowing survivors to sue or speak bloomberg.combusinessinsider.com.
Child Molestation and Exploitation Cases
Overview: A subset of STR sexual crimes involve children – either as victims of molestation or targets of other exploitation (such as being filmed or trafficked). These cases are fortunately rare but often highly publicized due to their disturbing nature. They typically involve either a guest harming a host’s child, or an STR being used to facilitate crimes against minors. Platforms say they run all U.S. users against the sex offender registry and ban those with serious criminal historiesvalleynewslive.com. Even so, incidents have occurred, showing the limits of preventative screening.
Notable Case – Minnetonka, MN (2017): In September 2017, a family in Minnetonka rented a room in their home via Airbnb to a 28-year-old guest. One night, the child’s father walked into the master bedroom to a horrifying scene: the male guest was naked in bed next to the hosts’ 7-year-old daughtervalleynewslive.comvalleynewslive.com. The father shouted and the man fled; police later found the suspect hiding nearby outdoors and arrested him. According to the criminal complaint, the guest had snuck into the parents’ bedroom where the child was sleeping, pulled up the girl’s nightgown and underwear, and whispered to her to keep quietvalleynewslive.comvalleynewslive.com. Thankfully, the girl resisted and the intrusion was interrupted. The perpetrator, Derrick Kinchen of Michigan, was charged with criminal sexual conduct and ultimately convicted.
Other Instances: Few other child molestation incidents involving STRs have been publicized, but there have been related examples of child endangerment. In some cases, hidden cameras set up in Airbnbs have captured minors (and adults) without their knowledge, constituting criminal voyeurism. For instance, one Airbnb “superhost” in Texas, A. Jay Allee, was caught in 2020 with secret cameras filming guests (including a child in at least one stay); police recovered 2,100 illicit images and he pleaded guilty to multiple counts of invasive recordinghelpingsurvivors.org. Such incidents blur the line between privacy invasion and child sexual exploitation when minors are recorded. Platforms have a zero-tolerance stance on this:
Airbnb explicitly bans any surveillance devices in private areas and works with police to prosecute offenders.
Trends and Prevention: The known cases of child sexual abuse in STRs are isolated but alarming. They underscore the importance of vetting who is allowed into a home. Advocacy groups for children’s safety have also stepped in: for example, the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children has advised STR companies on how to spot and prevent child exploitation through their platforms. Law enforcement emphasizes that hotels and rentals are “hot spots” for traffickers and abusers targeting minors because the transient nature provides coverwokv.com. As a trend, there is greater awareness now than in 2015: So much so that Airbnb’s website even has a dedicated section on “How to protect children from sexual exploitation” for hostsairbnb.com.
Conclusion
Over the last decade, the spectrum of criminal incidents at short-term rentals has become more visible, from drug busts and trafficking rings to heinous assaults and clandestine porn shoots. Initially, platforms like Airbnb were reactive – handling cases quietly to protect their reputationbusinessinsider.combusinessinsider.com. But as STRs became mainstream and incidents drew media and legal scrutiny, there’s been a clear shift toward transparency and preventive action. Trends over time indicate a rise in reported incidents through the late 2010s, likely peaking as STR usage peaked (pre-COVID) and again as travel rebounded by 2021–2022.
Some crime categories (party-related violence, for example) prompted platform-wide policy changes – notably Airbnb’s 2019 global ban on “party houses” after a deadly shooting at a California rental.
Closing Statement
As there isn't a statewide California law that specifically prohibits zoning out STRs near schools, local governments have the discretion to implement such restrictions based on community needs and concerns. Given the many examples above of potential incidents and associate risk to the children and community members who live in residentially single-family zoned neighborhoods, and the fact that there are no state laws preventing regulations where STR’s can be permitted, this should be a top priority for local City Government who are in place to protect our City and has the jurisdictional ability to do so.
While I understand revenue from STR rentals is beneficial for many municipalities, however with the exposure we have garnered in this situation (newspaper, Facebook, and City Council) where our concerns have been publicly documented, a single incident, no matter the scope, could be financially catastrophic for the city. At this time there is only one STR permit that falls within the proximity to school restriction, please start there by not reissuing the permit for this address that expires on June 30, 2025 and make this a city ordinance on all potential future STR permits that fall within single family zoned residences with close proximity to schools.
Cher Englestad
513 Riviera Dr. Seal Beach, CA.
Analysis of Coastal Commission Report
on Seal Beach STR Program
Overview
- Applicant: City of Seal Beach
- Project: Permit to allow STRs in residential areas of the Coastal Zone (not the entire city). - Document Type: Coastal Commission Staff Report recommending approval with conditions.
- Legal Mechanism: Coastal Development Permit (CDP) #5-23-0482 - Status: No Local Coastal Program (LCP) in place; Commission reviews under Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act.
Legal & Jurisdictional Analysis
1. Coastal Commission Jurisdiction
- Seal Beach lacks a certified LCP, so the California Coastal Commission retains full authority to approve or deny STR programs in the Coastal Zone.
- Seal Beach is applying for a CDP, as required by the Coastal Act, to legalize and regulate STRs.
Relevant Law: Coastal Act §30210, §30213, §30222 (protecting public access and visitorserving uses).
2. Legal Restrictions in the Approved Program
• Permitted With Conditions:
• - STRs allowed only in the Coastal Zone.
• - Capped at 1% of residential units (currently 47 permits). • - Permits issued by lottery, one per owner (some exceptions for large multi-unit properties).
• - Permits must be renewed annually; they do not transfer with sale of property. • Restrictions:
• - No STRs in deed-restricted affordable housing, ADUs built after 2020, or HOArestricted units. • - Large-scale events (weddings, parties, fundraisers) are prohibited. • - Noise, disorderly conduct, and waste violations may result in enforcement. • HOA Rules:
• - Special Condition #1: Owners must prove STRs are not prohibited by valid CC&Rs. • - Greenfield v. Mandalay Shores confirms HOA bans after the Coastal Act require a CDP.
Monitoring & Enforcement Conditions
Special Condition #2
Any future changes to the STR rules must be submitted to the Coastal Commission Executive Director to determine if a CDP amendment is needed.
Special Condition #3
The City must conduct a 6-year study tracking:
- Housing stock impacts.
- Noise and nuisance complaints.
- Permit usage and turnover.
- Visitor access and affordability.
If negative impacts are found, the City must submit changes for Commission review.
CEQA Compliance
- The project is exempt under CEQA for minor development (Section 15061(b)(3), 15301(b)).
- No significant environmental effects anticipated, per the Coastal Act.
Conclusion
Who Has Jurisdiction:
The California Coastal Commission has jurisdiction over STR policy in the Seal Beach Coastal Zone due to the City’s lack of a certified LCP. The City can propose policies, but no changes are valid without Commission approval.
Legal Restrictions:
STRs are tightly regulated—limited to 1% of units, banned in certain types of housing, and subject to annual permit renewal. HOA bans are only valid if they pre-date the Coastal Act or are CDP-approved.
Future Changes:
Any change (e.g., increasing permits, changing limits) requires Commission review and possibly a CDP amendment.
FACT-CHECK SUMMARY
1. Jurisdiction and Coastal Commission Oversight
Claim: Seal Beach obtained a programmatic Coastal Development Permit (CDP) despite lacking a certified LCP; any changes must go through the Coastal Commission.
True.
• Seal Beach does not have a certified Local Coastal Program (LCP). • The Coastal Commission approved CDP #5-23-0482 for the City's STR program. • Any changes to the program must be submitted to the Commission's Executive Director to determine if a permit amendment is required.
2. No Language in the Coastal Commission Report About Increasing STR Permits in Zone 3
Claim: “There is no language in TH15c that indicates the Coastal Commission could arbitrarily increase STR permits in any specific zone (including Zone 3).” Accurate.
• The 1% cap on STRs in the Coastal Zone is fixed unless revised through a new CDP or amendment.
• There is no mention of increasing permits in any sub-zone, including Zone 3, in the Commission’s findings.
3. Airbnb Background Checks Are Limited
Claim: Airbnb's background checks are not comprehensive, have timing and coverage limitations, and are only run on the booking guest.
True.
• Airbnb confirms these limitations in its own safety policies. • Background checks rely on third-party vendors, public data, and self-reported identity.
• Checks are not routinely updated and do not cover all accompanying guests.
4. AB 1418 and Fair Housing
Claim: AB 1418 prohibits landlords from using crime-free housing policies but does not apply to STRs.
Accurate.
• AB 1418, effective Jan 1, 2024, prohibits “crime-free” housing ordinances targeting long-term rentals.
• It does not regulate STRs, which are typically considered commercial or transient lodging, not long-term housing.
5. Proximity Restrictions to Schools for STRs
Claim: California does not prohibit local governments from imposing proximity restrictions on STRs near schools.
True.
• There is no California state law that bars cities from using zoning to restrict STRs near schools.
• Local governments may regulate STRs as long as such policies do not violate fair housing laws or the Coastal Act, particularly in the Coastal Zone.
6. Examples of Municipal STR Restrictions Near Schools
Claim: Cities like Arroyo Grande, Escondido, and Santa Monica use direct or indirect zoning tools to restrict STRs near schools.
Supported.
• Arroyo Grande and Escondido have explicit distance-based STR buffer zones (e.g., 500–1,000 ft).
• Cities like Irvine and Santa Monica prohibit STRs in residential zones altogether, which by default includes areas near schools.
7. Historical Precedent in Seal Beach: Sex Offender Ordinance and School Buffers
Claim: Seal Beach enacted a 2006 sex offender buffer zone ordinance near schools.
True.
• Seal Beach Municipal Code includes such provisions (Chapter 9.60). • While not directly about STRs, it shows a precedent of prioritizing child safety through land use limitations.
8. STRs and Crime Examples: Drug Activity, Sexual Assaults, Child Exploitation Claim: STRs have been linked to serious crimes including drug trafficking and sexual assaults.
True but requires nuance.
• Incidents have occurred, and Airbnb has acknowledged safety concerns. • Most stays are incident-free, but platform safety protocols have limits, as publicized in major cases (e.g., Alhambra drug bust, New York assault). • These cases underscore risks, especially in unregulated or minimally supervised STR environments.
NOTES FOR CLARITY:
• While local control exists, cities within the Coastal Zone (like Seal Beach) are constrained by the Coastal Act, which prioritizes public access and visitor-serving uses.
• Any ban or “zone out” ordinance within the Coastal Zone must be submitted to the Coastal Commission, even if justified by safety concerns.
OVERALL CONCLUSION
The Council statement is factually accurate and aligned with legal and regulatory sources, including the Coastal Commission staff report, state housing law (AB 1418), and known STR safety risks.
1 Gloria Harper
From: MYRA L ROMERO <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2025 12:28 PM
To: Patrick Gallegos; Lisa Landau; Gloria Harper
Cc: Ben Wong; Nathan Steele; Joe Kalmick; Patty Senecal Subject: Airbnb permit concerns for 521 Riviera Dr.
Madam Mayor and County members. Thank you again for giving me, Myra Romero, a long time resident of 49 years at 517 Riviera Dr. and a neighbor of the address of interest. I am again expressing my deepest concerns to you, City Council of approving the Airbnb to Charolette Hefti, 153 Riviera Dr., which is approximately 55 feet from the DROP-OFF@ PICK-UP for the elementary children @ McGaugh school.
I have presented to you, the council over 209 signatures of Seal Beach residents with the majority being parents of school and baseball children. While speaking with them they were VERY SURPRISED AND DISAPPOINTED that you would give this address a permit due to who will be renting this place for the SAFETY of the KIDS. PLEASE, let’s not wait until there is something serious that happens before we stop this permit. I will give you an example, in the track which is located before you go into College Park West had an Airbnb which was renting out to people who were doing Porn movies inside plus had a drug issue. It took the whole neighborhood and awhile to shut them down. This was also located down the street from a Park.
Misconceptions About Background Checks
Airbnb states that while it conducts background checks, these are neither comprehensive nor guaranteed. Checks rely on third-party vendors and public databases, which are vulnerable to false or incomplete information. Moreover, these platforms cannot detect issues if guests use false identification.
My friend , Scot Scarboug who owns a business here in Seal Beach, plus signed the petition said that he grew up in New Port Beach and the Airbnb completely ruined the neighborhood as it was turned into a party town. I and many others are surprised that this lottery was passed without the residents voting on it.
I am attaching pictures with this letter to show you her backyard which is located right next to our two bedrooms. Yes, it is a party house as she advertises on her web site. How would you like to live nextdoor to this??? We’ve already experienced her guest over the limit of 8. They had over 15 in pool and jucuzzi drinking and after 10;00 pm. There was someone in her motorhome at 1:00am which is illegal without a permit.
The owner, Charolette owns a dolphin motorhome which resides half in front of her home and half in front of ours. Not only does she not move it like the law requires every 72 hours, it is blocking the parking sign which is supposed to restrict parking certain times of the day for the residents. It only gets moved on sweeping days.
PARKING is another reason for not renewing her permit. We the residents have received permits which we pay for, for allowing us to park in front of our homes due to the baseball parking. We already have limited parking and now we are going to have more due to her renters. Obviously, she doesn’t follow rules. Out of the 9 homes that are on Riviera there is only one,(who is renting )that are totally against 2 having an Air B&B on our block and I want to end this with the main reason BEING, THE SAFETY OF THE CHILDREN.
THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO HEAR WHAT WE, THE CITIZENS OF SEAL BEACH HAVE TO SAY.
MYRA ROMERO, 562 618-7313
3 4
5 6
1 Gloria Harper
Subject: FW: STR Permit for 521 Riviera Drive
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Patty TerHaar <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, May 23, 2025 at 3:53 PM
Subject: STR Permit for 521 Riviera Drive
To: Lisa Landau <[email protected]>
To: Mayor Lisa Landau, City Council and City Manager
From: Patty TerHaar
Re: STR permit for 521 Riviera Drive
Thank you for putting this matter of concern on the agenda for May 27th. My husband and I have been homeowners at 531 Riviera Drive for about 50 years. Recently it has come to our attention that a STR permit from the City of Seal Beach was given to our neighbor at 521 Riviera Drive. This residence is directly across the street from the field and playground at McGaugh School, The proximity to children coming and going before school, playing during school hours and for sports events after school and on the weekends could be putting our children at risk. There are not thorough background checks done on those who stay in a STR and their rental can be for several weeks at a time.
The other added risk of having a STR on this block is the increase in traffic and parking. The Seal Beach Police Department considers traffic enough of a risk that they have two crossing guards at each end of Riviera Drive during school hours. Out of the four streets that border McGaugh, there is parking only allowed on our block (Marlin, from Riviera to Seal Beach Blvd does have parking on the residence side, but there are no access gates open to the school). While there might be a suggested number of cars allowed to park at the STR for each night rental, compliance would be difficult to enforce.
We urge you to not reissue the STR permit for 521 Riviera Drive because of our safety concerns for our single family zoned neighborhood.
1 Gloria Harper
From: Tom Mulligan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2025 2:07 PM
To: Gloria Harper
Subject: Request to deny permit renewal to Airbnb at 521 Riviera DR. Seal Beach Dear Mayor Landeau and the City Council of Seal Beach:
This writing is in regards to an Airbnb at 521Riviera Dr. Seal Beach. This home is directly across the street from an elementary school.
It is not reasonable or safe to permit such a dwelling in the close proximity to an elementary school where young children are present and in several cases without parental supervision.
The residents of Riviera Dr. are vigilant when children are present but even with that misfortunate incidents can occur.
People occupying this type of short term rental are not vetted properly and certainly not the additional guests who will be at the location.
Riviera Dr. is a quiet street with eight homes occupied by seniors who are long time residents who take pride in ownership and are not accustomed to short term rental where late night partying could take place.
We want you to know our feelings on this issue and ask you to strongly consider NOT renewing the Airbnb permit at 521 Riviera drive.
Sincerely
Thomas and Anna Mulligan
505 Riviera Dr
Seal Beach, Ca 90740
562 818 9146
Guidance for Legally Justifying STR Restrictions Near Schools State Preemption and Legal Authority for STR Restrictions Near Schools in California
1. State Preemption - Not Likely a Barrier
In California, there is no statewide law that preempts local governments from regulating short-term rentals (STRs). This means cities retain broad zoning authority to regulate or prohibit STRs in certain areas, including zones adjacent to schools. Unlike some states with strong preemption statutes (such as Florida or Arizona), California grants municipalities extensive home rule powers through the state constitution (Article XI, Section 7).
Cities can therefore enact ordinances that ban or limit STRs within a defined radius of K-12 schools, as long as they do not conflict with state law or constitutional protections.
2. Constitutional Issues - Takings and Due Process
Cities must avoid violating the rights of property owners under the U.S. and California Constitutions. If a city's STR restriction is too broad or retroactive, it could be challenged as a regulatory taking or a due process violation.
Legal principles:
- A regulation that removes all economically beneficial use of a property may constitute a "taking" requiring compensation (Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 1992). - A zoning law that unfairly targets specific property owners or lacks rational basis may violate due process (Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 1926).
To reduce risk:
- Provide advance notice of new rules.
- Grandfather in existing permitted STRs for a grace period. - Offer a process for appeals or variances.
3. Fair Housing and Anti-Discrimination Concerns
If an STR restriction disproportionately affects protected classes (e.g., based on race, disability, or family status), it could be challenged under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) or the federal Fair Housing Act.
To comply:
- Apply restrictions geographically and neutrally (e.g., "within 500 feet of schools"). - Avoid rules that appear to target renters or certain household types. - Document the rationale in terms of public safety, not the identity of STR guests.
4. Practical Considerations and Enforcement
Cities must ensure that their STR ordinances are practical and enforceable.
Best practices include:
- Requiring STR registration and permits.
Guidance for Legally Justifying STR Restrictions Near Schools - Conducting inspections for compliance.
- Imposing penalties for violations and a clear appeals process.
5. Summary
A California city can legally restrict or prohibit STRs near schools, using its zoning and police powers. Such ordinances must be carefully drafted to avoid takings, due process, or discrimination issues. With proper evidence, public process, and narrow tailoring, these restrictions are likely to withstand legal challenges.
Guidance for Legally Justifying STR Restrictions Near Schools Legal Foundations for STR Restrictions Near Schools in California
1. Zoning and Police Powers
Under Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution, cities and counties may make and enforce within their limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws. This includes the ability to regulate land use through zoning.
Key Case:
- Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1 (1974): Upheld a zoning ordinance limiting the number of unrelated individuals living together, finding that preserving the character of residential neighborhoods is a valid use of the police power.
This authority allows cities to prohibit or restrict STRs in specific zones or proximity to sensitive land uses, such as schools.
2. STR-Specific Case Law in California
Santa Monica v. Airbnb, Inc. (9th Cir. 2019)
- The court upheld a local ordinance that required STR hosts to be licensed and present during stays. It rejected claims that the ordinance violated federal laws or infringed on property rights, affirming cities' power to regulate short-term rentals.
CHBO, Inc. v. City of San Diego (2023)
- This ongoing litigation concerns San Diego's STR licensing system. Preliminary court decisions have supported the city's authority to limit STRs, particularly unhosted ones, to preserve housing and neighborhood integrity.
These cases reinforce that cities can regulate STRs so long as they do not completely strip away all property value or violate constitutional protections.
3. Takings and Due Process
Yee v. City of Escondido (1992)
- The Supreme Court held that a regulation limiting rent increases was not a taking because the property owner voluntarily rented out the property and retained core ownership rights.
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992)
- The Court found a taking occurred where a regulation deprived the owner of all economically beneficial use. Cities must ensure that STR restrictions allow other viable uses, such as long-term rental or owner occupancy.
Conclusion:
Guidance for Legally Justifying STR Restrictions Near Schools California cities have strong legal footing to restrict STRs through zoning and licensing ordinances, especially when protecting sensitive uses like schools. Key court decisions affirm that as long as ordinances preserve some reasonable economic use and follow procedural fairness, they are likely to be upheld.
STR Restriction Justification: Step 1
Step 1: Establishing the Legitimate Government Interest To defend an ordinance that restricts short-term rentals (STRs) near schools, a city must begin by articulating a clear and legitimate public purpose. Under the "rational basis" standard, the regulation must be reasonably related to a legitimate government interest. Courts generally defer to local governments when their regulations serve health, safety, or welfare purposes.
A city can justify STR restrictions near schools by asserting the following interests:
1. Student Safety
STRs involve frequent turnover of visitors who may not be vetted or familiar with local laws. Increased transient activity near schools may raise concerns about child safety, particularly during school hours or in walking zones.
2. Traffic and Parking Impacts
STRs often increase short-term vehicle traffic and competition for parking, which can endanger children walking or biking to school and interfere with school drop-off and pick-up routines.
3. Noise and Neighborhood Disruption
STRs may contribute to noise complaints, late-night activity, or other disruptions inconsistent with stable school-adjacent residential neighborhoods, where quiet environments are essential.
4. Long-Term Community Stability
Allowing STRs near schools may deter long-term residents or families from remaining in the area, undermining the residential character and social cohesion that support schools and local institutions.
5. Alignment with General Plan Policies
Many General Plans include goals for preserving family-oriented neighborhoods, reducing land use conflicts, and supporting safe school environments. Restricting STRs near schools can help fulfill these planning objectives.
Supporting Evidence to Include:
- Letters or testimony from school officials or parent-teacher associations - Traffic studies showing congestion near schools
- Records of police or code enforcement calls related to STRs near schools - Surveys or community input from residents affected by STRs - Analysis of STR density in relation to schools
Conclusion:
Articulating and documenting these interests in staff reports, findings, and council deliberations forms the legal foundation for the ordinance. This step is essential to defend against claims that the regulation is arbitrary, overbroad, or lacks justification.
Agenda Item B
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
DATE: May 27, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
THRU: Patrick Gallegos, Interim City Manager
FROM: Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Approval of the City Council Minutes
________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
That the City Council approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of the City Council Operating Budget Workshop on May 6, 2025, the Special Meeting of the City Council Capital Improvement Program Budget & 5 Year Financial Forecast Workshop on May 8, 2025, and the Closed Session and Regular City Council meetings held on May 12, 2025.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:
This section does not apply.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
There is no environmental impact related to this item.
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
No legal analysis is required for this item.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no financial impact for this item.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
This item is not applicable to the Strategic Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of the City Council Operating Budget workshop on May 6, 2025, the Special Meeting of the
City Council Capital Improvement Program Budget & 5 Year Financial Forecast Workshop on May 8, 2025, and the Closed Session and Regular City Council meetings held on May 12, 2025.
SUBMITTED BY: NOTED AND APPROVED:
Gloria D. Harper Patrick Gallegos
Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk Patrick Gallegos, Interim City Manager Prepared by: Brandon DeCriscio, Deputy City Clerk
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Minutes – Special Meeting of the City Council Operating Budget Workshop, May 6, 2025
B. Minutes - Special Meeting of the City Council Capital Improvement Program Budget & 5 Year Financial Forecast Workshop, May 8, 2025 C. Minutes - Closed Session, May 12, 2025
D. Minutes – Regular Session, May 12, 2025
Seal Beach, California
May 6, 2025
The City Council met in a Special City Council Meeting Operating Budget Workshop at 5:31 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
Council Member Wong led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Landau
Council Members: Kalmick, Wong, Senecal, Steele
Absent: None
City Staff: Patrick Gallegos, Interim City Manager
Michael Henderson, Police Chief
Joe Bailey, Marine Safety Chief
Alexa Smittle, Director of Community Development
Barbara Arenado, Director of Finance/City Treasurer
Iris Lee, Director of Public Works
Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk
Craig Covey, Division 1 Chief, Orange County Fire Authority Alayna Hoang, Finance Manager
Kelsey Yonemura, Senior Accounting Technician
Brandon DeCriscio, Deputy City Clerk
Jennifer Robles, Management Analyst
Lauren Barich, Management Analyst
Sean Sabo, Management Analyst
Tim Kelsey, Recreation Manager
David Spitz, Associate Engineer
Nick Bolin, Marine Safety Lieutenant
Kathryne Cho, Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer Deb Machen, Executive Assistant
Shaun Temple, Planning Manager
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mayor Landau opened oral communications. Speakers: James Jenson. Mayor Landau closed oral communications.
Deputy City Clerk DeCriscio announced that one (1) supplemental communication was received after the posting of the agenda; it was distributed to the City Council and made available to the public.
CITY MANAGER REPORT
Interim City Manager Gallegos highlighted significant takeaways related to the Proposed Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget. He thanked the City Council for dedicating a significant amount of time in briefings with staff as a part of the budget development process. Interim City Manager Gallegos thanked the Executive Management Team and their support staff for several months of dedication and their ownership of the budget development process.
He especially acknowledged, thanked, and commended Finance Director Arenado, Finance Manager Hoang and Senior Accounting Technician Yonemura for their unwavering dedication, support, and the countless hours dedicated to this important process and the community.
BUDGET WORKSHOP
Finance Director Arenado provided a high-level overview of the upcoming Agenda and Proposed Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Operating Budget, including City Council Strategic Priorities, Department Goals and Performance Measures, Financial Plans, Challenges and Opportunities.
Members of the Executive Management Team presented their respective department budgets and addressed Council Member’s questions and concerns.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Landau adjourned the City Council at 7:59 p.m., to Thursday, May 8, 2024, at 5:30 p.m. for the continuation of the Budget Workshop – Capital Improvement Program.
Budget.
Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk
City of Seal Beach
Approved:
Lisa Landau, Mayor
Attested:
Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk
Seal Beach, California
May 8, 2025
The City Council met in a Special City Council Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and 5-Year Financial Forecast Budget Workshop at 5:34 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
Council Member Kalmick led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Landau
Council Members: Kalmick, Wong, Senecal, Steele
Absent: None
City Staff: Patrick Gallegos, Interim City Manager
Michael Henderson, Police Chief
Joe Bailey, Marine Safety Chief
Alexa Smittle, Director of Community Development
Barbara Arenado, Director of Finance/City Treasurer
Iris Lee, Director of Public Works
Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk
Craig Covey, Orange County Fire Authority Division 1 Chief Alayna Hoang, Finance Manager
Kelsey Yonemura, Senior Accounting Technician
Brandon DeCriscio, Deputy City Clerk
Shaun Temple, Planning Manager
Jennifer Robles, Management Analyst
Lauren Barich, Management Analyst
Sean Sabo, Management Analyst
Sean Low, Deputy Director of Public Works/Maintenance and Utilities Kathryne Cho, Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer Tim Kelsey, Recreation Manager
David Spitz, Associate Engineer
Deb Machen, Executive Assistant
Samuel Funes, Assistant Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mayor Landau opened oral communications. Speakers: James Jenson, Matthew Terry, Peter Anninos, and Catherine Showalter. Mayor Landau closed oral communications.
BUDGET WORKSHOP
A. Continuation of Proposed Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Operating Budget Interim City Manager Gallegos welcomed everyone to the Budget Workshop, gave an overview of the agenda and introduced Finance Director Arenado. Finance Director Arenado provided a brief summary of the May 6, 2025, Budget Workshop and addressed several questions raised during the previous workshop.
B. Proposed Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Capital Improvement Program Budget Public Works Director Lee provided an overview of the Public Works Department’s Core Services, Accomplishments, FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget Summary, Capital Improvement Program funding sources, City infrastructure, recent and ongoing construction, General Fund and related grants, and current and future Capital Improvement Programs.
Council Members asked questions, offered comments, discussed, and received clarification about the ongoing projects, restroom maintenance, the Capital Improvement Program Budget and 5-Year CIP Programs.
C. 5-Year Financial Forecast
Finance Director Arenado provided a comprehensive overview of the preliminary 5-Year Financial Forecast and addressed Council Members’ comments and concerns.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Landau adjourned the meeting at 7:37 p.m. to Monday, May 12, 2025, at 5:30 p.m. to meet in closed session if deemed necessary.
Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk
City of Seal Beach
Approved:
Lisa Landau, Mayor
Attested:
Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk
Seal Beach, California
May 12, 2025
The City Council met in Closed Session at 5:34p.m. in the City Hall Conference Room.
ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Landau
Council Members: Kalmick, Wong, Senecal, Steele
Absent: None
City Staff: Nicholas Ghirelli, City Attorney
Patrick Gallegos, Interim City Manager
Barbara Arenado, Director of Finance / City Treasurer
Iris Lee, Director of Public Works
Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mayor Landau opened oral communications. Speakers: None. Mayor Landau closed oral communications.
CLOSED SESSION
A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – PENDING LITIGATION
Existing Litigation Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1) Beach House at the River, LLC v. City of Seal Beach
Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2023-01314997-CU-MC-CJC B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2) – One (1) case involving a threat of litigation regarding a proposed development at 4665 Lampson Avenue, Los Alamitos, CA. A record of the threat of litigation is available for inspection in the City Clerk’s office C. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR Government Code §54957.6 City Negotiator(s): Interim City Manager Patrick Gallegos Employee Organization(s):
Mid-Management and Confidential Employees Association
D. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT/EMPLOYMENT
Government Code §54957(b)
Title: City Manager
E. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR
Agency Designated Representative: Nicholas Ghirelli, City Attorney Unrepresented Employee: Interim City Manager
Mayor Landau recused herself for Item A.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Landau adjourned the Closed Session meeting at 7:02 p.m.
Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk
City of Seal Beach
Approved:
Lisa Landau, Mayor
Attested:
Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk
Seal Beach, California
May 12, 2025
The City Council met in Regular Session at 7:07 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
Council Member Wong led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Landau
Council Members: Kalmick, Wong, Senecal, Steele
Absent: None
City Staff: Nicholas Ghirelli, City Attorney
Patrick Gallegos, Interim City Manager
Michael Henderson, Police Chief
Barbara Arenado, Director of Finance/City Treasurer
Iris Lee, Director of Public Works
Craig Covey, Orange County Fire Authority Battalion 1 Chief Joe Bailey, Marine Safety Chief
Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk
Mike Ezroj, Police Captain
Nick Nicholas, Police Captain
Tim Kelsey, Recreation Manager
Lauren Barich, Management Analyst
Kathryne Cho, Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer David Spitz, Associate Engineer
Sean Sabo, Management Analyst
Orlando Porter, Senior Maintenance Worker
Joe Talarico, Maintenance Services Supervisor
Steve Gagnon, Raftelis Financial Consultants Manager
PRESENTATIONS / RECOGNITIONS
• Girl Scout Gold Award Project Update
• Jewish American Heritage Month Proclamation
• Public Works Week Proclamation – May 18 – 24, 2025
• National Police Week Proclamation – May 11 – 17, 2025 • Electric Bike (eBike) Safety and Enforcement Presentation
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mayor Landau opened oral communications. Speakers: Michael Westmoreland, Myra Romero, Julie Westmoreland, Cher Engelstad, Catherine Showalter, James Jenson, and Chad Berlinghieri addressed the City Council. Mayor Landau closed oral communications.
City Clerk Harper announced that five (5) supplemental communications were received after posting the agenda; they were distributed to the City Council and made available to the public.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA & WAIVER OF FULL READING OF RESOLUTIONS AND
ORDINANCES
Mayor Pro Tem Steele moved, second by Council Member Kalmick to approve the agenda.
AYES: Kalmick, Wong, Landau, Senecal, Steele
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion carried
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
City Attorney Ghirelli reported that the City Council met in Closed Session regarding the five (5) items on the posted agenda. All five (5) Council Members were present. He also reported that the City Council approved a settlement agreement with Beach House by the River LLC with a 4-0-0-1 vote, with Mayor Landau recusing herself on this item.
CITY MANAGER REPORT
Interim City Manager Gallegos highlighted Dump Day and thanked Management Analyst Barich and Office Specialist Holm for coordinating the event. He thanked the Orange County Conservation Corps, Goodwill, Republic Services and the Public Works Maintenance team for their partnership on the event.
Additionally, Interim City Manager Gallegos announced that the City has released the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Housing Element and Zoning Code Update Project and that the public review period runs from May 9th to June 23rd. He encouraged comments from the community and noted the comments can be submitted via e-mail at [email protected].
Finally, Interim City Manager Gallegos announced that a Council Study Session will be held on Tuesday, May 27 at 5:30 PM in the Council Chambers to discuss state housing laws, including ADUs, density bonuses, and the builder’s remedy. He encouraged residents to attend.
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council Member Wong reported his attendance at the City Council Budget Workshops and a volunteer event at the Ronald McDonald House. Council Member Wong announced that the Naval Weapons Station will be celebrating Fleet Week from May 23rd to May 26th . He announced that the Submarine Memorial will take place at 11:00 a.m. on Memorial Day at the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station. He recommended arriving early for parking and entry.
Council Member Kalmick reported his attendance at the tour of the AES Alamitos Battery Energy Storage System Plant in Long Beach, the Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority meeting, the City Council Budget Workshops, and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Annual Conference. Lastly, Council Member Kalmick announced his attendance at a memorial service for former Police Chief Gonshak’s daughter.
Council Member Senecal reported her attendance of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Annual Conference. Additionally, she reported that she will be attending a future meeting of the Orange County Council of Governments (OC-COG) Energy and Environmental Committee.
Mayor Pro Tem Steele announced his attendance at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) economic forecast meeting, the City Council Budget Workshops, a tour of the AES Alamitos Battery Energy Storage System Plant in Long Beach, the Golden Rain Foundation (GRF) Presidents Council Meeting, and the Orange County Older Adults Advisory Commission (OC-OAC) meeting. Additionally, Mayor Pro Tem Steele reported that he had a meeting with the CEO of California Consulting via Zoom to discuss funding for the Leisure World Adult Daycare Center.
Mayor Landau reported her attendance at the City Council Budget Workshops and thanked staff for their work on the budget. Additionally, Mayor Landau announced that the Naval Weapons Station Submarine Memorial will take place at 11:00 a.m. on Memorial Day and the Eisenhower Park Memorial Day Service will take place at 1:00 p.m., on Memorial Day.
COUNCIL ITEMS
There were no council items.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Council Member Wong moved, second by Council Member Senecal, to approve the recommended actions on the consent calendar.
A. Approval of the City Council Minutes - That the City Council approve the minutes of the Closed Session, Water/Sewer Rate Financial Study Session – Part II, and Regular City Council meetings held on April 28, 2025.
B. Demand on City Treasury (Fiscal Year 2025) - Ratification.
C. Amendment 2 to the Professional Services Agreement with Holistic System Integration Solutions - That the City Council adopt Resolution 7636: 1.
Approving Amendment 2 to the Professional Services Agreement with Holistic System Integration Solutions, extending the term to December 31, 2025; and,
2. Directing the Interim City Manager to execute Amendment 2 on behalf of the City.
D. Adopting a Resolution Listing the Projects Funded by Senate Bill 1: Road Repair and Accountability Act and Authorizing Submittal of the Project List and Application for Road Maintenance Rehabilitation Account Funds to the California Transportation Commission - That the City Council adopt Resolution 7637: 1. Approving the project list for improvements that are to be funded by Senate Bill 1; and, 2. Authorizing the Interim City Manager, or their designee, to submit the project list and application for Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account funds to the California Transportation Commission.
E. Approve Second Amendment to the West Cities Communications Center (West-Comm) Joint Powers Authority (JPA) Agreement - That the City Council adopt Resolution 7638: 1. Approving the Second Amendment to the West Cities Communications Center (West-Comm) Joint Powers Authority Agreement; and, 2. Authorizing the Interim City Manager to execute the Second Amendment to the West-Comm Joint Powers Authority Agreement.
F. Seeking City Council Approval for the Seal Beach Police Department to Purchase Ammunition for Police Rifles Pursuant to the City’s “Military Equipment” Use Policy and State Law - That City Council adopt Resolution 7639 approving the purchase of the .223 / 5.56mm ammunition for the Seal Beach Police Department, pursuant to the City’s “military equipment” use policy.
G. Approving and Authorizing Amendment 1 to the Agreement with Wetlands and Wildlife Care Center for Wildlife Animal Control Services - That the City Council adopt Resolution 7640: 1. Approving Amendment 1 to the Agreement with the Wetlands and Wildlife Care Center; and, 2. Authorizing the Interim City Manager to execute the Amendment; and, 3. Authorizing future extensions, if exercised, as outlined in the Amendment.
The vote below is for the Consent Calendar Items.
AYES: Kalmick, Wong, Senecal, Steele, Landau
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion carried
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no items removed from the consent calendar.
PUBLIC HEARING
H. Receive and File an Informational Update to Comply with Assembly Bill 2561 (Government Code Section 3502.3) Regarding Vacancies, Recruitment, and Retention Efforts - That the City Council receive and file an informational update, in accordance with Assembly Bill 2561, on vacancies, recruitment, and retention efforts.
Management Analyst Barich provided an in-depth overview of the staff report.
Mayor Landau opened the public hearing. Speakers: None. Mayor Landau closed the public hearing.
Council Member Kalmick moved, second by Mayor Pro Tem Steele, to Receive and File an Informational Update to Comply with Assembly Bill 2561 (Government Code Section 3502.3) Regarding Vacancies, Recruitment, and Retention Efforts - That the City Council receive and file an informational update, in accordance with Assembly Bill 2561, on vacancies, recruitment, and retention efforts.
AYES: Kalmick, Wong, Senecal, Steele, Landau
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion carried
UNFINISHED/CONTINUED BUSINESS
There were no unfinished/continued business items.
NEW BUSINESS
I. Street Lighting Assessment District - That the City Council adopt: 1. Resolution 7641 Initiating the annual levy of the street lighting assessment; and, 2.
Resolution 7642 Setting the date for the public hearing for June 9, 2025; and,
3. Resolution 7643 Approving the Engineer's Report. No increase in assessments is projected for Fiscal Year 2025-2026.
Director of Finance Arenado provided a high-level overview of the staff report.
Council Member Wong moved, second by Council Member Senecal, to adopt: 1.
Resolution 7641 Initiating the annual levy of the street lighting assessment; and, 2.
Resolution 7642 Setting the date for the public hearing for June 9, 2025; and, 3.
Resolution 7643 Approving the Engineer's Report. No increase in assessments is projected for Fiscal Year 2025-2026.
AYES: Kalmick, Wong, Senecal, Steele, Landau
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion carried
J. Proposition 218 - Proposed Water Rate and Sewer Rate Adjustments - That the City Council adopt Resolution 7644: 1. Setting the Public Hearing on the proposed water and sewer rate adjustments for July 14, 2025, or such other date selected by the Interim City Manager; and, 2. Authorizing the City Clerk, or the City Clerk’s designee, to provide notice of the Public Hearing in compliance with Proposition 218.
That the City Council adopt Resolution 7645: 1. Adopting revised procedures applicable to the conduct of the Public Hearing and majority protest proceedings and establishing an exhaustion of administrative remedies procedure pursuant to Government Code Sections 53759.1 and 53759.
Director of Public Works Lee, Raftelis Financial Consultants Manager Gagnon, and City Attorney Ghirelli gave an in-depth presentation of the staff report.
A discussion ensued. Council Members’ questions and concerns were addressed.
Council Member Senecal requested a quarterly presentation on ongoing Capital Improvement Program projects and a breakdown of capital charges on invoices.
Interim City Manager Gallegos, Director of Public Works Lee, City Attorney Ghirelli, and Raftelis Financial Consultants Manager Gagnon responded to the requests.
Council Member Wong moved, second by Mayor Landau, to adopt Resolution 7645:
1. Adopting revised procedures applicable to the conduct of the Public Hearing and majority protest proceedings and establishing an exhaustion of administrative remedies procedure pursuant to Government Code Sections 53759.1 and 53759.
AYES: Kalmick, Wong, Senecal, Steele, Landau
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion carried
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Landau adjourned the City Council meeting at 8:16 p.m. to Tuesday, May 27, 2025, at 5:30 p.m. to meet in a Housing Laws Study Session.
__________________________
Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk
City of Seal Beach
Approved:___________________________
Lisa Landau, Mayor
Attested:____________________________
Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk
Agenda Item E
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
DATE: May 27, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
THRU: Patrick Gallegos, Interim City Manager
FROM: Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk
SUBJECT: City Council Appointment
________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
It is the request of Council Member Senecal that the City Council appoint Belle Hsu to the Environmental Quality Control Board.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:
Government Code Section 54974(a) provides:
“Whenever an unscheduled vacancy occurs in any board, commission, or committee for which the legislative body has the appointing power, whether due to resignation, death, termination, or other causes, a special vacancy notice shall be posted in the office of the clerk of the local agency, the library designated pursuant to Section 54973, and in other places as directed by the legislative body, not earlier than 20 days before or not later than 20 days after the vacancy occurs. Final appointment to the board, commission, or committee shall not be made by the legislative body for at least 10 working days after the posting of the notice in the clerk’s office.”
The City Clerk’s office has posted the notice of vacancy in accordance with the law. Council Member Senecal has received an application for Ms. Hsu to serve on the EQCB, and Council Member Senecal has nominated her for the position. If Ms. Hsu is confirmed by the full council, her term will expire in December 2028.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
There is no environmental impact related to this item.
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
No legal analysis is required for this item.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no financial impact for this item.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
This item is not applicable to the Strategic Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is the request of Council Member Senecal that the City Council appoint Belle Hsu to the Environmental Quality Control Board.
SUBMITTED BY: NOTED AND APPROVED:
Gloria D. Harper Patrick Gallegos
Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk Patrick Gallegos, Interim City Manager ATTACHMENTS:
A. Boards – Commissions - Committees - Foundation Redacted Application
Agenda Item F
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
DATE: May 27, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
THRU: Patrick Gallegos, Interim City Manager
FROM: Alexa Smittle, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Professional Services Agreement with Transtech Engineers, Inc.
________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
That the City Council adopt Resolution 7647:
1. Approving the Professional Services Agreement with Transtech Engineers, Inc. for $453,000 in Building Division staffing services and 65 percent of designated plan check fees for building plan check services for FY 2025-2026; and,
2. Authorizing the Interim City Manager to execute the Agreement.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:
Transtech Engineers, Inc. (Transtech) has served within the Building Division in a variety of roles for several years. Currently, the company provides the City with a Building Official, Building Inspector, and Permit Technician, as well as building plan check services, which constitutes all Building Division services. The service and staff members they provide to the City are extremely professional and well received by the community. The depth of Transtech's team behind the individuals seen in the office provides stability and assurances that Seal Beach will have a trained and staffed Building Permit Counter, daily inspections, and several points of contact in emergencies that require a Building Official.
Based on review of the Community Development Department as a whole and the work plan for the year, staff recommends engaging Transtech for Building Division services for the FY 2025-2026. The proposed Professional Services Agreement allows for the continuation of service through June 30, 2026, and authorizes $453,000 to cover staffing costs, as well as 65 percent of plan check review fees for plan check services. Staffing costs represent a Consumer Price Index based inflation adjustment of 4 percent, and the plan check fee share remains unchanged.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
The proposed professional services agreement amendments are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines which states that CEQA only applies to projects that have potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Approval of the Professional Services Agreement will not have a significant effect on the environment.
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the resolution as to form.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The Professional Services Agreement will approve an expenditure of up to $453,000 from Account 101-300-0031-51280 for staffing services. This amount represents a cost savings of about 10 percent compared to City employee costs to staff the Division. In addition, the City will pay 65 percent of designated plan check fees for building plan check services. These costs are included in the proposed FY 2025-2026 Budget.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
This item is not applicable to the Strategic Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council adopt Resolution 7647:
1. Approving the Professional Services Agreement with Transtech Engineers, Inc. for $453,000 in Building Division staffing services and 65 percent of designated plan check fees for building plan check services for FY 2025-2026; and,
2. Authorizing the Interim City Manager to execute the Agreement.
SUBMITTED BY: NOTED AND APPROVED:
Alexa Smittle Patrick Gallegos
Alexa Smittle, Community
Development Director
Patrick Gallegos, Interim City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Resolution 7647
B. Professional Services Agreement with Transtech Engineers, Inc.
RESOLUTION 7647
A RESOLUTION OF THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH TRANSTECH
ENGINEERS, INC.
WHEREAS, the City of Seal Beach (City) has relied upon professional service firms for technical expertise for certain City operations as well as temporary staff assistance during periods of extraordinary work or during periods when permanent staff positions are vacant; and
WHEREAS, the City previously entered into an agreement with Transtech Engineers Inc. (Consultant) to provide Building Division professional services, including Building Official, Plan Checker, Building Inspector, Permit Technician, and other technical and staffing services for the Community Development Department as needed, and, WHEREAS, Consultant has proven to be a reliable, dependable, and competitively priced company who has provided staff competent and capable of serving temporary planning staffing needs of the City; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Seal Beach City Charter, Seal Beach Municipal Code Chapter 3.20 establishes a central purchasing system including procedures for competitive bidding and exemptions from competitive bidding; and WHEREAS, Seal Beach Municipal Code Section 3.20.025(C) provides for an exemption from competitive bidding requirements for purchases of professional services, including without limitation, architectural services; bond services; election services; engineering services; insurance services; legal services; public relations services; real estate services; and solid waste disposal services; and
WHEREAS, City and Consultant wish to enter into this Agreement for Consultant for Building Division staffing services in an amount not to exceed $453,000, and for Plan Check Services to authorize payment of not more than 65 percent of plan review fees collected per the City’s fee schedule, as provided herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE:
Section 1. The City Council hereby approves the Professional Services Agreement dated May 27, 2025 with Transtech Engineers, Inc. as set forth in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as through set forth in full, for on-going Building Division professional services related to (i) duties conducted by a Building Official, Building Inspector, and Permit Technician, in an amount not to exceed $453,000 and (ii) for Plan Check Services the City shall pay not more than 65 percent of plan check review fees collected per the City’s fee schedule to cover services related to building plan check for the period of one year, commencing July 1, 2025 and ending June 30, 2026.
Section 2. The Council hereby directs the Interim City Manager to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Seal Beach City Council at a regular meeting held on the 27th day of May 2025 by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members
NOES: Council Members
ABSENT: Council Members
ABSTAIN: Council Members
Lisa Landau, Mayor
ATTEST:
Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS
CITY OF SEAL BEACH }
I, Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is the original copy of Resolution 7647 on file in the office of the City Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting held on the 27th day of May 2025.
Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk
13367 Benson Avenue | Chino CA 91710 | T 909 595 8599 | F 909 595 8863 | Transtech.org January 23, 2025
Alexa Smittle
Director of Community Development
City of Seal Beach
211 Eighth Street,
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Ms. Smittle,
We are pleased to give this contract renewal proposal with the estimated service fees for the fiscal year 25-26 to provide Building and Safety Staff Services and Plan Review Services.
Transtech is serving the City Building Division since July 2016. Per the current contract Plan review services are provided at 65% of the plan review fees collected per the City fee schedule and staff services are provided per the attached special hourly rates as per the attached Exhibit A. Any additional services requested by the City may be provided per the Standard Hourly Rates as per the attached Exhibit B.
It is our understanding that during this fiscal year, 1 full time permit technician, 1 full time building inspector and as needed Building Official, as needed Building supervisor, as needed additional permit technician and as needed additional building inspector will be provided based on the workload increases. The cost estimate for staff services based on the above staffing level and for as need staff services estimated to be $453,000 and plan review services will be at 65% of the City Plan Review fees.
The hourly rates of the services are automatically increased by the percentage change Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim California Consumer Price Index-All Urban Consumers (“CPI-U”) for the preceding twelve-month period as calculated for February by the U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics and published by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistic.
Feel free to contact me if you have any further questions on the matter.
Ayla Jefferson, CBO, CSP
13367 Benson Ave.
Chino | CA 91710
P (909) 595-8599 ext.123
C (909) 851-5765
E [email protected]
W www.transtech.org
ENC: Adjusted Rates, Exhibit A and B
2 EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Transtech will provide BUILDING AND SAFETY SERVICES, PLAN CHECK, BUILDING OFFICIAL, PERMIT TECHNICIAN AND INSPECTOR per the following special rates to the City:
TRANSTECH ENGINEERS, INC. STANDARD HOURLY RATES
Effective through June 30, 2026
Adjusted as per Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County Consumer Price Index-All Urban Consumers (“CPI-U”)
Special Rates for City of Seal Beach
Classification
Building Official $133
Supervisor $96
Building Inspector $92
Permit Technician $85
Administrative $67
Reimbursable direct expenses are billed at cost plus 10% for administration fee.
The above fees will be increased each year July 1st automatically by the percentage change Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim California Consumer Price Index-All Urban Consumers (“CPI-U”) for the preceding twelve-month period as calculated for February by the U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics and published by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistic.
Plan Checks 65% of Plan Check Fees
Where fees are waived, or reduced plan
review shall be per hour $133
CPI-U FEBRUARY 2025 ESTIMATED 4.00%
Estimated Service Hours
Building Official/Plan Checker 4 to 8 hrs. a week
Building Inspector 40 hrs. a week
Permit Technician 40 hrs. a week and additional 8 hrs. biweekly Building Supervisor 8 to 12 hrs. a week
Any other services that may be requested by the City will be provided based on the specific scope of work and fees to be established per Transtech’s current standard hourly rates in Exhibit B.
3 EXHIBIT B
TRANSTECH ENGINEERS, INC.
S C H E D U L E O F H O U R L Y R A T E S
E f f e c t i v e t h r o u g h J u n e 3 0 , 2 0 2 6
The above fees are increased each year July 1st automatically by the percentage change Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim California Consumer Price Index-All Urban Consumers (“CPI-U”) for the preceding twelve-month period as calculated for February by the U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics and published by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistic.
ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
Field Technician $88 - $98 Labor Compliance Analyst $150 - $160 Engineering Technician $98 - $109 Funds Coordinator $155 - $165 Assistant CAD Drafter $109 - $124 Office Engineer $150 - $160 Senior CAD Drafter $124 - $140 Construction Inspector $145 - $155 Associate Designer $140 - $155 Senior Construction Inspector $155 - $165 Senior Designer $155 - $171 Construction Manager $176 - $191 Design Project Manager $196 - $206 Resident Engineer $191 - $206 Assistant Engineer $119 - $129 PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTION
Associate / Staff Engineer $150 - $165 Public Works Inspector $145 - $155 Senior Civil Engineer $206 - $227 Senior Public Works Inspector $155 - $165 Traffic Analyst Technician $103 - $114 Supervising PW Inspector $165 - $176 Associate Traffic Analyst $155 - $165 SURVEY AND MAPPING Senior Traffic Analyst $165 - $176 Survey Analyst $155 - $160 Professional Transportation Planner $176 - $191 Senior Survey Analyst $160 - $165 Traffic Engineer Technician $98 - $109 2-Man Survey Crew $357 - $372 Associate/Staff Traffic Engineer $150 - $165 Survey & Mapping Specialist $191 - $207 Traffic Engineer $176 - $191 Licensed Land Surveyor $217 - $227 Senior Traffic Engineer $191 - $212 FUNDING & GRANT WRITING Project Manager $191 - $212 Funds Analyst $150 - $155
Senior Project Manager $212 - $227 Senior Funds Analyst $155 - $165 Deputy City Engineer $176 - $196 Grant Writer $171 - $176 City Engineer $196 - $212 Funds & Grant Project Manager $191 - $202 Principal Engineer $212 - $233 PLANNING
BUILDING & SAFETY Community Development Technician $83 - $93 Permit Technician $78 - $88 Planning Technician $93 - $103 Plan Check Technician/Analyst/Supervisor $129 - $145 Assistant Planner $103 - $124 Building Inspector $119 - $134 Associate Planner $124 - $145 Senior Inspector $129 - $145 Senior Planner $150 - $171 Plans Examiner/Checker $145 - $160 Planning Manager $176 - $196 Plan Check Engineer $155 - $176 ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF
Deputy Building Official $165 - $176 Administrative/Clerical $72 - $83 Building Official $171 - $186 Project Accountant $83 - $93
Agenda Item G
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
DATE: May 27, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
THRU: Patrick Gallegos, Interim City Manager
FROM: Iris Lee, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Approving Amendment No. 7 to the Cooperative Agreement No. C-6-1126 with Orange County Transportation Authority for the OCTA I-405 Improvement Project (CIP ST1809)
________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
That the City Council adopt Resolution 7648:
1. Approving Amendment No. 7 to Cooperative Agreement No. C-6-1126 dated July 29, 2016, as previously amended by Amendment No. 1 dated June 11, 2019, Amendment No. 2 dated January 21, 2022, Amendment No. 3 dated April 25, 2023, Amendment No. 4 dated July 5, 2023, Amendment No. 5 dated June 25, 2024 and Amendment No. 6 dated December 18, 2024, with Orange County Transportation Authority; and,
2. Authorizing the Interim City Manager to execute Amendment No. 7 to Cooperative Agreement No. C-6-1126.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:
On July 29, 2016, the City Council approved Cooperative Agreement No. C-6-1126 (Agreement) between Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and the City of Seal Beach (City) for the I-405 Improvement Project (Project). The Project provided one (1) additional general-purpose lane and two (2) toll lanes in each direction between the westerly Orange County limits and the City of Costa Mesa.
The Agreement outlined the responsibilities of both the City and OCTA throughout the course of the Project and provided the financial mechanism for the City to receive reimbursement funds for staff time, consultant assistance, and pavement restoration upon completion. The Agreement further provided $120,600 in reimbursement funds for the City and consulting services for the duration of the Project with amendment options, as necessary.
On June 11, 2019, the City entered into Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement with OCTA for an additional $250,000 for the total not-to-exceed amount of $370,600.
On January 21, 2022, the City entered into Amendment No. 2 to the Agreement for an additional $370,000 for the total not-to-exceed amount of $740,600 for the Project and to extend the agreement term to April 30, 2023.
On April 25, 2023, the City entered into Amendment No. 3 to the Agreement to extend the term of the Agreement to June 30, 2024.
On July 5, 2023, the City entered into Amendment No. 4 to the Agreement for an additional $200,000 for the total not-to-exceed amount of $940,600.
On June 25, 2024, the City entered into Amendment No. 5 to the Agreement to extend the term of the Agreement to December 31, 2024.
On December 18, 2024, the City entered into Amendment No. 6 to the Agreement to extend the term of the Agreement to June 30, 2025.
As the Agreement is set to expire on June 30, 2025, and the City has expended the majority of the remaining funds, OCTA has requested the City to enter into Amendment No. 7 to (1) increase compensation by $18,000 for the total not-toexceed amount of $958,600; and (2) extend the term of the Agreement until December 31, 2025 to cover the remaining Project close out items.
As of March 31 2025, the City had expended approximately $900,000 of reimbursable funds on the Project. These expenditures include costs associated with consultant plan review, City’s contract inspection services, staff time and other necessary project costs.
A breakdown of the approximate expended funds as of March 31, 2025 is as follows:
Description Amount
Plan review and permit issuance $ 360,000
Contract project inspection $ 274,000
Additional consultant support services $ 110,000
City staff time $ 156,000
Estimated Project Expenditures $ 900,000
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
This item is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the state CEQA Guidelines because it can be
seen with certainty that approval of Amendment No. 7 to a Cooperative agreement with OCTA will not have a significant effect on the environment.
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
The City Attorney has reviewed the resolution and amendment and approved as to form.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Under the Agreement, and as most recently as Amendment No. 6, OCTA will reimburse the City for Project-related expenditures up to a maximum of $940,600.
Amendment No. 7 will allocate an additional $18,000 for a total of $958,600 for the project.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
This item is not applicable to the Strategic Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council adopt Resolution 7648:
1. Approving Amendment No. 7 to Cooperative Agreement No. C-6-1126 dated July 29, 2016, as previously amended by Amendment No. 1 dated June 11, 2019, Amendment No. 2 dated January 21, 2022, Amendment No. 3 dated April 25, 2023, Amendment No. 4 dated July 5, 2023, Amendment No. 5 dated June 25, 2024 and Amendment No. 6 dated December 18, 2024, with Orange County Transportation Authority; and,
2. Authorizing the Interim City Manager to execute Amendment No. 7 to Cooperative Agreement No. C-6-1126.
SUBMITTED BY: NOTED AND APPROVED:
Iris Lee Patrick Gallegos
Iris Lee, Director of Public Works Patrick Gallegos, Interim City Manager Prepared by: David Spitz, P.E. Associate Engineer
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Resolution 7648
B. Amendment No. 7 to OCTA Agreement
C. Amendment No. 6 to OCTA Agreement
D. Amendment No. 5 to OCTA Agreement
E. Amendment No. 4 to OCTA Agreement
F. Amendment No. 3 to OCTA Agreement
G. Amendment No. 2 to OCTA Agreement
H. Amendment No. 1 to OCTA Agreement
I. Executed OCTA Cooperative Agreement No. C-6-1126
RESOLUTION 7648
A RESOLUTION OF THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL
APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER
TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. 7 TO THE COOPERATIVE
AGREEMENT NO. C-6-1126 WITH ORANGE COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
WHEREAS, Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), in cooperation and partnership with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), proposed to reduce congestion and improve lane continuity through the I-405 corridor with improvements to mainline and interchanges on I-405 between State Route 73 and Interstate 605; and,
WHEREAS, OCTA, in cooperation and partnership with the Caltrans, entered into Cooperative Agreement No. C-6-1126 (“Agreement”), dated July 29, 2016, with the City of Seal Beach (“City”), defining the specific terms, conditions, and funding responsibilities between OCTA and the City for a total not-to-exceed amount of $120,600; and,
WHEREAS, on June 11, 2019, the City and OCTA entered into Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement to increase compensation by $250,000 for the total not-toexceed amount of $370,600; and, WHEREAS, on January 21, 2022, the City and OCTA entered into Amendment No. 2 to the Agreement to increase compensation by $370,000 for the total not-toexceed amount of $740,600 and extend the term up to April 30, 2023; and, WHEREAS, on April 25, 2023, the City and OCTA entered into Amendment No. 3 to the Agreement to extend the Agreement term to June 30, 2024; and, WHEREAS, on July 5, 2023, the City and OCTA entered into Amendment No. 4 to the Agreement to increase compensation by $200,000 for the total not-to-exceed amount of $940,600; and,
WHEREAS, on June 25, 2024, the City and OCTA entered into Amendment No. 5 to the Agreement to extend the Agreement term to December 31, 2024; and, WHEREAS, on December 18, 2024, the City and OCTA entered into Amendment No. 6 to the Agreement to extend the Agreement term to June 30, 2025; and, WHEREAS, the City and OCTA desire to further extend the Agreement term and increase the compensation limit.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY RESOLVE:
Section 1. The City Council hereby approves that certain Amendment No. 7 dated May 27, 2025 (Amendment No. 7) to the Cooperative Agreement dated July 29, 2016 (Agreement), as previously amended by Amendment No. 1 on June 11, 2019 (Amendment No. 1), Amendment No. 2 on January 21, 2022 (Amendment No. 2), Amendment No. 3 on April 25, 2023 (Amendment No. 3),
Amendment No. 4 on July 5, 2023 (Amendment No. 4), Amendment No. 5 on June 25, 2024 (Amendment No. 5) and Amendment No. 6 on December 18, 2024 (Amendment No. 6), between the City of Seal Beach and OCTA for I-405 Improvement Project Consulting Services, to extend the Agreement’s term until December 31, 2025 and to increase the Agreement’s compensation by $18,000 for additional services required in connections with Amendment No. 7 to the Agreement for a revised total contract amount not to exceed $958,600 for the Agreement, Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 2, Amendment No. 3, Amendment No. 4, Amendment No. 5 and
Amendment No. 6, copies of which such Agreement and all Amendments are incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full.
Section 2. The City Council hereby authorizes and directs the Interim City Manager to execute Amendment No. 7 to the Agreement.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Seal Beach City Council at a regular meeting held on the 27th day of May 2025 by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members
NOES: Council Members
ABSENT: Council Members
ABSTAIN: Council Members
Lisa Landau, Mayor
ATTEST:
Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF ORANGE }
CITY OF SEAL BEACH }
I, Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is the original copy of Resolution 7648 on file in the office of the City Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting held on the 27th day of May 2025.
Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk
AMENDMENT NO. 7 TO
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. C-6-1126
REVISED SCHEULE A
REIMBURSMENT SCHEDULE FOR COMBINED CITY SERVICES
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
(1) Schedule A shows estimated reimbursement amounts for each CITY SERVICES item of work. During the term of this Agreement, the CITY may redistribute funds for items of work as needed; however, the total amount for CITY SERVICES shall not exceed the Total Maximum Reimbursement amount shown herein. (2) In the event it is determined that pavement mitigation is required, this amount will be determined after CONTRACTOR is hired by the Orange County Transportation Authority and shall be reimbursed as a one-time, lump sum amount upon execution of an amendment to this cooperative agreement.
Item
No. Reimbursement Description
Maximum
Reimbursement
Amount¹
1 Review and approval of plans, specifications, and other pertinent engineering plans and reports, Traffic Management Plan (TMP) review and concurrence, and construction oversight inspection services related to City of Seal Beach (CITY) Facilities. $759,900
2 Traffic engineering and detour inspection $103,100
3 Police services (including overtime costs) $95,600
4 Pavement rehabilitation (if applicable) $TBD²
TOTAL MAXIMUM REIMBURSEMENT $958,600
18th December
Distributed 12/19/2024
Accounting
CAMM
FPA
PM D Mak, D Bui, S Grish
Vendor
CAMM R Hashem
25th June
Distributed 6/26/2024
Accounting
CAMM
FPA
PM D Mak, J Mills, D Bui, S Grish
Vendor
CAMM M Bornman
June
24th
5th July
25th April 23
Distributed 1/21/2022
Accounting
CAMM
FPA
PM D Mak, D Bui, S Grish
Vendor P
CAMM R Hashem
21st January
1 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
2 AGREEMENT NO. C- 6- 1126
3 BETWEEN
4 ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
5 AND
6 CITY OF SEAL BEACH
7 FOR
8 1- 405 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
9 THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1, is effective this day of2019
10 (" Effective Date"), by and between the Orange County Transportation Authority, 550 South Main Street, 11 P. O. Box 14184, Orange, California, a public corporation of the State of California ( hereinafter referred to 12 as " AUTHORITY"), and the City of Seal Beach, 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, California, 90740 a 13 municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the constitution and laws of the State of 14 California ( hereinafter referred to as " CITY"), each individually known as " Party", and collectively known 15 as " Parties".
16 WITNESSETH:
17 WHEREAS, by Agreement No C- 6- 1126 dated July 29, 2016, AUTHORITY and CITY entered 18 into a cooperative agreement, in cooperation and partnership with the California Department of 19 Transportation, herein referred to as " CALTRANS", for the specific terms, conditions, and funding 20 responsibilities between the AUTHORITY and CITY for improvements defined as adding one general 21 purpose lane from Euclid Street to Interstate 605 ( 1- 605), plus adding an additional median lane which will 22 be combined with the existing high- occupancy vehicle lane and operated as dual express lanes in each 23 direction of the Interstate 405 ( 1- 405) from State Route 73 ( SR- 73) to 1- 605, replacing and/ or widening 24 structures, and other additional geometric and interchange improvements, including improvements to 25 CITY- owned and operated streets, and traffic facilities hereafter referred to as CITY FACILITIES 26 potentially impacted by this project, all of which are hereafter referred to as " PROJECT'; and
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
LM AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
AGREEMENT NO. C- 6- 1126
WHEREAS, the costs are anticipated to increase due to additional level of effort for CITY SERVICES not accounted for in the original Agreement. The original Agreement assumed a certain level of service, as related to improvements to CITY FACILITIES and negotiated the amount to reimburse CITY at that time. Since then, the level of effort for CITY SERVICES has increased and additional costs are needed during the implementation of the PROJECT; and WHEREAS, AUTHORITY and CITY have agreed to amend this Agreement, in the amount of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($ 250,000), to reimburse CITY for additional CITY SERVICES, as related to improvements to CITY FACILITIES, identified in the Agreement as:
Review and approval of plans, specifications, and other pertinent engineering plans, and reports, and for oversight construction inspection services Review and acceptance of Transportation Management Plan ( TMP) Traffic engineering
CITY police services, and;
WHEREAS, the AUTHORITY' s Board of Directors approved this Amendment No. 1 on the 8 day of / 2019; and
WHEREAS, the CITY' s Council approved this Amendment No. 1 on the ZZ' z day of v, k 2019.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually understood and agreed by the AUTHORITY and CITY that Agreement No. C- 6- 1126 is hereby amended in the following particulars only:
1. Amend ARTICLE 3. RESPONSIBILITY OF AUTHORITY, as follows:
a) Page 5 of 18, paragraph EE: to delete in its entirety and, in lieu thereof, insert:
EE. To reimburse CITY for combined costs identified as " CITY SERVICES", and in accordance with the attached REVISED SCHEDULE A, " REIMBURSEMENT SCHEDULE FOR COMBINED CITY SERVICES."
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
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
AGREEMENT NO. C- 6- 1126
b) Page 5 of 18, paragraph GG: to delete in its entirety and, in lieu thereof, insert:
GG. AUTHORITY' s reimbursement for CITY SERVICES will not exceed the combined maximum amount shown on REVISED SCHEDULE A."
2. Amend ARTICLE 7. MAXIMUM OBLIGATION, page 13 of 18, to delete in its entirety and, in lieu thereof, insert: " Notwithstanding any provisions of this Agreement to the contrary, AUTHORITY and CITY mutually agree that AUTHORITY' s maximum cumulative payment obligation hereunder shall be " Three Hundred Seventy Thousand Six Hundred Dollars ($ 370, 600) unless agreed to and amended by both Parties. In the event it is determined that pavement mitigation is required, AUTHORITY' s maximum cumulative obligation for pavement mitigation shall be addressed in a future amendment to this Agreement."
ATTACHMENT D
REVISED SCHEDULE A
REIMBURSEMENT SCHEDULE FOR COMBINED CITY SERVICES
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
Item Maximum
No. Description of City Services Reimbursement
Amount'
1 Review and approval of plans, specifications, and other pertinent engineering plans and reports, Traffic Management Plan review and 245, 900
concurrence, and construction oversight inspection services related to CITY FACILITIES.
2 Traffic engineering 47, 600
3 Police services ( including overtime costs) 77, 100
4 Pavement rehabilitation ( if applicable) TBD2
TOTAL MAXIMUM REIMBURSEMENT 370, 600
1) Schedule A shows estimated reimbursement amounts for each CITY SERVICES item of work. During the term of this cooperative agreement, the CITY may redistribute funds for items of work as needed; however, the total amount of CITY SERVICES shall not exceed the Total Maximum Reimbursement amount shown herein.
2) In the event it is determined that pavement mitigation is required, this amount will be determined after the contractor is hired by the Orange County Transportation Authority, and shall be reimbursed as a one- time lump sum amount upon execution of an amendment to this cooperative agreement.
Ln AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
AGREEMENT NO. C- 6- 1126
The balance of Agreement C- 6- 1126 remains unchanged.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. C- 6- 1126 to be executed on the date first above written.
CITY OF SEACH BEACH ORANGE COUNTY TRAWORTATION AUTHORITY By:
Thomas Moore
Mayor
Date:
ATTEST:
By: / l/
Darrell E. J son
Chief Exec / iv -e Officer
Date:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: ,
Gloria Harp 9
yI
Date:
City Clerk /
2 Date:
General
mes .
s
Counsel
D
l
APPROVAL RECOMMENDED APPROVA RECO ENDED:
By: By:
St a Myrter, P. E. eaZtiveG. Beil, P. E.
Public Works Director Director Capital Programs
Date:
APPRO D S F .
By: 77//" V /--
7r
Craig Steele
City Attorney
Date: b
Date:
Z "
1 Attachment:
Revised Schedule A - Maximum Reimbursement Schedule for Combined City Services, City of Seal Beach
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
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. C -6 -1126
BETWEEN
ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
AND
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
FOR
1- 405 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
1-
THIS COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT ( Agreement), is effective this day of TGL L y 20 ( , by and between the Orange County Transportation Authority, 550 South Main Street, P. O. Box 14184, Orange California 92863 -1584, a public entity ( herein referred to as AUTHORITY ") and the City of Seal Beach, 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, California 90740; a municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the constitution and laws of the State of California (herein referred to as "CITY ") each individually known as " Party" and collectively known as the "Parties ".
RECITALS:
WHEREAS, AUTHORITY, in cooperation and partnership with the California Department of Transportation, herein referred to as " CALTRANS ", is proposing to reduce congestion and improve lane continuity through the Interstate 405 ( 1 - 405) corridor with improvements to mainline and interchanges on 1 - 405 between State Route 73 ( SR -73) and Interstate 605 ( 1 - 605); and WHEREAS, the improvements are generally defined as adding one general - purpose lane from Euclid Street to 1 - 605, plus adding an additional median lane which will be combined with the existing HOV lane and operated as dual express lanes in each direction of 1 - 405 from SR -73 to I - 605, replacing and /or widening structures, and other additional geometric and interchange improvements, including improvements to CITY -owned and operated streets, and traffic facilities hereinafter referred to as CITY FACILITIES potentially impacted by this project, all of which are hereinafter referred to as " PROJECT'.
AUTHORITY will use a design -build method of delivery for the procurement, design, and construction of PROJECT and shall prepare contract documents (CONTRACT DOCUMENTS) to procure a design- 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
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. C -6 -1126
build team herein referred to as " CONTRACTOR "; and
WHEREAS, this Cooperative Agreement defines the specific terms, conditions, and funding responsibilities between the AUTHORITY and CITY regarding the CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, and the design and construction of PROJECT in regards to CITY FACILITIES; and WHEREAS, AUTHORITY is the sponsor and the primary funding agency for PROJECT; and WHEREAS, CITY -owned and operated utilities will be subject to an utility agreement(s) and separate from, and outside of this Agreement; and
WHEREAS, PROJECT is located within and adjacent to the CALTRANS right of way in the Cities of Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Huntington Beach, Westminster, Garden Grove, Seal Beach, Los Alamitos, and County of Orange; and
WHEREAS, AUTHORITY has contracted with Parsons Transportation Group, Inc., as the Program Management Consultant ( PMC) for this PROJECT, to assist with the administration and oversight of the procurement, and design and construction phases of PROJECT; and WHEREAS, AUTHORITY has contracted with Jacobs Project Management Co., as the Construction Management Consultant (CMC) for this PROJECT, to assist with the administration and oversight of the procurement, and construction phases of PROJECT; and WHEREAS, AUTHORITY agrees to acquire right -of -way for PROJECT; and WHEREAS, AUTHORITY shall ensure CONTRACTOR' s compliance with all applicable requirements contained in this Agreement; and
WHEREAS, CITY FACILITIES will potentially be impacted by PROJECT, and AUTHORITY desires to collaborate with CITY during the development of the CONTRACT DOCUMENTS for the selection of a CONTRACTOR, and during the design and construction of PROJECT; and WHEREAS, AUTHORITY will provide contract administration for all phases of PROJECT work on CITY FACILITIES, and work within CITY right -of -way, while adhering to State, Federal, and CITY standards and requirements, as applicable; and
WHEREAS, AUTHORITY will reimburse CITY for actual costs for CITY SERVICES, as related to
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 I"
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. C -6 -1126
improvements to CITY FACILITIES, and defined as:
Review and approval of plans, specifications, and other pertinent engineering plans, and reports, and for oversight construction inspection services Review and acceptance of Transportation Management Plan ( TMP) Traffic engineering
CITY police services
WHEREAS, the costs for the following elements of CITY SERVICES cannot be quantified and priced at this time, as they will be developed by the CONTRACTOR upon CITY acceptance of the TMP.
In the event impacts are identified which affect CITY streets, the costs of these elements will be developed, and AUTHORITY shall amend this Agreement to account for such costs:
Costs for mitigation for reduction of pavement life related to impacts to CITY streets along the signed, long -term detours CONTRACTOR; and
WHEREAS, notwithstanding Article 7, Maximum Obligation, it is the intent of this Agreement that the CITY shall not be obligated to provide CITY SERVICES once the maximum obligation amount has been expended, unless the Parties agree to an amendment of the maximum obligation amount; and WHEREAS. CITY is the petitioner and AUTHORITY is named as a Respondent in litigation captioned City of Seal Beach v. State of California Department of Transportation, Orange County Transportation Authority, et aL, Orange County Superior Court case number 30- 2015 - 00799223 -CUWM- CXC ( LAWSUIT), which challenges the validity of the approval process and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance for the PROJECT. AUTHORITY is also a respondent in a similar legal action filed by the City of Long Beach. Either lawsuit, or both of them, could result in judgments or settlements that could delay the PROJECT or alter elements of the PROJECT; and WHEREAS, CITY' s City Council approved this Agreement on the a day of jlwe , 20_1_&; and
p
WHEREAS, AUTHORITY's Board of Directors authorized this Agreement on the / day of 1"YI 9-j
12016
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. C -6 -1126
1 NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually understood and agreed by AUTHORITY and CITY as follows:
2 ARTICLE 1. COMPLETE AGREEMENT
3 A. This Agreement, including any attachments incorporated herein and made applicable by 4 reference, constitutes the complete and exclusive statement of the term( s) and conditions(s) of this 5 Agreement between AUTHORITY and CITY and it supersedes all prior representations, understandings, 6 and communications. The invalidity in whole or in part of any term or condition of this Agreement shall 7 not affect the validity of other term( s) or condition( s) of this Agreement. The above referenced Recitals 8 are true and correct and incorporated by reference herein. 9 B. AUTHORITY'S failure to insist on any instance( s) of CITY' s performance of any term( s) 10 or condition( s) of this Agreement shall not be construed as a waiver or relinquishment of AUTHORITY' s 11 right to such performance or to future performance of such term( s) or condition( s), and CITY' s obligation 12 in respect thereto shall continue in full force and effect. Changes to any portion of this Agreement shall 13 not be binding upon AUTHORITY except when specifically confirmed in writing by an authorized 14 representative of AUTHORITY by way of a written amendment to this Agreement and issued in 15 accordance with the provisions of this Agreement.
16 C. CITY' s failure to insist on any instance( s) of AUTHORITY's performance of any term( s) or 17 condition( s) of this Agreement shall not be construed as a waiver or relinquishment of CITY' s right to such 18 performance or to future performance of such term( s) or condition( s), and AUTHORITY' s obligation in 19 respect thereto shall continue in full force and effect. Changes to any portion of this Agreement shall not 20 be binding upon CITY except when specifically confirmed in writing by an authorized representative of 21 CITY by way of a written amendment to this Agreement and issued in accordance with the provisions of 22 this Agreement.
23 D. The Parties agree that the execution of this Agreement during the pendency of the 24 LAWSUIT is a matter of administrative cooperation. Nothing in this Agreement is intended by either 25 Party to constitute any waiver or dismissal of any claim, demand or defense that either Party may have 26 as against any other Party in the LAWSUIT, including any demand CITY or any other Party may make
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. C -6 -1126
1 against AUTHORITY, the PROJECT, or CALTRANS in the course of the LAWSUIT. Further, nothing 2 in this Agreement constitutes CITY' s approval of, or consent to, any element of the PROJECT or 3 preliminary PROJECT plans. CITY does not, by executing this Agreement or by cooperating with 4 AUTHORITY, concede that AUTHORITY has the legal right to move forward with the work hereunder 5 prior to a final judgment in the LAWSUIT and AUTHORITY' s compliance with such judgment, if 6 required. AUTHORITY proceeds with the PROJECT at its own risk. 7 ARTICLE 2. SCOPE OF AGREEMENT
8 This Agreement specifies the roles and responsibilities of the Parties as they pertain to the 9 subjects and projects addressed herein. Both AUTHORITY and CITY agree that each will cooperate and 10 coordinate with the other in all activities covered by this Agreement, and any amendments to this 11 Agreement.
12 ARTICLE 3. RESPONSIBILITIES OF AUTHORITY
13 AUTHORITY agrees to the following responsibilities for PROJECT:
14 A. To be the sponsor and funding agency to manage and administer the contract for 15 PROJECT, which includes preliminary engineering, right of way acquisition, and preparation of 16 CONTRACT DOCUMENTS to be used in the advertisement of a design -build RFP and for the selection 17 of a CONTRACTOR to perform full design -build activities, and other related services, including 18 improvements to CITY FACILITIES which are necessary as part of PROJECT. 19 B. To perform right -of -way acquisition and right -of -way certification for PROJECT, and 20 specifically, for CITY FACILITIES, if necessary.
21 C. To include within the CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, in regards to CITY FACILITIES, design 22 criteria which meets acceptable CITY standards in existence at the time the design -build RFP is released. 23 D. To coordinate with CITY during the development of the CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, and 24 afford the CITY the opportunity to review, and comment on the CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, in regards 25 to CITY FACILITIES, prior to the release of the RFP for PROJECT, and in accordance with the terms of 26 this Agreement.
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. C -6 -1126
1 E. To coordinate with CITY regarding review times to be included in CONTRACT 2 DOCUMENTS. The review times will be applicable to the design and construction of PROJECT in 3 regards to CITY FACILITIES. AUTHORITY will hold Joint Resolution Meetings (JRT) with CITY to resolve 4 CITY comments and obtain approvals, if applicable.
5 F. To coordinate the procurement, and design and construction of PROJECT with the CITY, 6 and hold regular technical and partnering meetings to brief the CITY on the status of PROJECT, solicit 7 input, and provide a forum to discuss and resolve PROJECT issues which impact the CITY. 8 G. To comply with all requirements of the Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental 9 Impact Statement ( FEIR/FEIS) for the PROJECT, including but not limited to the preparation and 10 processing of, as well as any and all supplemental environmental documents, including those required 11 for CITY FACILITY improvements for PROJECT,
12 H. If AUTHORITY encounters hazardous, archeological, paleontological, cultural, or other 13 protected materials and /or species within any existing or future CITY -owned right -of -way for the CITY 14 FACILITIES, AUTHORITY shall notify the CITY and responsible control agencies of such discovery. 15 I. The costs for any remediation or protection for Article 3, Paragraph H, shall be covered 16 as a PROJECT cost, provided that AUTHORITY may seek reimbursement from other third parties which 17 may be jointly or severally liable for such removal or protection. 18 J. To protect in place, rearrange or relocate after CITY consultation and concurrence, CITY 19 owned public utility facilities found to be in conflict with PROJECT. All conditions of this clause shall be 20 subject to utility agreements which are separate from, and outside of this Agreement. 21 K. To secure and comply with any and all other governmental and /or regulatory approvals, 22 permits and /or clearances required for the design and construction of CITY FACILITIES included in 23 PROJECT.
24 L. In the event CITY requests additional improvements, they shall be evaluated and 25 processed in accordance with Article 4, Paragraph L, of this Agreement. 26 M. To implement a Quality Management Plan during all phases of PROJECT.
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. C -6 -1126
1 N. To monitor all PROJECT activities to ensure compliance with the approved PROJECT 2 schedule, quality and budget goals of PROJECT.
3 O. To obtain concurrence for permanent easements, if required, for CITY FACILITIES. 4 P. To facilitate discussion between CITY, local agencies, and others regarding resolution of 5 ownership, operation, and maintenance of CITY FACILITIES. 6 Q. To coordinate with CALTRANS and CITY for preparation and execution of Maintenance 7 Agreements.
8 R. To convey to CITY ownership of any property acquired by AUTHORITY for PROJECT, 9 and which is necessary for CITY FACILITIES upon completion of the CITY FACILITIES, and title to such 10 right -of -way having been acquired by AUTHORITY. Conveyance of such property to the CITY shall be 11 completed through an executed Property Transfer Agreement with AUTHORITY. AUTHORITY shall 12 convey such property in a condition acceptable to the CITY and in accordance with CALTRANS' Right of 13 Way Manual.
14 S. To require CONTRACTOR to submit to CITY for review and approval, including but not 15 limited to, plans, specifications, and other pertinent engineering plans, and reports, for CITY FACILITIES 16 prior to construction thereof. During construction, CITY may provide construction oversight inspection 17 services. Such reviews and approvals, and construction oversight inspection services (CITY SERVICES) 18 shall be in accordance with the CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, and reimbursable to CITY by this 19 Agreement.
20 T. To require CONTRACTOR to prepare a TMP, and submit to CITY for review, comment, 21 and acceptance, in regards to construction related impacts to CITY. The TMP will address construction - 22 related impacts to existing CITY street traffic, and will include normal traffic handling requirements during 23 PROJECT construction including staging, lane closures, re- striping, detours, and signalization, and will 24 specify requirements for communicating with the public and local agencies during construction. 25 Modifications to streets, intersections, signals, etc., required to address traffic impacts during construction 26 will be borne as a PROJECT cost. Such review and acceptance of TMP (CITY SERVICES) shall be in
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. C -6 -1126
1 accordance with the CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, and reimbursable to CITY by this Agreement. 2 U. To obtain a written acceptance of TMP from CITY.
3 V. To reimburse the CITY for its actual costs for traffic engineering services ( including 4 staff overhead and third party traffic signal maintenance service costs contracted out by CITY), and 5 police services ( including overtime costs). Ongoing deployment of police services related to 6 PROJECT traffic management will require prior approval by AUTHORITY. Such traffic engineering, 7 and police services ( CITY SERVICES) shall be in accordance with the CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, 8 and reimbursable to CITY by this Agreement.
9 W. To monitor and ensure CONTRACTOR compliance with the TMP. 10 X. To work collaboratively with CITY, upon acceptance of TMP. In the event it is determined 11 that there are impacts to CITY streets, AUTHORITY shall prepare an established and approved visual 12 pavement study to evaluate the pre- detour conditions, and forecasted impacts to the CITY street 13 pavement used for signed, long -term freeway detours, and alternate route detours based on the period 14 of construction within the CITY limits. As the result of the study, and as agreed to by Parties, AUTHORITY 15 will reimburse CITY the exact amount of the agreed -to mitigation costs for the reduction of pavement life 16 for the detour routes, via an amendment to this Agreement. The dollar amount of pavement mitigation 17 ( CITY SERVICES) shall be a one -time, lump sum maximum reimbursement amount, and no further 18 payment will be made toward the mitigation costs described herein. 19 Y. To require CONTRACTOR to repair street pavements sidewalks, curbs, driveways, 20 gutters and other CITY FACILITIES that receive damage as a result of construction. CONTRACTOR will 21 be required to adhere to CITY' s requirements for removal and replacement of pavement in accordance 22 with the CONTRACT DOCUMENTS and this Agreement.
23 Z. To require CONTRACTOR to obtain a no fee encroachment permit from CITY prior to 24 commencing construction of PROJECT. Provided all conditions of such permit have been fulfilled, the 25 permits shall authorize CONTRACTOR to commence work within CITY right -of -way, or areas which affect 26 CITY FACILITIES.
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. C -6 -1126
1 AA. To monitor and ensure CONTRACTOR compliance with CITY' s permit. 2 BB. To implement a Public Awareness Campaign during PROJECT that advises CITY, local 3 businesses, residents, elected officials, motorists, and media, of construction status, street detours, and 4 ramp and freeway closures, if and where applicable.
5 CC. To provide PROJECT closeout activities, including walk- through, punch list, final payment 6 accounting, and furnish approved "As- builts" to CITY for CITY FACILITIES. 7 DD. To develop a record of survey, final maps, and all necessary title transfers relative to 8 PROJECT.
9 EE. To reimburse CITY for combined costs identified as " CITY SERVICES ", and in 10 accordance with attached SCHEDULE A, " REIMBURSEMENT SCHEDULE FOR COMBINED CITY 11 SERVICES."
12 FF. To reimburse CITY for actual costs, within 30 days of an acceptable invoice, which is 13 complete, properly prepared and complies with the requirements of ARTICLE 5, REQUEST FOR 14 REIMBURSEMENT, below.
15 GG. AUTHORITY's reimbursement for CITY SERVICES will not exceed the combined 16 maximum amount shown on SCHEDULE A.
17 HH. To perform all work associated with the PROJECT at no cost to the CITY, unless 18 specifically provided otherwise herein or in any amendment to this Agreement. 19 II. To cause all contractors and vendors who perform work or provide supplies for CITY 20 FACILITIES to name the CITY, its officers, agents, and employees, as an additional insured on policies 21 which the AUTHORITY is an additional insured and, prior to the commencement of work, provide 22 certificates of insurance to CITY showing the CITY as an additional insured. 23 ARTICLE 4. RESPONSIBILITIES OF CITY
24 CITY agrees to the following responsibilities for PROJECT:
25 A. To collaborate and cooperate with AUTHORITY during the development of the 26 CONTRACT DOCUMENTS for the RFP, and during the design and construction of PROJECT.
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. C -6 -1126
1 B. To provide CITY SERVICES for PROJECT as agreed by CITY and AUTHORITY. 2 C. To review, and provide comment on, in a timely manner, and in accordance with the 3 CONTRACT DOCUMENTS and this Agreement, all plans and other submittals related to PROJECT, and 4 approve and /or concur with AUTHORITY or CONTRACTOR' s submittals when CITY determines such 5 submittals comply with CITY's standards and criteria to facilitate AUTHORITY' s delivery of PROJECT. 6 D. To make available to AUTHORITY all necessary CITY regulations, policies, procedures, 7 manuals, standard plans, and specifications required for the construction of PROJECT when requested 8 by AUTHORITY.
9 E. To attend and participate in the PROJECTSs regular technical and partnering meetings for 10 AUTHORITY to brief CITY on the status of PROJECT, and to provide a forum to discuss and to resolve 11 CITY' s concerns and issues.
12 F. Upon award of a design -build contract by AUTHORITY, to make reasonable efforts and 13 devote reasonable resources for the issuance of encroachment permits, and other necessary permits, if 14 applicable, to CONTRACTOR at no fee, and upon CONTRACTOR's compliance with permit 15 requirements, to not cause delay to PROJECTS' construction schedule. Such permits shall authorize 16 CONTRACTOR to commence work within CITY right -of -way, or areas which affect CITY FACILITIES. 17 G. To make necessary efforts to coordinate and cooperate with AUTHORITY, its agents, and 18 contractors, to meet or exceed design -build schedule criteria as identified by AUTHORITY. 19 H. To waive any moratorium on the excavation or trenching work on CITY streets that were 20 recently resurfaced where such excavation or trenching are necessary for PROJECT. CONTRACTOR 21 will be required to adhere to CITY' s requirements for the removal and replacement of pavement in 22 accordance with the CONTRACT DOCUMENTS and this Agreement. 23 I. To cooperate with AUTHORITY and use its best efforts to cause the rearrangement or 24 relocation of all municipal and public utility facilities, in accordance with applicable State or local franchises 25 or laws, that may be determined by AUTHORITY and CITY to be within CITY' s jurisdiction and pose a 26 conflict with the PROJECT. CITY hereby agrees to exercise and invoke its rights under any applicable
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 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. C -6 -1126
State or local franchises or laws, or any prior rights or superior rights the CITY may have to effectuate such rearrangement or relocation at the expense of the affected public utility as necessary to allow completion of PROJECT. CITY shall cooperate with AUTHORITY and provide all appropriate and necessary support to achieve this result. In the event the public utility fails to make the rearrangement or relocation or fails to agree to make the rearrangement or relocation in a timely manner, CITY shall assign to AUTHORITY its rights to rearrange or relocate said public utility under State law, or the pertinent agreement or recorded instrument that CITY has with the public utility. CITY shall cooperate with the AUTHORITY, provide assistance to the AUTHORITY as needed, and join with the AUTHORITY as a party in the prosecution or defense of the CITY' s and the AUTHORITY' s rights under the laws of the State of California to cause such rearrangements or relocations. Wherever possible, any rearrangement or relocation of a public utility shall be made to an area covered by State or local franchises or laws. All conditions of this clause shall be subject to utility agreements which are separate from and outside of this Agreement.
J. To agree to take ownership of property acquired by AUTHORITY for PROJECT, and which is necessary for CITY FACILITIES upon completion of the CITY FACILITIES, and title to such right - of -way having been acquired by AUTHORITY. Conveyance of such property to the CITY shall be completed through an executed Property Transfer Agreement with AUTHORITY. AUTHORITY shall convey such property in a condition acceptable to CITY and in accordance with CALTRANS Right of Way Manual.
K. To accept operation and maintenance of the CITY FACILITIES, or portion thereof, upon their acceptance by AUTHORITY, and based upon the AUTHORITY's written certification that the AUTHORITY has complied with all terms of the Agreement. The acceptance of the CITY FACILITIES and written certification shall not unreasonably be withheld. CITY acknowledges that CITY FACILITIES may be completed at different times and accepted in different stages of PROJECT.
L. In the event CITY requests additional CITY FACILITY improvements to be incorporated into PROJECT after release of the RFP, CITY shall be solely responsible for all costs and expenses
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. C -6 -1126
1 related thereto, including: 1) the costs incurred to incorporate the improvements into the PROJECT' s 2 scope of work; 2) additional design, construction and oversight costs arising from or associated with 3 the improvements, including change orders related thereto; 3) additional operations and maintenance 4 costs arising from or associated with the improvements, including change orders related thereto; and 5 4) costs associated with any impact on the design and construction schedule associated with the 6 improvements, including any associated PROJECT delay costs and damages. This is not intended 7 to eliminate mitigations for required PROJECT changes identified during construction. 8 AUTHORITY, at its sole discretion, may agree to incorporate such CITY FACILITY improvements, 9 via an amendment to this Agreement, identifying the CITY FACILITY improvements, estimated costs, 10 and funding sources from CITY for these improvements. 11 M. To submit monthly invoices to AUTHORITY for work completed and actual costs incurred 12 by CITY for CITY SERVICES, pursuant to ARTICLE 5. REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT. CITY shall 13 submit final invoice no later than ninety ( 90) days after final acceptance of PROJECT. Any costs in 14 excess of the amounts specified herein shall not be incurred without a written amendment to this 15 Agreement.
16 ARTICLE 5. REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
17 In order for CITY to be reimbursed for incurred costs relative to PROJECT, CITY agrees:
18 A. To prepare and submit to AUTHORITY a monthly invoice with supporting 19 documentation. CITY' s invoice shall include allowable PROJECT costs incurred and paid for by CITY. 20 The invoice submitted by CITY shall be signed by an authorized agent who can duly certify the 21 accuracy of the included information.
22 B. The invoice shall be submitted on CITY' s letterhead. 23 C. The invoice shall be submitted by CITY, and in duplicate, to AUTHORITY's Accounts 24 Payable Office. Each invoice shall include the following information:
25 1. Agreement Number C- 6 -1126
26 2. The total of PROJECT expenditures shall specify the percent and amount of funds
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. C -6 -1126
1 to be reimbursed, and include support documentation for all expenses invoiced. In the event there are 2 impacts to CITY street pavements, the one -time, lump sum amount for reimbursement of pavement 3 mitigation, will be exclude from this requirement.
4 3. Adequate detail describing all work completed. In the event there is pavement 5 mitigation, this detailed description will not be required. 6 4. Such other information as requested by AUTHORITY.
7 D. To consult with AUTHORITY's PROJECT Manager for questions regarding non - 8 reimbursable expenses.
9 E. That total payments shall not exceed the maximum obligation specified in ARTICLE 7. 10 MAXIMUM OBLIGATION.
11 ARTICLE 6. DELEGATED AUTHORITY
12 The actions required to be taken by CITY in the implementation of this Agreement are delegated 13 to its CITY Public Works Director, or designee, and the actions required to be taken by AUTHORITY in 14 the implementation of this Agreement are delegated to AUTHORITY's Chief Executive Officer or 15 designee.
16 ARTICLE 7. MAXIMUM OBLIGATION
17 Notwithstanding any provisions of this Agreement to the contrary, AUTHORITY and CITY 18 mutually agree that AUTHORITY's maximum cumulative payment obligation hereunder shall be One 19 Hundred Twenty Thousand Six Hundred Dollars ($ 120,600) unless agreed to and amended by both 20 Parties. In the event it is determined that pavement mitigation is required, AUTHORITY's maximum 21 cumulative obligation for pavement mitigation shall be addressed in a future amendment to this 22 Agreement
23 ARTICLE 8. AUDIT AND INSPECTION
24 AUTHORITY and CITY shall maintain a complete set of records in accordance with generally 25 accepted accounting principles. Upon reasonable notice, CITY shall permit the authorized 26 representatives of the AUTHORITY to inspect and audit all work, materials, payroll, books, accounts, and
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 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. C -6 -1126
other data and records of CITY for a period of four (4) years after final payment, or until any on -going audit is completed. For purposes of audit, the date of completion of this Agreement shall be the date of AUTHORITY' s payment of CITY' s final billing ( so noted on the invoice) under this Agreement.
AUTHORITY shall have the right to reproduce any such books, records, and accounts. The above provision with respect to audits shall extend to and /or be included in contracts with CITY' s contractor or consultant.
ARTICLE 9. INDEMNIFICATION
A. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CITY shall defend (at CITY' s sole cost and expense with legal counsel reasonably acceptable to AUTHORITY), indemnify, protect, and hold harmless AUTHORITY, its officers, directors, employees, and agents ( collectively the "Indemnified Parties "), from Iand against any and all liabilities, actions, suits, claims, demands, losses, costs, judgments, arbitration awards, settlements, damages, demands, orders, penalties, and expenses including legal costs and attorney fees ( collectively "Claims "), including but not limited to Claims arising from injuries to or death of persons (CITY' s employees included), for damage to property, including property owned by AUTHORITY, or from any violation of any federal, state, or local law or ordinance, alleged to be caused by the negligent acts, omissions or willful misconduct of CITY, its officers, directors, employees or agents in connection with or arising out of the performance of this Agreement.
B. To the fullest extent permitted by law, AUTHORITY shall defend (at AUTHORITY' s sole cost and expense with legal counsel reasonably acceptable to CITY), indemnify, protect, and hold harmless CITY, its officers, directors, employees, and agents (collectively the "Indemnified Parties'), from and against any and all liabilities, actions, suits, claims, demands, losses, costs, judgments, arbitration awards, settlements, damages, demands, orders, penalties, and expenses including legal costs and attorney fees (collectively "Claims "), including but not limited to Claims arising from injuries to or death of persons (AUTHORITY' s employees included), for damage to property, including property owned by CITY, or from any violation of any federal, state, or local law or ordinance, alleged to be caused by the negligent acts, omissions or willful misconduct of AUTHORITY, its officers, directors, employees or agents in
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
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. C -6 -1126
connection with or arising out of the performance of this Agreement.
C. The indemnification and defense obligations of this Agreement shall survive its expiration or termination.
ARTICLE 10. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS
A. Term of Agreement: The term of this Agreement shall be in full force and effect through April 30, 2023.
B. Termination: In the event either Party defaults in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement or breaches any of the provisions of this Agreement, the non - defaulting Party shall provide written notice to the defaulting Party to cure such default within 30 days of such default. If the default cannot be cured within such time, as determined by the non - defaulting Party, then the defaulting Party shall have such additional time as provided in the written notice or such time as the Parties may otherwise agree in writing. In any event, the non - defaulting Party shall promptly take such actions as are reasonably necessary to cure the default. If the default or breach is material and not cured within the time provided herein, either Party has the option, in addition to any other remedies available at law, to terminate this Agreement upon thirty (30) days' prior written notice to the other Party.
C. Compliance with All Laws: AUTHORITY and CITY shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, statues, ordinances and regulations of any governmental authority having jurisdiction over the PROJECT.
D. Legal Authority: AUTHORITY and CITY hereto warrants that the persons executing this Agreement are authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of said Parties and that by so executing this Agreement, the Parties hereto are formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement.
E. Severability: If any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement is held to be invalid, void or otherwise unenforceable, to any extent, by any court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby, and each term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law.
F. Counterparts of Agreement: This Agreement may be executed and delivered in any
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
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. C -6 -1126
number of counterparts, each of which, when executed and delivered shall be deemed an original and all of which together shall constitute the same agreement. Facsimile signatures will be permitted.
G. Force Maleure: Either Party shall be excused from performing its obligations under this Agreement during the time and to the extent that it is prevented from performing by an unforeseeable cause beyond its control, including but not limited to; any incidence of fire, flood; acts of God; commandeering of material, products, plants or facilities by the federal, state or local government; national fuel shortage; or a material act or omission by the other Party; when satisfactory evidence of such cause is presented to the other Party, and provided further that such nonperformance is unforeseeable, beyond the control and is not due to the fault or negligence of the Party not performing.
H. Assignment: Neither this Agreement, nor any of the Parties' rights, obligations, duties, or authority hereunder may be assigned in whole or in part by either Party without the prior written consent of the other Party in its sole and absolute discretion. Any such attempt of assignment shall be deemed void and of no force and effect. Consent to one assignment shall not be deemed consent to any subsequent assignment, nor the waiver of any right to consent to such subsequent assignment.
I. Governing Law: The laws of the State of California and applicable local and federal laws, regulations and guidelines shall govern this Agreement.
J. Litigation fees: In the event that either Party to this Agreement shall commence any legal or equitable action to enforce or interpret this Agreement, the prevailing Party shall be entitled to recover its costs of suit, including reasonable costs and attorney' s fees as determined by the court.
K. Notices: Any notices, requests, or demands made between the Parties pursuant to this Agreement are to be directed as follows:
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
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. C -6 -1126
To CITY: _': To AUTHORITY
City of Seal Beach Orange County Transportation Authority Public Works Department 550 South Main Street
211 Eighth Street P.O. Box 14184
Seal Beach, CA 90740 Orange, CA 92863 -1584
Attention: Jim Basham Attention: Ms. Reem Hashem
Interim Director of Public Works Principal Contract Administrator Tel: ( 562) 431 -2527, ext. 1313 Tel: ( 714) 560 -5446
Email: jbasham @sealbeachca. gov Email: rhashem@octa. net
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 pm
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. C -6 -1126
This Agreement shall be made effective upon execution by both Parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement No. C -6 -1126 to be executed on the date first above written.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY By:
vkluj &"
Sandra Massa -Lavitt
OaY''—r. :
Darrell Joh s
Mayor Chief Exec rve Officer
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
In Roberts
Clerk
c
Jim Basham v
Interim Public Works Director
APPROVE AS TO ORM
By:
Steele
City Attorney
General Counsel
APPROVAL RECOMME
0 P. E. '
Director, Capital Programs
Dated: Dated: 4
Attachment:
Schedule A - Reimbursement Schedule for Combined City Services
NW
U_
Wof
ic
W
J
0 W
2 2
U
Q
w
00 J
Q
U) w
LL
O
a
C
a)
d
al O'
Q
E
C
m
fA
LO
EA
N
fA
m
H Nto
a
N w
N •
Lr
c W
m >
o > d
C Cp m
NC_
O) N
W
c
N
a
O D
X
E Q
Q) U
G C J
o Q
v
L F0 O
V oc co
F
Na) a7 U
O
N a)
m
3) a W
4) N > C U F
i O J
N
E
Q O
cr acF E U) m
C C p O
U
p
O N O
C1 E a m dN
O a) al O
o
O
C
C N O) UC
CL 0 0
CL U Z a) No
O)
@ a) N U
a F O N n
N U U a E
N
CL
U N
a a) F aO d6
ZO r N M V
wa)
O O
CJ U 0
E
7 Z f6
c O O =
E
cu
cm CJo
o a) o
o
m
Y .._, a 7
3 y C: X
E x
0 a) c c
E > -- o
m 3 D a
O L (1)
LU L c
0003E O L
U C C O =
N O E
n3 N Q
N
U o L, o
L
c
o3a)aai
0) °
aEi co a
N tic ) N
N ° cu
7p O d' f CO toC6
O E m o
D a) E5-< E
E j O C E
N
L O > L
Q) CL
cn o m o
o E
a
a) ' O C
E U C ( 0
5 N a) Owl
3 o U c
N y N
Q E u) c Q N
O O LLI Q) >' m
7 U > Q
Q > a) a) . N
U N W. L- IL.L -
U) : c W c N o
N
0N
a
H
V
O
Agenda Item H
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
DATE: May 27, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
THRU: Patrick Gallegos, Interim City Manager
FROM: Iris Lee, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Application for Grant Funds Under the Environmental Cleanup Program Tier 1 Grant Program, 2025 Call for
Projects
________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
That the City Council adopt Resolution 7649:
1. Authorizing the Interim City Manager to submit an application for grant funds under the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Environmental Cleanup Program (ECP) Tier 1 Grant Program (Tier 1), 2025 Call for Projects for the 5th Street at Electric Avenue Stormwater Treatment Project (Bridgeport), and to accept any grant funds awarded for the Project; and,
2. Authorizing the City to fund its share of the project costs and any additional costs over the identified programmed amount; and,
3. Authorizing the Interim City Manager, or designee, as agent to conduct all negotiations, and to execute and submit all documents on behalf of the City of Seal Beach, including, but not limited to applications, forms, agreements, and payment requests, which may be necessary to submit and secure the 2025 ECP Tier 1 grant, the City’s obligations related thereto, and all amendments thereto for the Project.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:
1. State Water Resources Control Board Trash Amendments On April 7, 2015, the State Water Resources Control Board adopted an Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California (Ocean Plan) to Control Trash and Part 1 Trash Provision of the Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries (ISWEBE Plan). Together, the Ocean Plan and the ISWEBE Plan are collectively referred to as the “Trash Amendments”.
The Statewide Trash Amendments require that cities install, operate, and maintain full capture systems located in Priority Land Uses including high-density residential, industrial, commercial, mixed urban, public transportation, and effectively capture 100 percent (100%) of trash generated. The Trash Provisions apply to cities in California not already under a Trash Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). Cities were given the choice of choosing one of two tracks towards compliance.
In August 2017, the City submitted a letter to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board committing to Track 1, which dictates the City to install, operate, and maintain full capture systems in the Priority Land Uses within ten (10) years from the start date of the program. Furthermore, the City is required to demonstrate achievement of average load reductions of ten percent (10%) per year or other progress to full implementation.
2. Overview of Environmental Cleanup Program Tier 1 Grant Program On July 24, 2006, the OCTA’s ECP was approved under Ordinance No. 3 (Ordinance). The Ordinance provides two percent (2%) of gross Measure M2 revenue dedicated to protecting Orange County beaches and waterways from the conveyance of urban runoff associated with transportation-generated pollution.
3. Environmental Cleanup Program Tier 1 Call for Projects On March 10, 2025, OCTA released the ECP Tier 1, 2025 Call for Projects. ECP Tier 1 provides grant funds to local agencies to reduce transportation-related water quality pollution by meeting Clean Water Act standards for local waterways and beaches. The ECP Tier 1 is designed to mitigate the more visible forms of pollutants, such as litter and debris, which collect on the roadways, catch basins and storm drains before being deposited in waterways and the ocean.
Approximately $3.5 million is to be allocated to approved projects for the 2025 Call for Projects. The maximum fund that a project can receive is $600,000. A local minimum match of 20 percent (20%) must be provided as cash contributions.
4. Eligible Projects
Projects that support compliance with the 2015 adopted Trash Provisions are eligible for ECP Tier 1 funding, provided the funds would not replace established and programmed funds and the funds are not applied to any mandated project design features or required mitigation measures. Projects eligible for ECP Tier 1 include equipment purchases and installation of best management practices (BMPs). Water quality projects, regardless of technology, are eligible for ECP Tier 1 funding provided they have a verifiable benefit to water quality and fall within the maximum per project programming cap.
5. Proposed Project
To apply for the ECP Tier 1, the applicant must be one of the thirty-five (35) Orange County agencies per the M2 Ordinance and must fulfill an annual eligibility process. OCTA established this process to ensure that improvements are consistent with regional plans. The City of Seal Beach is an eligible applicant for these grant funds. In the past, the City has been successful in securing grant funds for the ECP Tier 1.
The Project proposes to install a hydrodynamic trash separator at 5th Street at Electric Avenue (Bridgeport). The Project proposes a similar cyclonic separation technology as the 2024 ECP funded project at the vicinity of Galleon Way north of Electric Avenue. These flow-through devices are more ideal for certain flood-prone Priority Land Use areas to remove trash and other pollutants.
6. History of Successful Grant Applications and Awards
The City was successful in securing ECP Tier 1 grant funds, with the most recent award under the 2024 Call for Projects.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
This project complies with all requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is categorically exempt under Section 15301 Class 1 Subsection (c).
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the resolution as to form.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The total project cost, including design, construction, contingency and contract inspection, is estimated to be $863,188. With the maximum grant of $600,000, the City will provide approximately 30 percent (30%) in matching funds at $263,188.
Grant application preparation in the amount of $13,936 has been expensed from the FY 2024-2025 Streets Maintenance account. Matching fund options will be presented if the City is awarded grant funds from the ECP Tier 1, 2025 Call for Projects.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
This item is not applicable to the Strategic Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council adopt Resolution 7649:
1. Authorizing the Interim City Manager to submit an application for grant funds under the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Environmental Cleanup Program (ECP) Tier 1 Grant Program (Tier 1), 2025 Call for Projects for the 5th Street at Electric Avenue Stormwater Treatment Project (Bridgeport), and to accept any grant funds awarded for the Project; and,
2. Authorizing the City to fund its share of the project costs and any additional costs over the identified programmed amount; and,
3. Authorizing the Interim City Manager, or designee, as agent to conduct all negotiations, and to execute and submit all documents on behalf of the City of Seal Beach, including, but not limited to applications, forms, agreements, and payment requests, which may be necessary to submit and secure the 2025 ECP Tier 1 grant, the City’s obligations related thereto, and all amendments thereto for the Project.
SUBMITTED BY: NOTED AND APPROVED:
Iris Lee Patrick Gallegos
Iris Lee, Director of Public Works Patrick Gallegos, Interim City Manager Prepared by: Kathryne Cho, Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer ATTACHMENTS:
A. Resolution 7649
RESOLUTION 7649
A RESOLUTION OF THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL
AUTHORIZING AN APPLICATION FOR FUNDS FOR
THE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP PROGRAM, TIER 1
GRANT PROGRAM UNDER ORANGE COUNTY LOCAL
TRANSPORTATION ORDINANCE NO. 3 FOR THE 5TH
STREET AT ELECTRIC AVENUE STORMWATER
TREATMENT PROJECT (BRIDGEPORT)
WHEREAS, Orange County Transportation Agency (OCTA) Local Transportation Ordinance No. 3, dated July 24, 2006, as amended, and known and cited as the Renewed Measure M Transportation Ordinance and Investment Plan, makes funds available through the Environmental Cleanup Program to help protect Orange County beaches and waterways from transportation-generated pollution (urban runoff) and improve overall water quality; and,
WHEREAS, the Environmental Cleanup Program (ECP) Tier 1 Grant Program (Tier 1), 2025 Call for Projects provides grants for funding purchases and installations for catch basins consistent with Best Management Practices, such as screens, filters, inserts, and other "street-scale" low flow diversion projects; and, WHEREAS, OCTA has established the procedures and criteria for evaluating and accepting grant proposals under the ECP Tier 1, 2025 Call for Projects; and, WHEREAS, the City of Seal Beach possesses authority to nominate water quality improvement projects that have a transportation pollution nexus to finance and construct the proposed project; and,
WHEREAS, by this resolution the City Council authorizes the nomination of the 5th Street at Electric Avenue Stormwater Treatment Project (Project), including all understanding and assurances contained therein, and authorizes the person identified as the official representative of the City of Seal Beach to act in connection with the nomination and to provide such additional information as may be required; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Seal Beach will maintain and operate the equipment acquired and installed; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Seal Beach will give OCTA's representatives access to and the right to examine all records, books, papers or documents related to the funded ECP Tier 1 Project; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Seal Beach will cause work on the Project to be commenced within a reasonable time after receipt of notification from OCTA and that the Project will be carried to completion with reasonable diligence; and, WHEREAS, the City of Seal Beach will comply where applicable with provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the American with Disabilities Act, and any other federal, state, and/or local laws, rules and/or regulations; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Seal Beach must include all projects funded by Net Revenues in the seven-year Capital Improvement Program as part of the Renewed Measure M Ordinance eligibility requirement; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Seal Beach authorizes a formal amendment to the sevenyear Capital Improvement Program to add projects approved for funding upon approval from the Orange County Transportation Authority Board of Directors; and, WHEREAS, the City of Seal Beach will provide a minimum of 20% in matching funds for the 5th Street at Electric Avenue Stormwater Treatment Project (Bridgeport) as required by the Orange County Comprehensive Transportation Funding Program Guidelines.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY RESOLVE:
Section 1. All of the foregoing recitals are hereby incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 2. The City Council hereby authorizes the Interim City Manager as the official representative of the City of Seal Beach to apply for and accept grant funds under the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Environmental Cleanup Program (ECP) Tier 1 Grant Program (Tier 1), 2025 Call for Projects for the 5th Street at Electric Avenue Stormwater Treatment Project (Bridgeport).
Section 3. The City Council hereby agrees to fund its share of the project costs and any additional costs over the identified programmed amount.
Section 4. The City Council hereby authorizes the Interim City Manager, or designee, as agent to conduct all negotiations, and to execute and submit all documents on behalf of the City of Seal Beach, including, but not limited to applications, forms, agreements, and payment requests, which may be necessary to submit and secure the ECP Tier 1, 2025 grant, the City’s obligations related thereto, and all amendments thereto for the Project.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Seal Beach City Council at a regular meeting held on the 27th day of May 2025 by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members
NOES: Council Members
ABSENT: Council Members
ABSTAIN: Council Members
Lisa Landau, Mayor
ATTEST:
Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF ORANGE }
CITY OF SEAL BEACH }
I, Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is the original copy of Resolution 7649 on file in the office of the City Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting held on the 27th day of May 2025.
Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk
Agenda Item I
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
DATE: May 27, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
THRU: Patrick Gallegos, Interim City Manager
FROM: Barbara Arenado, Director of Finance/City Treasurer SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2025-26 Statement of Investment Policy and Delegation of Authority
________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
That the City Council adopt Resolution 7650 approving the FY 2025-26 Statement of Investment Policy and Delegation of Authority to the Director of Finance/City Treasurer.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:
As a best practice, the Statement of Investment Policy (Policy) should be reviewed and approved by the City Council on an annual basis. Additionally, there is a requirement in the Government Code for the delegation of authority by the City Council to the Director of Finance/City Treasurer to occur annually. To ensure that this annual requirement occurs, the Policy will need to be brought before the City Council each year, regardless of whether there are any proposed changes to the Policy.
PFM, the City’s Investment Management consultants, has reviewed the current Statement of Investment Policy for compliance with the California Government Codes that regulate the investment of public funds, and there are no recommended changes at this time. Therefore, we are requesting approval to reaffirm the existing policy for Fiscal Year 2025-26.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
There is no environmental impact related to this item.
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
The City Attorney has reviewed the Statement of Investment Policy to confirm the compliance with the various government codes.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no financial impact for this item.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
This item is not applicable to the Strategic Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council adopt Resolution 7650 approving the Fiscal Year 2025-26 Statement of Investment Policy and Delegation of Authority to the Director of Finance/City Treasurer.
SUBMITTED BY: NOTED AND APPROVED:
Barbara Arenado Patrick Gallegos
Barbara Arenado, Director of
Finance/City Treasurer
Patrick Gallegos, Interim City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Resolution 7650
B. Exhibit A - FY 2025-26 Statement of Investment Policy C. PFM Asset Management 2025 Investment Policy Review Memorandum RESOLUTION 7650
A RESOLUTION OF THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL
APPROVING THE STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY AND
ANNUAL DELEGATION OF INVESTMENT AUTHORITY TO THE
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE/CITY TREASURER
THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY RESOLVE:
Section 1. The City Council hereby approves the Fiscal Year 2025-26 Statement of Investment Policy as stated in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 2. The City Council hereby reauthorizes the delegation of its investment authority and the management of the investment program to the Director of Finance/City Treasurer for a period of one year following the date this Resolution is adopted.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the Seal Beach City Council at a regular meeting held on the 27th day of May 2025 by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members
NOES: Council Members
ABSENT: Council Members
ABSTAIN: Council Members
Lisa Landau, Mayor
ATTEST:
Gloria Harper, City Clerk
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF ORANGE }
CITY OF SEAL BEACH }
I, Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is the original copy of Resolution 7650 on file in the office of the City Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the Seal Beach City Council at a regular meeting held on the 27th day of May 2025.
Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk
EXHIBIT A
1 CITY OF SEAL BEACH
Statement of Investment Policy
SECTION 1 – POLICY
This Statement of Investment Policy is intended to identify the policies for prudent investment of temporarily idle funds of the City of Seal Beach (the “City”) by providing guidelines for suitable investments while maximizing the efficiency of the City’s Cash Management Program.
The City’s Cash Management Program is designed to accurately monitor and forecast expenditures and revenues, thus enabling the investment of funds to the fullest extent possible.
The investment policies and practices of the City of Seal Beach are based upon state law and prudent money management. All funds will be invested in accordance with California Government Code Sections 53601 et seq. and the City’s Investment Policy.
SECTION 2 – SCOPE
The Investment Policy applies to all funds and investment activities of the City except the investment of bond proceeds, which are governed by the appropriate bond documents, and any pension or other post-employment benefit funds held in a trust.
SECTION 3 – PRUDENCE
The standard of prudence to be used by investment officials will be the “prudent investor” standard, which states that, “when investing, reinvesting, purchasing, acquiring, exchanging, selling, or managing public funds, a trustee shall act with care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing, including, but not limited to, the general economic conditions and the anticipated needs of the agency, that a prudent person acting in a like capacity and familiarity with those matters would use in the conduct of funds of a like character and with like aims, to safeguard the principal and maintain the liquidity needs of the agency.”
EXHIBIT A
2 SECTION 4 – OBJECTIVES
The primary objectives, in priority order, of the investment activities of the City are:
1. SAFETY – Safety of principal is the foremost objective of the City of Seal Beach.
2. LIQUIDITY – The City’s portfolio will remain sufficiently liquid to enable the City to meet its cash flow requirements. It is important that the portfolio contain investments which provide the ability of being easily sold at any time with minimal risk of loss of principal or interest.
3. YIELD – The City’s portfolio will be designed to attain a market rate of return through economic cycles consistent with the constraints imposed by its safety objective and cash flow considerations.
SECTION 5 – DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 53607, the City Council has delegated its investment authority and the management responsibility for the investment program to the Director of Finance/City Treasurer for a period of one year concurrently with the City Council’s adoption of this Investment Policy. This delegation of investment authority is subject to review and annual renewal by the City Council in its discretion, which annual renewal may be made by the City Council in connection with its annual budget adoption or an amendment to this Investment Policy, or at such other time as appropriate and convenient. The Director of Finance/City Treasurer will monitor and review all investments for consistency with this Investment Policy. The Director of Finance/City Treasurer may grant investment decision making and execution authority to an investment advisor, provided that the Director of Finance/City Treasurer exercises prudence in the selection of the investment advisor, imposes suitable safeguards to prevent abuse in the exercise of discretion by the investment advisor, and remains responsible for any investment decisions made by the investment advisor. The advisor will follow the Investment Policy and such other written instructions as are provided.
SECTION 6 – INVESTMENT PROCEDURES
The Director of Finance/City Treasurer will establish investment procedures for the operation of the City’s investment program.
SECTION 7 – ETHICS AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Officers and employees involved in the investment process will refrain from personal business activities that could conflict with proper execution of the investment program, or which could impair their ability to make impartial decisions.
EXHIBIT A
3 SECTION 8 – AUTHORIZED FINANCIAL DEALERS AND INSTITUTIONS If the City is executing transactions on its own behalf, other than those executed directly with issuer, the Director of Finance/City Treasurer will maintain a list of financial dealers and institutions qualified and authorized to transact business with the City.
In accordance with California Government Code Section 53601.5, the purchase by the City of any investment other than those purchased directly from the issuer, will be purchased either from an institution licensed by the State as a broker-dealer, as defined in Section 25004 of the Corporations Code, which is a member of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), or a member of a federally regulated securities exchange, a national or state chartered bank, a federal or state association (as defined by Section 5102 of the Financial Code), or a brokerage firm designated as a Primary Government Dealer by the Federal Reserve Bank.
The Director of Finance/City Treasurer will investigate all institutions that wish to do business with the City, to determine if they are adequately capitalized, make markets in securities appropriate for the City’s needs, and agree to abide by the conditions set forth in the City of Seal Beach’s Investment Policy and any other guidelines that may be provided. This will be done annually by having the financial institutions:
1. Provide written notification that they have read, and will abide by, the City’s Investment Policy.
2. Submit their most recent audited Financial Statement within 120 days of the institution’s fiscal year end.
If the City has an investment advisor, the investment advisor may use its own list of authorized broker/dealers to conduct transactions on behalf of the City, provided that the broker/dealer meets the requirements of the second paragraph, above, in this Section 8.
Purchase and sale of securities will be made on the basis of competitive bids and offers with a minimum of three quotes being obtained.
SECTION 9 – AUTHORIZED AND SUITABLE INVESTMENTS
Where this section specifies a percentage limitation for a particular security type, that percentage is applicable only on the date of purchase. Credit criteria listed in this section refers to the credit rating at the time the security is purchased. If an investment’s credit rating falls below the minimum rating required at the time of purchase, the Director of Finance/City Treasurer will perform a timely review and decide whether to sell or hold the investment.
The City will limit investments in any one non-government issuer, except investment pools, to no more than 5% regardless of security type.
EXHIBIT A
4 1. U.S. Treasury obligations for which the full faith and credit of the United States are pledged for the payment of principal and interest.
2. Federal agency or United States government-sponsored enterprise obligations, participations, or other instruments, including those issued by or fully guaranteed as to principal and interest by federal agencies or United States government-sponsored enterprises. This will include any mortgage pass through security issued and guaranteed by a Federal Agency with a maximum final maturity of five years. Purchase of Federal Agency issued mortgage-backed securities authorized by this subdivision may not exceed 20% of the City's investment portfolio; portfolio concentration for all other investments in Federal Agency securities is unrestricted.
3. Obligations of the State of California or any local agency within the state, including bonds payable solely out of revenues from a revenue producing property owned, controlled or operated by the state or any local agency, or by a department, board, agency or authority of the state or any local agency.
4. Registered treasury notes or bonds of any of the other 49 states in addition to California, including bonds payable solely out of the revenues from a revenue-producing property owned, controlled, or operated by a state, or by a department, board, agency, or authority of any of these states.
5. Bankers’ Acceptances with a rating of the highest ranking or highest letter and number rating as provided for by a nationally recognized statistical-rating organization (NRSRO). Purchases of bankers’ acceptances may not exceed 180 days. No more than 40% of the City’s portfolio may be invested in bankers’ acceptances.
6. Commercial Paper of “prime” quality of the highest ranking or of the highest letter and number rating as provided for by a NRSRO. The entity that issues the commercial paper must meet all of the following conditions in either paragraph a or paragraph b:
a. The entity meets the following criteria: (i) is organized and operating in the United States as a general corporation, (ii) has total assets in excess of five hundred million dollars ($500,000,000), and (iii) has debt other than commercial paper, if any, that is rated in a rating category of “A” or higher, or the equivalent, by a NRSRO.
b. The entity meets the following criteria: (i) is organized within the United States as a special purpose corporation, trust, or limited liability company, (ii) has program-wide credit enhancements including, but not limited to, over collateralization, letters of credit, or surety bond, and (iii) has commercial paper that is rated in a rating category of “A-1” or higher, or the equivalent, by a NRSRO.
EXHIBIT A
5 Eligible commercial paper will have a maximum maturity of 270 days or less. No more than 25% of the City’s portfolio may be invested in commercial paper. The City may purchase no more than 10% of the outstanding commercial paper of any single issuer.
7. Non-negotiable Certificates of Deposit (time CDs) in a state or national bank, savings association or federal association, or federal or state credit union with a branch in the State of California. In accordance with California Government Code Section 53635.2, to be eligible to receive City deposits, a financial institution will have received an overall rating of not less than “satisfactory” in its most recent evaluation, pursuant to the federal Community Reinvestment Act, by the appropriate federal financial supervisory agency of its record of meeting the credit needs of California’s communities. Time CDs are required to be collateralized as specified under Government Code Section 53630 et seq. The City, at its discretion, may waive the collateralization requirements for any portion that is covered by federal deposit insurance. The City will have a signed agreement with any depository accepting City funds per Government Code Section 53649. No deposits will be made at any time in time CDs issued by a state or federal credit union if a member of the City Council or the Director of Finance/City Treasurer serves on the board of directors or any committee appointed by the board of directors of the credit union. In accordance with Government Code Section 53638, any deposit will not exceed that total shareholder’s equity of any depository bank, nor will the deposit exceed the total net worth of any institution.
8. Negotiable Certificates of Deposit issued by a nationally or state-chartered bank, a savings association or a federal association (as defined by Section 5102 of the Financial Code), a state or federal credit union, or by a federally- or statelicensed branch of a foreign bank. No more than 30% of the City’s portfolio may be invested in negotiable CDs.
9. Medium-Term Notes issued by corporations organized and operating within the United States or by depository institutions licensed by the U.S. or any state and operating within the U.S. Medium-term corporate notes will be rated in a rating category “A” or its equivalent or better by a NRSRO. No more than 30% of the City’s portfolio may be invested in medium-term notes.
10.Shares of beneficial interest issued by diversified management companies that are money market funds registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. Sec. 80a-1, et seq.). To be eligible for investment pursuant to this subdivision these companies will either: (i) attain the highest ranking letter or numerical rating provided by at least two NRSROs or (ii) have retained an investment advisor registered or exempt from registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission with not less than five years of experience managing money market mutual funds and with assets under management in excess of $500,000,000. In
EXHIBIT A
6 addition, an eligible money market fund must maintain a stable net asset value (NAV). No more than 20% of the City’s investment portfolio may be invested in money market funds.
11.State of California’s Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) an investment pool run by the State Treasurer. The City can invest up to the maximum amount permitted by the State Treasurer.
12.Shares of beneficial interest issued by a joint powers authority (Local Government Investment Pools) organized pursuant to Government Code Section 6509.7 that invests in the securities and obligations authorized in subdivisions (a) to (q) of California Government Code Section 53601, inclusive. Each share will represent an equal proportional interest in the underlying pool of securities owned by the joint powers authority. The Pool will be rated in a rating category “AAA” or its equivalent by a NRSRO. To be eligible under this section, the joint powers authority issuing the shares will have retained an investment adviser that meets all of the following criteria:
a. The adviser is registered or exempt from registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
b. The adviser has not less than five years of experience investing in the securities and obligations authorized in subdivisions (a) to (q) Government Code Section 53601, inclusive.
c. The adviser has assets under management in excess of five hundred million dollars ($500,000,000).
13.Asset-Backed Securities (ABS) such as a mortgage passthrough security, collateralized mortgage obligation, mortgage-backed or other pay-through bond, equipment lease-backed certificate, consumer receivable passthrough certificate, or consumer receivable-backed bond. For securities eligible for investment under this subdivision not issued or guaranteed by an agency or issuer identified in subdivision (1) or (2) above, the following limitations apply:
a. The security shall be rated in a rating category of “AA” or its equivalent or better by an NRSRO and have a maximum remaining maturity of five years or less.
b. Purchase of securities authorized by this paragraph shall not exceed 20 percent of the City’s investment portfolio that may be invested pursuant to this section.
14.Supranationals. United States dollar denominated senior unsecured unsubordinated obligations issued or unconditionally guaranteed by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, International Finance Corporation, or Inter-American Development Bank, with a maximum remaining maturity of five years or less, and eligible for purchase and sale within the United States. Obligations issues by supranationals will be rated in a rating category "AA" or better by an NRSRO. No more than 30% of the City’s investment portfolio may be invested in supranationals.
EXHIBIT A
7 SECTION 10 – INVESTMENT POOLS/MONEY MARKET FUNDS
A thorough investigation of investment pools and money market funds is required prior to investing, and on a continual basis.
SECTION 11 – MAXIMUM MATURITY
Maturities will be based on an analysis of the receipt of revenues and maturity of investments. Maturities will be scheduled to permit the City to meet all disbursement requirements.
The City may not invest in a security whose maturity exceeds five years from the date of purchase unless City Council has provided approval for a specific purpose at least 90 days before the investment is made.
SECTION 12 – PROHIBITED INVESTMENTS
Investments not described herein, including, but not limited to, reverse repurchase agreements, stocks, inverse floaters, range notes, commercial mortgage-backed, interest-only strips, or any security that could result in zero interest accrual if held to maturity are prohibited for investment by the City.
SECTION 13 – INTERNAL CONTROL
The Director of Finance/City Treasurer will establish an annual process of independent review by an external auditor. This review will provide internal control by assuring compliance with policies and procedures.
SECTION 14 – CUSTODY OF SECURITIES
All securities owned by the City except time deposits and securities used as collateral for repurchase agreements (if added to this Investment Policy as an authorized investment), will be kept in safekeeping by a third-party bank’s trust department, acting as an agent for the City under the terms of a custody agreement executed by the bank and the City.
All securities will be received and delivered using standard delivery versus payment procedures.
SECTION 15 – REPORTING
The Director of Finance/City Treasurer will provide a monthly investment report to the City Council showing all transactions, type of investment, issuer, purchase date,
EXHIBIT A
8 maturity date, purchase price, par amount, yield to maturity, and current market value for all securities.
SECTION 16 – POLICY REVIEW
This Investment Policy will be reviewed at least annually to ensure its consistency with:
1. The California Government Code sections that regulate the investment and reporting of public funds.
2. The overall objectives of preservation of principal, sufficient liquidity, and a market return.
EXHIBIT A
9 Glossary
Asset-Backed Securities (ABS) are securities whose income payments and hence value is derived from and collateralized (or "backed") by a specified pool of underlying assets which are receivables. Pooling the assets into financial instruments allows them to be sold to general investors, a process called securitization, and allows the risk of investing in the underlying assets to be diversified because each security will represent a fraction of the total value of the diverse pool of underlying assets. The pools of underlying assets can comprise common payments credit cards, auto loans, mortgage loans, and other types of assets. Interest and principal is paid to investors from borrowers who are paying down their debt.
Bankers’ Acceptances are short-term credit arrangements to enable businesses to obtain funds to finance commercial transactions. They are time drafts drawn on a bank by an exporter or importer to obtain funds to pay for specific merchandise. By its acceptance, the bank becomes primarily liable for the payment of the draft at maturity.
An acceptance is a high-grade negotiable instrument.
Broker-Dealer is a person or a firm who can act as a broker or a dealer depending on the transaction. A broker brings buyers and sellers together for a commission. They do not take a position. A dealer acts as a principal in all transactions, buying and selling for his own account.
Certificates Of Deposit
1. Negotiable Certificates of Deposit are large-denomination CDs. They are issued at face value and typically pay interest at maturity, if maturing in less than 12 months. CDs that mature beyond this range pay interest semi-annually.
Negotiable CDs are issued by U.S. banks (domestic CDs), U.S. branches of foreign banks (Yankee CDs), and thrifts. There is an active secondary market for negotiable domestic and Yankee CDs. However, the negotiable thrift CD secondary market is limited. Yields on CDs exceed those on U.S. treasuries and agencies of similar maturities. This higher yield compensates the investor for accepting the risk of reduced liquidity and the risk that the issuing bank might fail.
State law does not require the collateralization of negotiable CDs.
2. Non-negotiable Certificates of Deposit are time deposits with financial institutions that earn interest at a specified rate for a specified term. Liquidation of the CD prior to maturity incurs a penalty. There is no secondary market for these instruments, therefore, they are not liquid. They are classified as public deposits, and financial institutions are required to collateralize them. Collateral may be waived for the portion of the deposits that are covered by FDIC insurance.
EXHIBIT A
10 Collateral refers to securities, evidence of deposits, or other property that a borrower pledges to secure repayment of a loan. It also refers to securities pledged by a bank to secure deposits. In California, repurchase agreements, reverse repurchase agreements, and public deposits must be collateralized.
Commercial Paper is a short term, unsecured, promissory note issued by a corporation to raise working capital.
Federal Agency Obligations are issued by U.S. Government Agencies or Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSE). Although they were created or sponsored by the U.S.
Government, most Agencies and GSEs are not guaranteed by the United States Government. Examples of these securities are notes, bonds, bills and discount notes issued by Fannie Mae (FNMA), Freddie Mac (FHLMC), the Federal Home Loan Bank system (FHLB), and Federal Farm Credit Bank (FFCB). The Agency market is a very large and liquid market, with billions traded every day.
Issuer means any corporation, governmental unit, or financial institution that borrows money through the sale of securities.
Liquidity refers to the ease and speed with which an asset can be converted into cash without loss of value. In the money market, a security is said to be liquid if the difference between the bid and asked prices is narrow and reasonably sized trades can be done at those quotes.
Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) is a special fund in the State Treasury that local agencies may use to deposit funds for investment. There is no minimum investment period and the minimum transaction is $5,000, in multiples of $1,000 above that, with a maximum of $65 million for any California public agency. It offers high liquidity because deposits can be converted to cash in twenty-four hours and no interest is lost. All interest is distributed to those agencies participating on a proportionate share determined by the amounts deposited and the length of time they are deposited.
Interest is paid quarterly via direct deposit to the agency’s LAIF account. The State keeps an amount for reasonable costs of making the investments, not to exceed onequarter of one per cent of the earnings.
Market Value is the price at which a security is trading and could presumably be purchased or sold.
Maturity is the date upon which the principal or stated value of an investment becomes due and payable.
Medium-Term Notes are debt obligations issued by corporations and banks, usually in the form of unsecured promissory notes. These are negotiable instruments that can be bought and sold in a large and active secondary market. For the purposes of California Government Code, the term “Medium Term” refers to a maximum remaining maturity of five years or less. They can be issued with fixed or floating-rate coupons, and with or
EXHIBIT A
11 without early call features, although the vast majority are fixed-rate and non-callable.
Corporate notes have greater risk than Treasuries or Agencies because they rely on the ability of the issuer to make payment of principal and interest.
Money Market Fund is a type of investment comprising a variety of short-term securities with high quality and high liquidity. The fund provides interest to shareholders. Prior to amendments to the money market fund regulations adopted by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in 2014, all money market funds were required to strive to maintain a stable net asset value (NAV) of $1 per share. Following the 2014 money market fund reform, certain money market funds are required to sell and redeem shares based on the current market-based value of the securities in their underlying portfolios rounded to the fourth decimal place (i.e., transact at a floating or fluctuating net asset value (NAV)). Accordingly, money market funds available today may be either a floating NAV money market fund or a stable NAV money market fund.
Principal describes the original cost of a security. It represents the amount of capital or money that the investor pays for the investment.
Repurchase Agreements are short-term investment transactions. Banks buy temporarily idle funds from a customer by selling him U.S. Government or other securities with a contractual agreement to repurchase the same securities on a future date at an agreed upon interest rate. Repurchase Agreements are typically for one to ten days in maturity. The customer receives interest from the bank. The interest rate reflects both the prevailing demand for Federal Funds and the maturity of the Repo.
Repurchase Agreements must be collateralized.
Supranationals are securities issued or unconditionally guaranteed by multi-lateral international financial institutions whose member nations contribute capital and participate in management.
U.S. Treasury Issues are direct obligations of the United States Government. They are highly liquid and are considered the safest investment security. U.S. Treasury issues include:
1. Treasury Bills which are non-interest-bearing discount securities issued by the U.S. Treasury to finance the national debt. Bills are currently issued in 4-week, 8- week, 13-week, 26-week, and 52-week maturities.
2. Treasury Notes that have original maturities of one to ten years.
3. Treasury Bonds that have original maturities of greater than 10 years.
Yield to Maturity is the rate of income return on an investment, minus any premium above par or plus any discount with the adjustment spread over the period from the date of the purchase to the date of maturity of the bond.
May 19,2025
Memorandum
To: Barbara Arenado, Director of Finance Treasurer
City of Seal Beach
From: Monique Spyke, Managing Director
Re:
Robert Montoya, Relationship Manager
PFM Asset Management
2025-2026 FY Investment Policy
Review
At your request, we reviewed the City of Seal Beach City Investment Policy the City
.
There are no changes required at this time, the current Policy is current with Code as of May 19, 2025 and for fiscal year 25/26. PFMAM will continue to monitor California Code and notified the City when appropriate of any changes required in the future.
Please let us know if you have any questions or if you would like to discuss further.
Agenda Item J
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
DATE: May 27, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
THRU: Patrick Gallegos, Interim City Manager
FROM: Michael Henderson, Chief of Police
SUBJECT: Annual Military Equipment Report Review and Introduction of Ordinance to Renew Military Equipment Authorization
and Approve Seal Beach Police Department’s Updated
Policy 706
________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
That the City Council:
1. Review and file the Seal Beach Police Department’s Annual Military Equipment Report for 2024; and,
2. Introduce, read by title only, and waive further reading of Ordinance 1718 to renew the Military Equipment Use Ordinance and update the Seal Beach Police Department’s Military Equipment Use Policy – Policy 706.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:
On May 28, 2023, the City Council adopted Ordinance 1694 (Attachment B), approving a Military Equipment Use Policy – Policy 706, pursuant to Assembly Bill 481 (“AB 481”). In accordance with AB 481 and Policy 706, a military equipment report must be submitted to the City Council annually for each type of military equipment approved within one (1) year of approval, and annually thereafter for as long as the military equipment is available for use. The Police Department’s 2024 Annual Military Equipment Report is provided below, pursuant to Government Code section 7072. The updated Policy and Inventory are also attached (Attachments E and F). In addition, the military equipment use ordinance initially adopted by Ordinance 1694 must be annually re-adopted by the Council.
Background
On September 30, 2021, Assembly Bill 481 (“AB 481”) required law enforcement agencies to adopt a military equipment use policy, by ordinance, no later than May 1, 2022. The Department complied with AB 481, and the City Council adopted Ordinance 1694, approving Policy 706.
AB 481 also requires law enforcement agencies to submit to the City Council an annual military equipment usage report (“Annual Report”) on the use of the equipment, any complaint(s) or concern(s) regarding the use of the equipment, results of any internal audits on the use of the equipment, the annual costs for the equipment, the quantity possessed by the agency, and the intention to purchase additional equipment in the following year. In addition, within 30 days of submitting and publicly releasing the Annual Report, a well-publicized and community engagement meeting must be held to allow for public comments.
Government Code § 7072 requires that the Department’s Annual Report include the following information for the immediately preceding calendar year about each type of military equipment:
• A summary of how the military equipment was used and the purpose of its use.
• A summary of any complaints or concerns received concerning the military equipment.
• The results of any internal audits, any information about violations of the military equipment use policy, and any actions taken in response. • The total annual cost for each type of military equipment, including acquisition, personnel, training, transportation, maintenance, storage, upgrade, and other ongoing costs, and from what source funds will be provided for the military equipment in the calendar year following submission of the annual military equipment report.
• The quantity possessed for each type of military equipment. • If the law enforcement agency intends to acquire additional military equipment in the next year, the quantity sought for each type of military equipment.
To renew Ordinance 1694 and approve the updated Policy 706 by ordinance, City Council must determine whether each type of military equipment identified in the Annual Report and Policy 706 complies with the following standards under Government Code § 7071(d):
• The military equipment is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.
• The military equipment use policy will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties.
• If purchasing the equipment, the equipment is reasonably cost effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.
• Prior military equipment use complied with the military equipment use policy that was in effect at the time, or if prior uses did not comply with the accompanying military equipment use policy, corrective action has been taken to remedy nonconforming uses and ensure future compliance.
On May 22, 2023, City Council authorized the Department’s updated Military Equipment Use Policy and renewed its military equipment ordinance, Ordinance 1705 (Attachment C).
On May 28, 2024, City Council again authorized the Department’s updated Military Equipment Use Policy and renewed its military equipment ordinance, Ordinance 1710 (Attachment D).
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed Ordinance to renew the military equipment use ordinance and approve the updated Policy 706 and Military Equipment Inventory.
Complaints or Concerns
All use of force incidents are reviewed by assigned supervisors and Watch Commanders. The supervisor for each use of force incident completes a supervisor’s report and provides a determination as to whether the use of force was consistent with Department Policy. The supervisor’s report is reviewed by the Operations Bureau Lieutenant and Captain, and ultimately the Chief of Police, to ensure employees perform their duties within guidelines set by Department policy and applicable law.
In 2024, no violations were discovered, and officers were found to be operating in a manner which met or exceeded Department and community expectations. As listed below in the use summary, the Department did not receive any complaints or concerns related to the use of military equipment.
Internal Audit
The Department conducted an internal audit and found no violations of the military equipment use policy.
Equipment Purchases in 2024
The only purchases for the Department in 2024 included additional ammunition.
The inventory for the Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) at the time of adoption of Ordinance 1694 and Policy 706 consisted of two drones: one DJI Mavic 2 Enterprise Dual and one DJI Avata. During 2023, the DJI Mavic 2 Enterprise Dual, Serial Number 1581F4QWD227B0021HFY was decommissioned due to damage sustained during a flight when the battery malfunctioned, causing an emergency landing condition. This drone has not been repaired due to the prohibitively expensive repairs required.
Intention to Purchase Additional Equipment in 2025
The Department does not intend to acquire additional types of military equipment, however, future attempts to obtain new equipment will adhere to procedures set
forth in the Government Code and Policy 706, including a public hearing and City Council approval prior to acquisition.
For 2025, the Department intends to purchase a new drone to replace the drone damaged two (2) years ago. Due to the changing legislative landscape, additional research must be completed in order to identify a drone that can meet the needs of the City. Additionally, the Department requests additional ammunition and chemical agents, which were previously authorized and need to be replenished after being used in either the field or training environments. All items that require replenishment are included in the updated policy and the attached Inventory that was previously approved by the City Council.
The Department Inventory and all costs associated with the use of the listed equipment is believed to be consistent with the military equipment inventory list, policy, and Department budget, previously approved by the City Council. The operating costs listed below reflect good faith estimates subject to changes based on variables related to availability, shipping, and general market increases for vendors or manufacturers.
Equipment Inventory
Euipment Make/Model Quantity
Purchase
Cost
Annual Fiscal
Impact
1 Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS)
DJI MAVIC 2 ENTERPRISE DUAL 2 $ 5,500.00
DJI Avata 1 $ 677.74
2 40 MM Launchers and Rounds
Launchers DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY (DT), 40MM SINGLE SHOT
LAUNCHER 1 $ 1,000.00 $ 50.00
Rounds DT, 40MM EXACT IMPACT SPONGE 41 $ 26.50 $ -
DT, 40MM DIRECT IMPACT CS 4 $ 30.00 $ -
3 Less Lethal Shotgun
Shotgun REMINGTON Model 870 SHOTGUN 13 $ 946.00 $ 50.00 Rounds Drag Stabilized 12-GAUGE BEANBAG ROUND 317 $ 5.00 $ - 4 Rifles
Rifle Colt AR-15 223 16" 37 $ 846.56 $ - *
Colt AR-15 223 SBR 4 $ 1,223.64 $ - *
Geissele AR-15 223 14.5 SBR 5 $ 750.00 $ - *
Geissele AR-15 5.56 10.3 SBR 5 $ 925.00 $ - *
H&K MP-7 4.6X30 7.1" 2 $ 1,852.20 $ - *
Rounds Winchester 223 Remington 55 Gr. Silver Tip 980 $ 802.74 $ - ** Winchester 5.56 MM 55 Gr. FMJ 10,600 $ 392.21 $ - ** Winchester 223 Remington 55 Gr. Frangible 1,480 $ 668.05 $ - ** L-Tech 4.6 x 30MM 31 Gr. Frangible 4,800 $ 437.50 $ - ** L-Tech 4.6 x 30MM 31 Gr. OTM 880 $ 572.00 $ - ***
Hornady 308 WIN TAP 168 gr A-MAX TAP Precision 400 $ 656.20 $ - *** 5 PepperBall Launcher
Launcher Tippmann Pepperball Gun 2 $ 1,146.50 $ 50.00
Rounds PepperBall LIVE-X PROJECTILE 340 $ 3.00 $ -
***
$ 2,000.00
Use Summary
There were no incidents or complaints about the Department’s use of military equipment authorized in 2024.
The table illustrated below includes use of Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) by the Department in response to calls for service in 2024:
Date Flight Time Duration Reason Location
12/21/24 3:56 AM 0m 16s Suspicious Person Avalon Dr.
12/21/24 3:38 AM 2m 24s Suicidal Subject City of Cypress 12/21/24 2:58 AM 7m 15s Commercial Burglary City of Los Alamitos 11/15/24 4:41 AM 4m 52s Suspicious Person Bolsa Ave.
10/9/24 11:14 AM 5m 42s Open Door to Business Seal Beach Blvd.
Euipment Make/Model Quantity
Purchase
Cost
Annual Fiscal
Impact
6 Armored Vehicles
SWAT LENCO BEARCAT G2 1 $ 315,518.65 $ 1,000.00
7 Mobile Command Post Vehicle (MCP)
SWAT Freightliner M2 106 vehicle 1 $ 450,000.00 $ 1,000.00 8 Distraction Devices
SWAT
COMBINED TACTICAL SYSTEMS (CTS), MODEL
7290 FLASH BANG 1 $ 45.00 $ -
DT, No. 15 STINGER GRENADE 15 $ 36.00 $ -
9 Chemical Agent and Smoke Canisters
SWAT DT, DIRECT IMPACT 40MM OC ROUND 5 $ 26.50 $ -
DT, FLAMELESS TRI-CHAMBER CS GRENADE 2 $ 34.94 $ -
DT SPEDE-HEAT CS GRENADE 15 $ 28.30 $ -
DT CS TRIPLE-CHASER SEPARATING CANISTER 1 $ 44.89 $ -
DT 40MM CS FERRET POWDER BARRICADE
PENETRATING PROJECTILE ROUND 7 $ 20.91 $ -
DT 40MM CS FERRET LIQUID BARRICADE
PENETRATING PROJECTILE ROUND 7 $ 21.53 $ -
DT RIOT CONTROL CS GRENADE 15 $ 32.70 $ -
DT POCKET TACTICAL CS GRENADE 15 $ 31.25 $ -
10 Explosive Breaching Tools
SWAT Kinetic Breaching Tool (KBT) Model 3-1000 1 $ 10,494.38 $ - 11 Robot
SWAT TRANSCEND Vantage Patrol Robot $ 10,000.00 $ 500.00 12 Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD)
SWAT
Genasys Long-Range Acoustic Device (LRAD) Model
500X 1 $ 25,000.00 $ -
* Price Per
** Price Per 1000
***Total Cost
10/3/24 1:48 PM 7m 40s Residential Burglary Seal Way
10/3/24 1:47 PM 5m 15s Prowler Heron Circle
10/1/24 1:04 PM 7m 50s Suspicious Person Heron Circle
10/1/24 12:41 PM 5m 24s Suspicious Person Surfside Ave
10/1/24 12:35 PM 4m 28s Poss. of Stolen Property Old Ranch Rd. 10/1/24 12:29 PM 9m 46s Suspicious Person Old Ranch Rd. 9/12/24 10:58 AM 16m 30s Attempted Suicide Ocean Ave.
9/10/24 3:34 PM 1m 9s Trespassing Golden Rain Rd.
6/22/24 5:25 AM 0m 34s Possible Drowning Ocean Ave.
6/22/24 5:18 AM 11m 38s Foot Pursuit City of Los Alamitos 6/22/24 4:18 AM 1m 39s Family Disturbance City of Los Alamitos 6/22/24 4:07 AM 8m 33s Unlawful Assembly Seal Beach Blvd. 5/12/24 1:32 AM 11m 8s Residential Burglary Fir Ave.
5/12/24 1:31 AM 9m 32s Stranded Water Vessel Neptune Ave. 5/12/24 1:30 AM 8m 4s Foot Bail City of Cypress
5/4/24 10:07 AM 2m 53s Commercial Burglary Pacific Coast Highway. 5/4/24 5:35 AM 5m 16s Shots Fired City of Westminster
4/27/24 9:45 AM 6m 2s Stolen Vehicle Foot Bail City of Los Alamitos Public Hearing
The Department gives strong consideration to the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties. In a continued effort for greater transparency, the Department values meaningful public input related to the use of military equipment in our community.
The Department is required to hold at least one (1) well-publicized and conveniently located community engagement meeting where community members may discuss and ask questions regarding the annual military equipment report.
Meetings must be held within thirty days of posting this report on the Department’s website. The Department will provide this opportunity on May 27, 2025 at 7:00 pm, during the City’s regularly scheduled City Council meeting. The meeting will take place in the City Council chambers and will include a presentation as well as opportunities to discuss this report with the Chief of Police and/or City Council.
In compliance with the requirements of AB 481, a draft of this staff report, which includes the 2024 Annual Military Equipment Report, and the updated Policy was published on the Department’s website as of April 23, 2025.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
There is no environmental impact related to this item.
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
The City Attorney has reviewed and approved as to form.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no financial impact for this item.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
This item is not applicable to the Strategic Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council:
1. Review and file the Seal Beach Police Department’s Annual Military Equipment Report for 2024; and,
2. Introduce, read by title only, and waive further reading of Ordinance 1718 to renew the Military Equipment Use Ordinance and update the Seal Beach Police Department’s Military Equipment Use Policy – Policy 706.
SUBMITTED BY: NOTED AND APPROVED:
Michael Henderson Patrick Gallegos
Michael Henderson, Chief of Police Patrick Gallegos, Interim City Manager Prepared by: Chris Hendrix, Operations Bureau Lieutenant ATTACHMENTS:
A. Ordinance 1718
B. Ordinance 1694
C. Ordinance 1705
D. Ordinance 1710
E. Policy 706 – updated 01-10-25
F. Military Equipment Inventory List – updated 4-21-25
ORDINANCE 1718
AN ORDINANCE OF THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL RENEWING ITS
MILITARY EQUIPMENT USE ORDINANCE AND APPROVING THE SEAL BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT’S UPDATED MILITARY EQUIPMENT USE POLICY IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 7071
WHEREAS, on September 30, 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill 481 (“AB 481”), adding sections 7070 et. seq. to the Government Code, requiring law enforcement agencies to obtain approval from their governing body before acquiring “military equipment,” as defined by Government Code section 7070(c); and,
WHEREAS, Government Code section 7071(a) requires law enforcement agencies to obtain approval from their governing body by an ordinance adopting a military use policy, at a regular meeting held pursuant to open meeting laws, prior to taking certain actions relating to the funding, acquisition, or use of “military equipment”; and,
WHEREAS, on April 25, 2022, City Council adopted its military equipment use ordinance (Ordinance 1694) approving the Seal Beach Police Department’s Military Equipment Use Policy (“Policy 706”) and Military Equipment Use Inventory; and,
WHEREAS, on May 22, 2023, City Council authorized the Seal Beach Police Department’s updated Military Equipment Use Policy and renewed its military equipment ordinance (Ordinance 1705); and,
WHEREAS, on May 28, 2024, City Council authorized the Seal Beach Police Department’s updated Military Equipment Use Policy and renewed its military equipment ordinance (Ordinance 1710); and,
WHEREAS, the Seal Beach Police Department currently possesses equipment that qualifies under the definition of “military equipment” in Government Code section 7070(c), and wishes to continue to use such equipment in a responsible manner to ensure the safety of the community and its residents; and, WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Section 7071(e)(1), a law enforcement agency seeking to continue the use of any military equipment must annually commence the governing body renewal process for the military equipment use ordinance adopted by the governing body; and, WHEREAS, the renewal of the military equipment use ordinance is necessary in order to continue the use of such equipment for the purpose of protecting the safety of officers, residents, and visitors in the City of Seal Beach; and, WHEREAS, the Seal Beach Police Department seeks authorization for the purchase of additional weapons previously authorized and identified in the Military Equipment Use Policy’s attached Inventory; and,
WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Section 7071(b), the Seal Beach Police Department submitted a proposed military equipment use policy with the updated inventory to the City Council and has posted a copy of the policy on the Seal Beach Police Department’s website; and,
WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Section 7072(a), the Seal Beach Police Department submitted an annual report for each type of military equipment approved and has posted a copy of the annual report on the Seal Beach Police Department’s website; and,
WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Section 7072(b), the Seal Beach Police Department held a community engagement meeting on May 27, 2025, at which time the public had the opportunity to comment on the annual military equipment report; proposed military equipment use policy and inventory list; the renewal of the military equipment use ordinance; and the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Seal Beach does hereby ordain as follows:
Section 1. The City Council hereby finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals above are true and correct.
Section 2. Legislative Findings. Pursuant to Government Code Section 7071, the City Council considered the adoption of this Ordinance at a regular, public meeting on May 27, 2025, and based on the facts set forth above, the Agenda Report, the information provided to the City Council at the public meeting, and the record thereof which is incorporated by this reference, the City Council hereby determines and makes the following findings:
A. The military equipment identified in the Seal Beach Police Department’s Military Equipment Inventory are necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety for the reasons identified in the Military Equipment Inventory; and
B. The military equipment identified in the Seal Beach Police Department’s Military Equipment Inventory will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties for the reasons identified in the Military Equipment Inventory; and
C. The military equipment identified in the Seal Beach Police Department’s Military Equipment Inventory are necessary because there are no cost-effective alternatives; and
D. Prior military equipment use complied with Seal Beach Police Department Policy 706, or if prior uses did not comply with the accompanying military equipment use policy, corrective action has been taken to remedy nonconforming uses and ensure future compliance.
Section 3. Pursuant to Government Code Section 7071, the City Council hereby renews its military equipment use ordinance, Ordinance No. 1694, and authorizes the updated inventory list under Seal Beach Police Department Policy 706, as set forth in the attached Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference.
Section 4. Severability. If any sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalid.
Section 5. Publication. The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the City within fifteen (15) days after its passage in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code, shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance, and shall cause this Ordinance and this certification, together with proof of publication, to be entered in the Book of Ordinances of the Council of this City.
Section 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force thirty (30) days after its passage.
Section 7. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published in the manner prescribed by law.
INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Seal Beach held on the 27th day of May 2025.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Seal Beach City Council at a regular meeting held on this __ day of ___ 2025 by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members
NOES: Council Members
ABSENT: Council Members
ABSTAIN: Council Members
Lisa Landau, Mayor
ATTEST:
Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
Nicholas Ghirelli, City Attorney
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS
CITY OF SEAL BEACH }
I, Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance 1718 was introduced for first reading at a regular meeting held on the 27th day of May, 2025, and was passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting held on the __ day of ___ 2025, and do hereby further certify that the Ordinance has been published pursuant to the Seal Beach Charter and Resolution Number 2836.
Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk
ORDINANCE 1705
AN ORDINANCE OF THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL RENEWING
ORDINANCE 1694 AND APPROVING THE SEAL BEACH POLICE
DEPARTMENT' S UPDATED MILITARY EQUIPMENT USE POLICY
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1 . Findings. On May 22, 2023, the City Council considered the adoption of this Ordinance at a public meeting, and on the basis of the record thereof finds the following facts to be true:
A. On September 30, 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill 481 (" AB 481"), relating to the use of military equipment by law enforcement agencies.
B. AB 481, codified at California Government Code sections 7070 through 7075, requires law enforcement agencies to obtain approval of the applicable governing body, by an ordinance adopting a military equipment use policy, at a regular meeting held pursuant to open meeting laws, prior to taking certain actions relating to the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment," as defined by Government Code section 7070( c).
C. Government Code section 7071( a) requires that in seeking the approval of the governing body, a law enforcement agency shall submit a proposed military equipment use policy to the governing body and make those documents available on the law enforcement agency's internet website at least 30 days prior to any public meeting concerning the military equipment at issue.
D. Government Code section 7071( d) requires the governing body to approve the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment within its jurisdiction only if it makes specified findings.
E. On April 25, 2022, City Council adopted its military equipment use ordinance, Ordinance No. 1694, approving the Seal Beach Police Department' s Military Equipment Use Policy — Policy 706 and Military Equipment Use Inventory.
F. The Seal Beach Police Department currently possesses equipment that qualifies under the definition of " military equipment" in Government Code section 7070( c), and wishes to continue to use such equipment in a responsible manner to ensure the safety of the community and its residents.
G. In accordance with Government Code Section 7071( e)( 1), a law enforcement agency seeking to continue the use of any military equipment must annually commence the governing body renewal process for the military equipment use ordinance adopted by the governing body.
H. In accordance with Government Code Section 7072( a), the Seal Beach Police Department submitted an annual report for each type of military equipment approved and has posted a copy of the annual report on the Seal Beach Police Department' s website.
I. The Seal Beach Police Department seeks to add different types and modify existing quantities of military equipment as identified in the Seal Beach Police Department' s Policy 706 and Military Equipment Use Inventory, for the purpose of protecting the safety of officers, residents and visitors in the City of Seal Beach.
J. This ordinance was introduced to the City Council at the public meeting held on May 22, 2023, at which time the public had the opportunity to comment on this ordinance and the renewal of the military equipment use ordinance, military equipment use policy, and military equipment use inventory list.
K. The Seal Beach Police Department Policy 706 complies with the requirements of California Government Code section 7070, subdivision ( d).
SECTION 2. Determinations
Based on the findings above, in addition to information provided to the City Council at the public meeting and in the Staff Report, the City Council determines as follows:
1. The military equipment identified in Seal Beach Police Department Policy 706 is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.
2. Seal Beach Police Department Policy 706 will safeguard the public' s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties.
3. The military equipment identified in Seal Beach Police Department Policy 706 is reasonably cost effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.
4. Prior military equipment use complied with the military equipment use policy that was in effect at the time, or if prior uses did not comply with the accompanying military equipment use policy, corrective action has been taken to remedy nonconforming uses and ensure future compliance.
5. Pursuant to Government Code Section 7071, the City Council hereby renews its military equipment use ordinance, Ordinance No. 1694, and approves and adopts the updated military equipment use policy, Seal Beach Policy Department Policy 706, as set forth in the attached Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference.
SECTION 3. Severability.
If any sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalid.
SECTION 4. Effective Date.
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force thirty ( 30) days after its passage.
SECTION 5. Certification
The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published in the manner prescribed by law.
INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Seal Beach held on May 22, 2023.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Seal Beach City Council at a regular meeting held on the 12th day of June, 2023 by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members: Kalmick, Landau, Moore, Sustarsic, Steele NOES: Council Members: None
ABSENT: Council Members: None
ABSTAIN: Council Members: None
14114
O, SEAL Thomas Moore, Mayor
A
i i p• t: Q;
Q
Gloria D. H. rper, City Clerk F ,, 1,'
p\
F
c0UNTy`
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
owl
Nicholas Ghirelli, City Attorney
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS
CITY OF SEAL BEACH }
I, Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance 1705 was introduced for first reading at a regular meeting held on the 22nd day of May, 2023, and was passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting held on the 12th day of June, 2023, and do hereby further certify that the Ordinance has been published pursuant to the Seal Beach Charter and Resolution Number 2836.
1`. 14• 14
loria D. a • er, ' ity Clerk
ORDINANCE 1710
AN ORDINANCE OF THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL RENEWING ITS
MILITARY EQUIPMENT USE ORDINANCE AND APPROVING THE SEAL
BEAL BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT' S UPDATED MILITARY EQUIPMENT USE POLICY IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 7071
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, on September 30, 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill 481 (" AB 481"), adding sections 7070 et. seq. to the Government Code, requiring law enforcement agencies to obtain approval from their governing body before acquiring " military equipment," as defined by Government Code section 7070( c); and,
WHEREAS, Government Code section 7071( a) requires law enforcement agencies to obtain approval from their governing body by an ordinance adopting a military use policy, at a regular meeting held pursuant to open meeting laws, prior to taking certain actions relating to the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment;" and,
WHEREAS, on April 25, 2022, City Council adopted its military equipment use ordinance ( Ordinance No. 1694) approving the Seal Beach Police Department' s Military Equipment Use Policy ("Policy 706") and Military Equipment Use Inventory; and,
WHEREAS, on June 12, 2023, City Council authorized the Seal Beach Police Department' s updated Military Equipment Use Policy and renewed its military equipment ordinance ( Ordinance No. 1705); and,
WHEREAS, the Seal Beach Police Department currently possesses equipment that qualifies under the definition of " military equipment" in Government Code section 7070( c), and wishes to continue to use such equipment in a responsible manner to ensure the safety of the community and its residents; and, WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Section 7071( e)( 1), a law enforcement agency seeking to continue the use of any military equipment must annually commence the governing body renewal process for the military equipment use ordinance adopted by the governing body; and, WHEREAS, the renewal of the military equipment use ordinance is necessary in order to continue the use of such equipment for the purpose of protecting the safety of officers, residents, and visitors in the City of Seal Beach; and, WHEREAS, the Seal Beach Police Department seeks authorization for the purchase of additional weapons previously authorized and identified in the Military Equipment Use Policy' s attached Inventory; and,
WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Section 7071( b), the Seal Beach Police Department submitted a proposed military equipment use policy with the updated inventory to the City Council and has posted a copy of the policy on the Seal Beach Police Department' s website; and,
WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Section 7072( a), the Seal Beach Police Department submitted an annual report for each type of military equipment approved and has posted a copy of the annual report on the Seal Beach Police Department' s website; and,
WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Section 7072( b), the Beverly Hills Police Department held a community engagement meeting on May 28, 2024, at which time the public had the opportunity to comment on the annual military equipment report; proposed military equipment use policy and inventory list; the renewal of the military equipment use ordinance; and the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Seal Beach does hereby ordain as follows:
Section 1. The City Council hereby finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals above are true and correct.
Section 2. Legislative Findings. Pursuant to Government Code Section 7071, the City Council considered the adoption of this Ordinance at a regular, public meeting on May 28, 2024, and based on the facts set forth above, the Agenda Report, the information provided to the City Council at the public meeting, and the record thereof which is incorporated by this reference, the City Council hereby determines and makes the following findings:
A. The military equipment identified in the Seal Beach Police Department' s Military Equipment Inventory are necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety for the reasons identified in the Military Equipment Inventory; and, B. The military equipment identified in the Seal Beach Police Department's Military Equipment Inventory will safeguard the public's welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties for the reasons identified in the Military Equipment Inventory; and,
C. The military equipment identified in the Seal Beach Police Department' s Military Equipment Inventory are necessary because there are no cost- effective alternatives; and,
D. Prior military equipment use complied with Seal Beach Police Department Policy 706, or if prior uses did not comply with the accompanying military equipment use policy, corrective action has been taken to remedy nonconforming uses and ensure future compliance.
Section 3. Pursuant to Government Code Section 7071, the City Council hereby renews its military equipment use ordinance, Ordinance No. 1694, and authorizes the updated inventory list under Seal Beach Police Department Policy 706, as set forth in the attached Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference.
Section 4. Severability. If any sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalid.
Section 5. Publication. The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the City within fifteen ( 15) days after its passage in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code, shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance, and shall cause this Ordinance and this certification, together with proof of publication, to be entered in the Book of Ordinances of the Council of this City.
Section 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force thirty ( 30) days after its passage.
Section 7. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published in the manner prescribed by law.
INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Seal Beach held on the 28th day of May 2024.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Seal Beach City Council at a regular meeting held on the 10th day of June 2024 by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Kalmick, Moore, Steele, Landau, Sustarsic NOES: Council Members
ABSENT: Council Members
ABSTAIN: Council Members
S
Schelly Sustarsic, Mayor
AT EST:
5k/ j/
U
cn aoyq
t
Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk 2
AFC:`,?/ ; oj
O NTY6\
APPR ED AS TO F
Nicholas Ghire li, i y Attorney
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS
CITY OF SEAL BEACH }
I, Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced for first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Seal Beach held on the 28th day of May 2024, and was passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting on the 1 At" day of June 2024.
Gloria D. ' rper, City Clerk
Policy
706
Seal Beach Police Department
Seal Beach PD Policy Manual
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2025/03/05, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Seal Beach Police Department Military Equipment - 1
Military Equipment
706.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purpose of this policy is to provide guidelines for the approval, acquisition, reporting requirements, and use of military equipment (California Government Code § 7070; Government Code § 7071; Government Code § 7072). This policy is provided to fulfill the obligations set forth in Assembly Bill No. 481, enacting the foregoing Code sections. These obligations include, but are not limited, to seeking approval for the use and acquisition of specific items deemed to be military equipment, and requirements related to compliance, annual reporting, cataloging, and complaints regarding these items.
706.1.1 DEFINITIONS
Definitions related to this policy include (Government Code § 7070):
Governing body – The elected or appointed body that oversees the Department.
Military equipment – Includes but is not limited to the following:
• Unmanned, remotely piloted, powered aerial or ground vehicles. • Mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicles or armored personnel carriers. • High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWV), two-and-one-half-ton trucks, five-ton trucks, or wheeled vehicles that have a breaching or entry apparatus attached. • Tracked armored vehicles that provide ballistic protection to their occupants. • Command and control vehicles that are either built or modified to facilitate the operational control and direction of public safety units. • Weaponized aircraft, vessels, or vehicles of any kind. • Battering rams, slugs, and breaching apparatuses that are explosive in nature. This does not include a handheld, one-person ram.
• Firearms and ammunition of_.50 caliber or greater, excluding standard-issue shotguns and standard-issue shotgun ammunition.
• Specialized firearms and ammunition of less than_.50 caliber, including firearms and accessories identified as assault weapons in Penal Code § 30510 and Penal Code § 30515, with the exception of standard-issue firearms.
• Any firearm or firearm accessory that is designed to launch explosive projectiles. • Noise-flash diversionary devices and explosive breaching tools. • Munitions containing tear gas or OC, excluding standard, service-issued handheld pepper spray.
• Area denial electroshock devices, microwave weapons, water cannons, long-range acoustic devices (LRADs), acoustic hailing devices, and sound cannons. • Kinetic energy weapons and munitions.
Seal Beach Police Department
Seal Beach PD Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2025/03/05, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Seal Beach Police Department Military Equipment - 2
• Any other equipment as determined by a governing body or a state agency to require additional oversight.
706.2 POLICY
It is the policy of the Seal Beach Police Department that members of this Department shall comply with the provisions of Government Code § 7071, et seq., with respect to military equipment. It is the policy of the Seal Beach Police Department that there shall be legally enforceable safeguards, including transparency, oversight, and accountability measures in place to protect the public's welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties before military equipment is funded, acquired, or used. 706.3 MILITARY EQUIPMENT COORDINATOR
The Chief of Police designates the Support Services Bureau Lieutenant to act as the military equipment coordinator. The responsibilities of the military equipment coordinator include, but are not limited to:
(a) Acting as liaison to the City Council for matters related to the requirements of this policy.
(b) Identifying equipment that qualifies as military equipment in the current possession of the Department, and/or military equipment the Department intends to acquire that requires approval by the City Council.
(c) Conducting an inventory of all Department military equipment at least annually. (d) Collaborating with any allied agency that may use military equipment within the jurisdiction of Seal Beach Police Department (Government Code § 7071). (e) Preparing for, scheduling, and coordinating the annual community engagement meeting, which includes:
1. Publicizing the details of the meeting.
2. Preparing for public questions regarding the Department's funding, acquisition, and use of equipment.
(f) Preparing the annual military equipment report for submission to the Chief of Police and ensuring that the report is made available on the Department website (Government Code § 7072).
(g) Coordinating the processing of complaints and concerns submitted pursuant to Section 706.7 of this policy.
706.4 MILITARY EQUIPMENT USE CONSIDERATIONS
The Department's proposed military equipment use policy complies with the following standards under Government Code § 7071:
(a) The military equipment is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety; (b) The military equipment is reasonably cost effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety; Seal Beach Police Department
Seal Beach PD Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2025/03/05, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Seal Beach Police Department Military Equipment - 3
(c) The policy will safeguard the public's welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties; and (d) The Department's prior military equipment use complied with the effective policy at the time, and any non-compliant use was remedied to ensure future compliance.
Military equipment shall only be used by a Department employee after the employee has received the training specified herein, any course required by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST), has been successfully completed, unless exigent circumstances arise. 706.5 MILITARY EQUIPMENT REPORTING CONSIDERATIONS
Upon approval of a military equipment policy, the Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall submit a military equipment report to the City Council for each type of military equipment approved within one year of approval of this policy, and annually thereafter for as long as the military equipment is available for use (Government Code § 7072).
The Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall also make each annual military equipment report publicly available on the Department website for as long as the military equipment is available for use. The report shall include all information required by Government Code § 7072 for the preceding calendar year, for each type of military equipment in the Department's inventory.
The annual military equipment report shall, at a minimum, include the following information for the immediately preceding calendar year for each type of military equipment:
(a) A summary of how the military equipment was used and the purpose of its use. (b) A summary of any complaints or concerns received concerning the military equipment. (c) The results of any internal audits, any information about violations of the military equipment use policy, and any actions taken in response. (d) The total annual cost for each type of military equipment, including acquisition, personnel, training, transportation, maintenance, storage, upgrade, and other ongoing costs, and from what source funds will be provided for the military equipment in the calendar year following submission of the annual military equipment report. (e) The quantity possessed for each type of military equipment. (f) If the Department intends to acquire additional military equipment in the next year, the quantity sought for each type of military equipment.
Within 30 days of submitting and publicly releasing an annual military equipment report, the Department shall hold at least one well-publicized and conveniently located community engagement meeting, at which the general public may discuss and ask questions regarding the annual military equipment report and Seal Beach Police Department's funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment. This shall occur as a part of the Department's presentation to the City Council.
706.6 CATALOGING OF MILITARY USE EQUIPMENT
All military use equipment kept and maintained by the Seal Beach Police Department shall be cataloged in a way which addresses each of the following requirements:
Seal Beach Police Department
Seal Beach PD Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2025/03/05, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Seal Beach Police Department Military Equipment - 4
1. A description of each type of military equipment, as well as the product manufacturer's description for each type of equipment.
2. The capabilities of the equipment.
3. The purposes and authorized uses for which the Department proposes to use the equipment.
4. The expected lifespan of the equipment.
5. The fiscal impact of the equipment, both initially and for on-going maintenance.
6. The quantity of the equipment, whether maintained or sought. 706.7 COMPLIANCE
The Support Services Bureau Lieutenant will ensure that all Department members comply with this policy and will conduct an annual audit. The Chief of Police or designee will be notified of any policy violations and, as appropriate, the violation(s) will be referred to the Internal Affairs Division and handled in accordance with Policy 1009 (Personnel Complaints). All instances of non-compliance will be reported to City Council via the annual military equipment report.
Any member of the public can register a question or concern regarding military use equipment by contacting the Seal Beach Police Department via email at [email protected]. A response to the question or concern shall be completed and provided by the Department in a timely manner, but not to exceed thirty (30) days.
Any member of the public can submit a complaint to any member of the Department and in any form (i.e., in person, telephone, email, etc.). Once the complaint is received, it shall be routed to the Internal Affairs Division in accordance with Policy 1009. 706.8 FUNDING
The Department shall obtain City Council approval, by an ordinance adopting a new or revised military equipment use policy, prior to seeking funds for military equipment, including, but not limited to, applying for a grant, soliciting, or accepting private, local, state, or federal funds, in-kind donations, or other donations or transfers.
The Department has authority to apply for funding prior to obtaining City Council approval in the case of exigent circumstances.In such case, the Department shall obtain City Council approval as soon thereafter as practicable. In seeking such approval, the Support Services Bureau Lieutenant will submit to the City Council a report explaining the nature of the exigency and why prior approval could not be obtained.
706.9 MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY
The following constitutes an inventory of previously purchased equipment for the Seal Beach Police Department deemed to be military and militaristic as defined by this policy.
1. Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS)
Seal Beach Police Department
Seal Beach PD Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2025/03/05, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Seal Beach Police Department Military Equipment - 5
A UAS is an unmanned aircraft and the equipment necessary for the safe and efficient operation of the aircraft. An unmanned aircraft is a component of a UAS. It is defined by statute as an aircraft that is operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft.
Current Inventory:
DJI MAVIC 2 ENTERPRISE DUAL
Description: UAS that has a color and infrared camera as well as audible speaker and light.
Capable of video recording and weighs 899 grams, approx. 30 minutes of flight time.
Quantity: 1
Purchase Price: $5,500 each
DJI Avata
Description: First-person-view (FPV) "Cinewhoop" UAS designed to take high-quality video.
The model is smaller, lighter, more agile, and equipped with propeller guards so that it is safe to fly around people and in-door use.
Quantity: 1 (Serial Number 1581F4QWD227B0021HFY)
Purchase Price: $677.74 each
Purpose: To be deployed when its view would assist officers or incident commanders with the following situations, which include but are not limited to:
(a) major collision investigations
(b) search for missing persons
(c) natural disaster management
(d) crime scene photography
(e) SWAT, tactical or other public safety and life preservation missions (f) In response to specific requests from local, state, or federal fire authorities for fire response and/or prevention.
Authorized Use: Only assigned operators who have completed the required training shall be permitted to operate any UAS during approved missions.
Expected Life Span: All UAS equipment, 3-5 years.
Fiscal Impact: Annual maintenance and battery replacement cost is approximately $2,000.
Training Required: All Department UAS operators must be licensed by the Federal Aviation Administration for UAS operation. In addition, each operator must attend a 40-hour Department training and ongoing quarterly training.
Legal and Procedural Rules: Use is established under Policy 606, FAA Regulation 14 CFR Part 107, and the City of Seal Beach UAS policy. It is the policy of the Seal Beach Police Department to Seal Beach Police Department
Seal Beach PD Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2025/03/05, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Seal Beach Police Department Military Equipment - 6
utilize UAS only for official law enforcement purposes, and in a manner that respects the privacy of our community, pursuant to State and Federal law.
2. 40 MM Launchers and Rounds
40MM Launchers are utilized by Department personnel as a less lethal tool to launch impact rounds.
Current Inventory:
DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY, 40MM SINGLE SHOT LAUNCHER
Description: The 40MM Single Launcher is a tactical single shot launcher that features an expandable ROGERS Super Stock and an adjustable Integrated Front Grip (IFG) with light rail. It will fire standard 40mm less lethal ammunition, up to 4.8 inches in cartridge length.
It will launch a 40mm less lethal round up to 131 feet and is only authorized to be used by SWAT personnel. Serial Numbers #D36434/FW21222/FW21223.
Quantity: 1
Purchase Price: $1,000 each
DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY, EXACT IMPACT 40MM ROUND
Description: The eXact iMpact 40mm sponge round is a point-of-aim, point-of-impact directfire round. This is a lightweight, high-speed projectile consisting of a plastic body and sponge projectile that is spin stabilized via the incorporated rifling collar and the 40mm launcher's rifled barrel. The round utilizes smokeless powder as the propellant, and therefore, has velocities that are extremely consistent. It is used for crowd control, patrol, and tactical applications. Part Number 6325.
Quantity: 41
Purchase Price: $26.50 each
Purpose: To limit the escalation of conflict where employment of lethal force is prohibited or undesirable.
Authorized Use: Situations for use of the less lethal weapon systems may include, but are not limited to:
(a) Self-destructive, dangerous and/or combative individuals. (b) Riot/crowd control and civil unrest incidents.
(c) Circumstances where a tactical advantage can be obtained. (d) Potentially vicious animals.
(e) Training exercises or approved demonstrations.
Training: Sworn members utilizing 40mm less lethal chemical agents or impact rounds must first be trained in their use by POST certified less lethal and chemical agent instructors.
Seal Beach Police Department
Seal Beach PD Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2025/03/05, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Seal Beach Police Department Military Equipment - 7
Expected Life Span: Defense Technology Launchers - 25 years, Rounds - 5 years.
Fiscal Impact: Annual maintenance is approximately $50 for each launcher.
Legal and Procedural Rules: Use is established under Policy 302.7.2. It is the policy of the Seal Beach Police Department to utilize the 40mm only for official law enforcement purposes, and pursuant to State and Federal law, including laws regarding the use of force.
3. Less Lethal Shotgun
Less Lethal Shotgun is used to deploy the less lethal 12-gauge Super-Sock Beanbag Round.
Current Inventory:
REMINGTON 870 LESS LETHAL SHOTGUN
Description: The Remington 870 Less Lethal Shotgun is used to deploy the less lethal 12- gauge Super-Sock Beanbag Round up to a distance of 75 feet. The range of the weapon system helps to maintain space between officers and a suspect reducing the immediacy of the threat which is a principle of De-escalation.
Quantity: 13
Purchase Price: $946 each
Drag Stabilized 12-GAUGE BEANBAG ROUND
Description: A less lethal 2.4-inch 12-gauge shotgun round firing a ballistic fiber bag filled with 40 grams of lead shot at a velocity of 270-290 feet per second (FPS). Drag Stabilized rounds are discharged from a dedicated 12-gauge shotgun that is distinguishable by an orange butt stock and fore grip. This round provides accurate and effective performance when fired from the approved distance of not fewer than five (5) feet. The maximum effective range of this munition is up to 75 feet from the target. The Drag Stabilized Model is in its deployed state immediately upon exiting the barrel. It does not require a minimum range to "unfold" or "stabilize." The Drag Stabilized Model is an aerodynamic projectile. However, accuracy is relative to the shotgun, barrel length, environmental conditions, and the operator. The Drag Stabilized Model is very accurate. However, effectiveness depends on many variables, such as distance, clothing, stature, and the point where the projectile impacts.
Quantity: 317
Purchase Price: $5 each
Purpose: To limit the escalation of conflict where employment of lethal force is prohibited or undesirable.
Authorized Use: Situations for use of the less lethal weapon systems may include, but are not limited to:
(a) Self-destructive, dangerous and/or combative individuals. (b) Riot/crowd control and civil unrest incidents.
Seal Beach Police Department
Seal Beach PD Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2025/03/05, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Seal Beach Police Department Military Equipment - 8
(c) Circumstances where a tactical advantage can be obtained. (d) Potentially vicious animals.
(e) Training exercises or approved demonstrations.
Expected Life Span: Remington 870 Less Lethal Shotgun- 25 years, Drag Stabilized 12-Gauge beanbag round - no listed expiration date.
Fiscal Impact: Annual maintenance is approximately $50 for each shotgun.
Training: All officers must first be trained in the 12 gauge less lethal shotgun as a less lethal option by in-service training. SWAT personnel receive additional training internally when they transfer to the unit. SWAT operators who utilize these munitions must have been through and successfully completed a POST approved gas school and/or trained in house by POST certified chemical agent instructors for muzzle blast training.
Legal and Procedural Rules: Use is established under Policy 305.4.2. It is the policy of the Seal Beach Police Department to utilize the less lethal shotgun only for official law enforcement purposes, and pursuant to State and Federal law, including laws regarding the use of force.
4. Rifles
Firearm designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed to use the energy in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.
Current Inventory:
Colt AR-15 223 16"
Description: lightweight, magazine-fed, gas-operated semi-automatic rifle. Caliber 223, 16- inch barrel.
Quantity: 37
Purchase Price: $846.56 per firearm
Colt AR-15 223 Short Barrel Rifle (SBR)
Description: lightweight, magazine-fed, gas-operated semi-automatic rifle. Caliber 223, 16- inch barrel.
Quantity: 4
Purchase Price: $1,223.64 per firearm
Geissele AR-15 223 14.5 SBR
Description: lightweight, magazine-fed, gas-operated semi-automatic rifle. Caliber 223, 14.5- inch barrel.
Quantity: 5
Seal Beach Police Department
Seal Beach PD Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2025/03/05, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Seal Beach Police Department Military Equipment - 9
Purchase Price: $750 per firearm
Geissele AR-15 5.56 10.3 SBR
Description: lightweight, magazine-fed, gas-operated semi-automatic rifle. Caliber 5.56, 10.3- inch barrel.
Quantity: 5
Purchase Price: $925 per firearm
H&K MP-7 4.6X30 7.1"
Description: lightweight, magazine-fed, gas-operated semi-automatic rifle. Chambered for the HK 4.6×30mm armor-piercing cartridge designed by manufacturer Heckler & Koch. 7.1- inch barrel.
Quantity: 2
Purchase Price: $1,852.20 per firearm
Winchester.223 Remington 55GR silver tip rifle round
Description:.223 Remington caliber, Fragmenting Polymer Tip (FPT), 55 grain bullet weight, brass cartridge case material.
Quantity: 980
Purchase Price: $802.74 (price per 1,000)
Winchester.223 Remington 55GR frangible rifle round
Description:.223 Remington caliber, Frangible, 55 grain bullet weight, brass cartridge case material.
Quantity: 1,480
Purchase Price: $668.05 (price per 1,000)
Winchester 5.56 MM 55GR Full Metal Jacket (FMJ) rifle round Description: 5.56 MM caliber, Full Metal Jacket (FMJ), 55 grain bullet weight, brass cartridge case material.
Quantity: 10,600
Purchase Price: $392.21 (price per 1,000)
L-Tech 4.6 x 30MM 31GR Frangible rifle round
Description: 4.6x30MM caliber, Frangible, 31 grain bullet weight.
Quantity: 4,800
Purchase Price: $437.50 (price per 1,000)
L-Tech 4.6 x 30MM 31GR OTM
Seal Beach Police Department
Seal Beach PD Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2025/03/05, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Seal Beach Police Department Military Equipment - 10
Description: 4.6x30MM caliber, Open Tip Match (OTM), 31 grain bullet weight.
Quantity: 880
Purchase Price: $572.00 (price per 1,000)
Hornady 308 WIN TAP 168 gr A-MAX TAP Precision
Description: 308 WIN caliber, Match grade annealed brass alloy Quantity: 400
Purchase Price: $32.81 (price per 20)
Purpose: To be used as precision weapons to address a threat with more precision and/or greater distances than a handgun, if present and feasible.
Authorized Use: Only members that are POST certified are authorized to use a rifle.
Expected Life Span: No expiration date.
Fiscal Impact: Annual maintenance is approximately $50 for each rifle.
Training: Prior to using a rifle, officers must be certified by POST instructors in the operation of the rifle. Additionally, all members that operate any rifle are required to pass a range qualification two times a year.
Legal and Procedural Rules: Use is established under Policy 305.4.3. It is the policy of the SBPD to utilize rifles only for official law enforcement purposes, and pursuant to State and Federal laws regarding the use of force.
5. PepperBall Launcher
A device that discharges irritant projectiles.
Current Inventory:
Tippmann PepperBall Gun
Description: A compressed-air powered launcher designed to fire non-lethal PepperBall projectiles.
Quantity: 2
Purchase Price: $1,146.50
PepperBall LIVE-X PROJECTILE
Description: The Live Projectile contains a concentrated amount of PAVA pepper powder.
One round of LIVE-X contains the equivalent to 10 PepperBall rounds. Discharged from a PepperBall Launcher, the projectile has a velocity of 280-350 FPS. The projectile has a direct impact of 60ft and an area of saturation of 150+ft. The projectile contains 5% PAVA Powder.
Quantity: 340
Seal Beach Police Department
Seal Beach PD Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2025/03/05, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Seal Beach Police Department Military Equipment - 11
Purchase Price: $3 per projectile
Purpose: To limit the escalation of conflict where employment of lethal force is prohibited or undesirable. Situations for use of the less lethal weapon systems may include but are not limited to:
(a) Self-destructive, dangerous and/or combative individuals. (b) Riot/crowd control and civil unrest incidents.
(c) Circumstances where a tactical advantage can be obtained. (d) Potentially vicious animals.
(e) Training exercises or approved demonstrations.
Authorized Use: Only those officers who have been trained in the use of PepperBall launchers are authorized to use the PepperBall launchers.
Training: Only sworn members may utilize PepperBall launchers and projectiles and must first be trained in their use by POST certified less lethal and chemical agent instructors.
Expected Life Span:
(a) Tippmann PepperBall Gun - 20 years
(b) PepperBall Live-X Projectile - 3 years
Fiscal impact: Annual maintenance is approximately $50 for each PepperBall launcher.
Legal and Procedural Rules: Use is established under Policy 302.7.2. It is the policy of the SBPD to utilize PepperBall only for official law enforcement purposes, and pursuant to State and Federal law, including laws regarding the use of force.
706.10 MILITARY SWAT EQUIPMENT INVENTORY
The Seal Beach Police Department participates in the West County Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team, a regional SWAT and Crisis Negotiation Team (CNT) with Officers from the cities of Seal Beach, Los Alamitos, Cypress, Fountain Valley, and Westminster.
The following constitutes an inventory of previously purchased equipment known to be owned and/ or utilized by law enforcement units with which the Seal Beach Police Department collaborates and/or participates for law enforcement purposes, which are deemed to be military and militaristic as defined by this policy. The equipment in this section is primarily used by the members of the West County SWAT Team.
1. Armored Vehicles
Commercially produced wheeled armored personnel vehicle utilized for law enforcement purposes.
Current Inventory:
LENCO BEARCAT G2
Seal Beach Police Department
Seal Beach PD Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2025/03/05, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Seal Beach Police Department Military Equipment - 12
Description: Armored vehicle that seats 10-12 personnel with open floor plan that allows for rescue of down personnel. It can stop various projectiles, which provides greater safety to citizens and officers beyond the protection level of shield and personal body armor, VIN FDAF5HT2BEC98082.
Quantity: 1
Purchase Price: Refer to Westminster Police Department policy Purpose: To be used in response to critical incidents to enhance officer and community safety, improve scene containment and stabilization, and assist in resolving critical incidents.
Authorized Use: The use of armored vehicles shall only be authorized by a watch commander or SWAT commander, based on the specific circumstances of a given critical incident. Armored vehicles shall be used only by officers trained in their deployment and in a manner consistent with Department policy and training.
Expected Lifespan: 25 years.
Fiscal Impact: Annual maintenance cost of approximately $10,000.
Training: All driver/operators must first attend formalized instruction and be trained in vehicle operations and practical driving instruction.
Legal and Procedural Rules: It is the policy of the Department to utilize armored vehicles only for official law enforcement purposes, and pursuant to State and Federal law.
Other Notes: The bearcat was obtained through the UASI group procurement process in 2012.
The vehicle is currently stored at Westminster Police Department and used by the West County SWAT during training and SWAT operations for the region.
2. Mobile Command Post Vehicle (MCP)
A vehicle used mobile office that provides shelter, access to Department computer systems, and restroom facilities during extended events.
Current Inventory:
Freightliner M2 106 vehicle
Description: The MCP can also be utilized for SWAT/CNT and other critical incidents, preplanned large events, searching for missing persons, natural disasters, and community events.
Quantity: 1
Purchase Price: Refer to Cypress Police Department policy Purpose: To be used based on the specific circumstances of a given critical incident, large event, natural disaster, or community event that is taking place.
Seal Beach Police Department
Seal Beach PD Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2025/03/05, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Seal Beach Police Department Military Equipment - 13
Authorized Use: Only officers trained in their deployment and operations in a manner consistent with Department policy and training are authorized to operate the MCP. Furthermore, only officers who have completed the California State Class B Commercial driving school and become properly licensed will be allowed to drive the MCP. Situations which the MCP is authorized for use would include but not be limited to critical incidents, emergencies, and natural disasters.
Expected Lifespan: The MCP, 20-year lifespan on chassis and vehicle structure. Upgrades needed in 7 years to maintain IT systems.
Fiscal Impact: Annual maintenance cost is approximately $1,000. Cost-sharing for the vehicle is administered by the Cypress Finance Department and each city is billed a third of costs associated with the annual vehicle maintenance and technology service fees.
Training: The driver/operator must first receive training in the safe handling of the vehicle on a closed training course. Once the operator has shown competence in vehicle handling, the driver/ operator will drive the vehicle throughout the city with an experienced driver. Driver/operators shall also undergo California Department of Motor Vehicles commercial vehicle testing and possess a Class B driver's license.
Legal and Procedural Rules: It is the policy of the Department to use the MCP only for official law enforcement purposes, and in accordance with California State law regarding the operation of motor vehicles.
Other Notes: After the City of Anaheim UASI group completed the procurement process and the vehicle was built, the City of Cypress took delivery of the MCP on April 19, 2007. The City of Cypress entered into an agreement with the cities of Los Alamitos and Seal Beach to accept, house, utilize and cost-share repairs and routine maintenance for the regional MCP vehicle.
The vehicle is currently housed inside a City of Seal Beach fire station (OCFA station #48) and is utilized by all three cities for special events that include DUI checkpoints, public relations presentations, and emergency incidents. The vehicle is also the primary command and control platform for West County S.W.A.T. during training and S.W.A.T. operations for the region. The vehicle is staffed with a team of City employees and designated volunteers from all three cities including the West Cities Police Dispatch Communications Center. Cost-sharing for the vehicle is administered by the Cypress Finance Department and each city is billed a third of costs associated with the annual vehicle maintenance and technology service fees.
3. Light Sound Diversionary Devices (LSDD)
A device used to distract dangerous persons.
Current Inventory:
COMBINED TACTICAL SYSTEMS (CTS), MODEL 7290 FLASH BANG
Description: This is the standard diversionary flash-bang device. It is non-bursting, nonfragmenting single use device that produces a 175db and 6-8 million candela of light output.
It is ideal for distracting potentially dangerous suspects during assaults, hostage rescue, building/room entry or other high-risk arrest situations.
Seal Beach Police Department
Seal Beach PD Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2025/03/05, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Seal Beach Police Department Military Equipment - 14
Quantity: 1
Purchase Price: $45 each
DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY, NO. 15 STINGER GRENADE
Description: This is a hand-held, hand-thrown grenade and has an initial 1 second delayed fuse. Once the fuse is discharge at a low speed, the main charge detonates to produce a loud sound and bright flash of light, and the distribution of approximately 180 rubber pellets of.32 caliber size are expelled from the grenade, and the pellets can travel up to 50 ft. from the point of detonation.
Quantity: 15
Purchase Price: $36 each
Purpose: A diversionary device is ideal for distracting dangerous suspects during assaults, hostage rescue, room entry or other high-risk arrest situations. To produce atmospheric overpressure and brilliant white light and, as a result, can cause short-term (6 - 8 seconds) physiological/psychological sensory deprivation to give officers a tactical advantage.
Authorized Use: Diversionary Devices shall only be used:
(a) By officers who have been trained in their proper use. (b) In hostage and barricaded subject situations.
(c) In high-risk warrant (search/arrest) services where there may be extreme hazards to officers.
(d) During other high-risk situations where their use would enhance officer safety. (e) During training exercises.
Expected Lifespan: Until used.
Fiscal Impact: No annual maintenance.
Training: Prior to use, officers must attend diversionary device training that is conducted by POST certified instructors.
Legal and Procedural Rules: Use is established under Policy 302.6. It is the policy of the SBPD to utilize diversion devices only for official law enforcement purposes, and pursuant to State and Federal law regarding the use of force.
Other Notes: This equipment is owned and operated by West County SWAT through the Cypress Police Department, which could result in its deployment and/or use in the City of Seal Beach.
4. Chemical Agent and Smoke Canisters
Canisters that contain chemical agents that are released when deployed.
Current Inventory:
DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY, DIRECT IMPACT 40MM CS ROUND
Seal Beach Police Department
Seal Beach PD Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2025/03/05, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Seal Beach Police Department Military Equipment - 15
Description: The Direct Impact 40MM CS munition is a point-of-aim, point-of-impact directfire round. The munition can be used to incapacitate a single subject or control a crowd. The munition is loaded with CS powder and is combined with lightweight, high-speed crushable foam projectile for maximizing the potential for incapacitation. Part Number 6322.
Quantity: 4
Purchase Price: $26.50 each
DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY, DIRECT IMPACT 40MM OC ROUND
Description: The 40MM Direct Impact OC munition is a point-of-aim, point-of-impact directfire round. The munition is loaded OC powder and is combined with a lightweight, high-speed projectile consisting of a plastic body and crushable foam nose. Part Number 6320.
Quantity: 5
Purchase Price: 26.50 each
DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY, FLAMELESS TRI-CHAMBER CS GRENADE
Description: The design of the Tri-Chamber Flameless CS Grenade allows the contents to burn within an internal can and disperse the agent safely with reduced risk of fire. The grenade is designed primarily for indoor tactical situations to detect and/or dislodge a barricaded subject. This grenade will deliver 20 grams of agent during its 20-30 seconds burn time. The device is not launchable. Part Number 1032.
Quantity: 2
Purchase Price: $34.94 each
DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY SPEDE-HEAT CS GRENADE
Description: The Spede-Heat CS Grenade is a high volume, continuous burn munition. It expels a CS payload of 81.2 grams in approximately 20-40 seconds. The CS is discharged through four gas ports on top of the canister, three gas ports on the side, and one gas port on the bottom. The device is launchable. Part Number 1072.
Quantity: 15
Purchase Price: $28.30 each
DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY CS TRIPLE-CHASER SEPARATING CANISTER Description: The Triple-Chaser separating CS consists of three separate canisters pressed together with separating charges between each section (canister). When deployed, this grenade will separate into three (3) distinct sub-munitions, spaced approximately 20ft. apart.
This allows increased area coverage in a short period of time, from one deployment. Terrain and surface conditions can affect the distance of the separating sub-munitions. The device is specifically designed for outdoor use in crowd control situations. The separating function and Seal Beach Police Department
Seal Beach PD Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2025/03/05, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Seal Beach Police Department Military Equipment - 16
relatively quick burn time minimizes the potential of a "throwback" from hostile or combative subjects. The munition is launchable. Part Number 1026.
Quantity: 1
Purchase Price: $44.89 each
DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY 40MM CS FERRET POWDER BARRICADE PENETRATING
PROJECTILE ROUND
Description: The 40MM CS Ferret Powder munition is a barricade penetrating round filled with a CS Powder chemical agent. It is a frangible projectile that is spin stabilized utilizing barrel rifling of the 40MM launcher. It is non-burning and designed to penetrate barriers. It is primarily used to dislodge barricaded subjects and can also be used for area denial. It is used by tactical teams to penetrate barriers such as windows, hollow core doors, wallboard (drywall), and thin plywood. Upon impact, the nose ruptures and instantaneously delivers the agent payload inside of a structure of vehicle. The active CS agent is 7.6 grams and instantaneously discharges on impact. Part Number 2292.
Quantity: 7
Purchase Price: $20.91 each
DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY 40MM CS FERRET LIQUID BARRICADE PENETRATING
PROJECTILE ROUND
Description: The 40MM CS Ferret Liquid munition is a frangible projectile filled with chemical agent. It is designed to deliver chemical agents in barricade situations from a 40mm launcher.
Spin stabilization from barrel rifling affords maximum stand-off distance and accuracy for safety. The munition is non-burning and suitable for indoor use. It is designed to penetrate barriers, such as windows, hollow core doors, wallboard, and thin plywood. Upon impacting the barrier, the nose cone ruptures and instantaneously delivers a small chemical payload inside of a structure or vehicle. The active CS agent is 27.6 grams and instantaneously discharges on impact. Part Number 2262.
Quantity: 7
Purchase Price: $21.53 each
DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY CS RIOT CONTROL CONTINUOUS DISCHARGE GRENADE Description: The Riot Control CS Grenade is designed specifically for outdoor use in crowd control situations with a high volume continuous burn that expels its payload in approximately 20-40 seconds through four gas ports located on the top of the canister. This grenade can be used to conceal tactical movement or to route a crowd. The volume of smoke and agent is vast and obtrusive. This launchable grenade is 6.0 in. by 2.35 in. and holds approximately
0.88oz. of active agent.
Quantity: 15
Seal Beach Police Department
Seal Beach PD Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2025/03/05, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Seal Beach Police Department Military Equipment - 17
Purchase Price: $32.70
DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY POCKET TACTICAL CS GRENADE
Description: The Pocket Tactical CS Grenade is small, and lightweight. The 0.9 oz. of active agent will burn approximately 20-40 seconds. At 4.75 in. by 1.4 inches in size, it easily fits in most tactical pouches. This is a launchable grenade; however it is normally used as a signaling or covering device. Though this device is slightly over four inches in length, it produces a smoke cloud so fast it appears to be an enveloping screen produced by a full size tactical grenade.
Quantity: 15
Purchase Price: $31.25
Purpose: To limit the escalation of conflict where employment of lethal force is prohibited or undesirable. Situations for use of the less lethal weapon systems may include, but are not limited to:
(a) Self-destructive, dangerous and/or combative individuals. (b) Riot/crowd control and civil unrest incidents.
(c) Circumstances where a tactical advantage can be obtained. (d) Potentially vicious animals.
(e) Training exercises or approved demonstrations.
Authorized Use: Only officers who have received POST certification in the use chemical agents are authorized to use chemical agents.
Training: Sworn members utilizing chemical agent canisters must first be certified by POST less lethal and chemical agent instructors.
Expected Lifespan: 5 years from manufacturing date.
Fiscal Impact: No annual maintenance.
Legal and Procedural Rules: Use is established under the Seal Beach Police Department Chemical Agent Policy 302.7.2. It is the policy of the SBPD to utilize chemical agents only for official law enforcement purposes, and pursuant to State and Federal law, including those regarding the use of force.
Other Notes: This equipment is owned and operated by Seal Beach Police Department and used by the West County SWAT during training and SWAT operations for the region.
5. Kinetic Breaching Tools
Tools that are used to conduct a kinetic breach. The tool utilizes a self contained impact ram that has no projectiles or explosive pressures exiting the tool.
Current Inventory:
Seal Beach Police Department
Seal Beach PD Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2025/03/05, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Seal Beach Police Department Military Equipment - 18
Kinetic Breaching Tool (KBT) Model 3-1000
Description: The KBT is a powder actuated kinetic energy forced entry tool. It utilizes a crimped blank explosive charge which drives a captive steel impact plate directed at the breach point. The impact plate extends forward out of the clamshell shroud and impacts against the target with a high level of kinetic energy to defeat the entry point or fortification.
The impact plate automatically retracts and is reset in the breaching device. The KBT uses semi-automatic cycling, allowing repeated strikes on hardened or multiple targets. The KBT's intended use is for forced entry during high-risk operations with secure entry points and is designed to be operated by a single officer/tactical team member. The KBT weighs 28 lbs. dimensions are 35 in. x 9.9 in. x 9.3 in. and has an audible report of 115 dB. The KBT utilizes a proprietary blank cartridge to deliver up to 850 ft. lbs. of kinetic energy through the steel ram. There is no projectile or explosive energy that leaves the device except for the force of the ram, which is permanently captured in the breaching device.
Quantity: 1
Purchase Price: $10,494.38 each
Purpose: To safely gain entry into a structure.
Authorized Use: Explosive breaching may only occur after authorization by the Incident Commander or SWAT Commander in the field, and during training exercises.
Expected Lifespan:
(a) Kinetic Breaching Tool (KBT) - 30 years
(b) Blank cartridges – 5 years (preferably rotate rounds within 1 year) Fiscal Impact: No annual maintenance.
Training: All officers who use explosive breaching tools shall first attend 40 hours of explosive breaching instruction and must additionally receive quarterly training for explosive operations.
Legal and Procedural Rules: It is the policy of the Seal Beach Police Department to utilize breaching tools only for official law enforcement purposes, and pursuant to State and Federal law.
Other Notes: This equipment is owned and operated by Seal Beach Police Department and used by the West County SWAT during training and SWAT operations for the region.
6. Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD)
A high intensity directional acoustical array for long-range, crystal-clear hailing, notification, and an unmistakable warning tone. The LRAD is primarily used as a communication device.
Current Inventory:
Genasys Long-Range Acoustic Device (LRAD) Model 500X
Description: The Genasys Long-Range Acoustic Device (LRAD) is a public address system optimized to the primary range of hearing. The LRAD system can deliver a live or recorded Seal Beach Police Department
Seal Beach PD Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2025/03/05, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Seal Beach Police Department Military Equipment - 19
voice message with clarity for any operational scenario. LRAD's advanced driver and waveguide technology ensures every broadcast is clearly heard and understood, even above crowd, engine, and background noise. The LRAD 500X is compact, lightweight, and designed for applications ranging from fixed security installations to vehicles and vessels. The 500X is easily mounted and transportable to provide law enforcement long-range communication and safe, scalable non-kinetic escalation of force. The audible range of the LRAD 500X can reach up to 6,561 ft. American Technology Corp. Serial Number: 05984 UASI ASAUA/DHS Number 11-00456.
Quantity: 1
Purchase Price: Refer to Westminster Police Department policy Purpose: To be used to issue dispersal orders during crowd and riot control situations or to address the public in the event of civil emergencies, natural disasters, evacuations, and police incidents (e.g., missing persons, perimeters for wanted suspects/ K9 deployments, etc.). The LRAD may also be used to issue a warning tone.
Authorized Use: LRAD use may only occur after the authorization of the Incident Commander or SWAT Commander in the field and/or during training exercises by personnel trained to operate the LRAD.
Expected Lifespan: 25 years with proper maintenance
Fiscal Impact: No annual maintenance.
Training: Only officers trained in the use of the LRAD are authorized to set up and operate the device.
Legal and Procedural Rules: It is the policy of the Seal Beach Police Department to utilize the Long-Range Acoustic Device (LRAD) only for official law enforcement purposes, and pursuant to State and Federal Law.
Other Notes: This equipment is owned and operated by West County SWAT through the Westminster Police Department, which could result in its deployment and/or use in the City of Seal Beach.
7. Robots
A remotely controlled unmanned machine that operates on the ground, which is utilized to enhance the safety of the community and officers.
Current Inventory:
TRANSCEND Vantage Patrol Robot
Description: Transcend's Vantage robot is the world's only double-patented automatic stair and obstacle climbing robot for First Responders. It's the only option for First Responders that want their robot to "just figure it out" on the first attempt to climb stairs, clothes, and junk without the burden of tedious manual controls associated with flippers and other Seal Beach Police Department
Seal Beach PD Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2025/03/05, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Seal Beach Police Department Military Equipment - 20
limb systems. This means the Vantage can be used without prior training to enter a house or building to see, hear and learn what's happening before sending officers inside.
Cameras: Drive Camera (Night Vision), Pan Tilt Zoom (25x zoom, 90/15 degree up/down tilt, auto infrared night vision), FLIR Thermal. 3 hours constant driving, 12 hours monitoring / intermittent driving. 100+ lb. payload, zero degree turning radius, two-way audio (push to talk), key ignition, easy battery swapping (robot and controller).
Quantity: 1
Purchase Price: Refer to Westminster Police Department policy Purpose: To be used to remotely gain visual/audio data, deliver HNT phone, open doors, disrupt packages, and clear buildings.
Authorized Use: Only assigned operators who have completed the required training shall be permitted to operate the robot(s) identified above. Use is established by the Bomb Squad Commander or Incident Commander.
Expected Lifespan: 8 to 10 years.
Fiscal Impact: Annual maintenance and battery replacement cost is approximately $500.
Training: All robot operators must first complete the FBI's 6-week hazardous device school prior to operating the robot(s) identified above.
Legal and Procedural Rules: It is the policy of the SBPD to utilize a robot only for official law enforcement purposes, and in a manner that respects the privacy of our community, pursuant to State and Federal law.
Other Notes: This equipment is owned and operated by West County SWAT through the Westminster Police Department, which could result in its deployment and/or use in the City of Seal Beach.
706.11 APPROVAL
The Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall obtain approval from the City Council by way of an ordinance adopting the military equipment policy. As part of the approval process, the Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall ensure the proposed military equipment policy is submitted to the City Council and is available on the Department website at least 30 days prior to any public hearing concerning the military equipment at issue (Government Code § 7071).The military equipment policy must be approved by the City Council prior to engaging in any of the following (Government Code § 7071):
(a) Requesting military equipment made available pursuant to 10 USC § 2576a. (b) Seeking funds for military equipment, including but not limited to applying for a grant, soliciting, or accepting private, local, state, or federal funds, in-kind donations, or other donations or transfers.
Seal Beach Police Department
Seal Beach PD Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2025/03/05, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Seal Beach Police Department Military Equipment - 21
(c) Acquiring military equipment either permanently or temporarily, including by borrowing or leasing.
(d) Collaborating with another law enforcement agency in the deployment or other use of military equipment within the jurisdiction of this Department. (e) Using any new or existing military equipment for a purpose, in a manner, or by a person not previously approved by the City Council.
(f) Soliciting or responding to a proposal for, or entering into an agreement with, any other person or entity to seek funds for, apply to receive, acquire, use, or collaborate in the use of military equipment.
(g) Acquiring military equipment through any means not provided above. 706.12 COORDINATION WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS
Military equipment used by any member of this Department shall be approved for use and in accordance with this Department policy. Military equipment used by other jurisdictions that are providing mutual aid to this Department shall comply with their respective military equipment use policies in rendering mutual aid.
706.13 MAINTENANCE OF MILITARY EQUIPMENT SUPPLY LEVELS
When stocks of military equipment ammunition have reached significantly low levels or have been exhausted, the Department may order up to 10% of stock in a calendar year without City Council approval to maintain essential availability for the Department's needs. Seal Beach Police Department is authorized to acquire additional stock of items listed here from other law enforcement agencies or California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) in the event of an emergency when approved by the Chief of Police or designee.
Euipment Make/Model Quantity Purchase
Cost
Annual Fiscal
Impact
1 Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS)
DJI MAVIC 2 ENTERPRISE DUAL 5,500.00 2 $
DJI Avata 677.74 1 $
2 40 MM Launchers and Rounds
Launchers DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY (DT), 40MM SINGLE SHOT
LAUNCHER 1,000.00 1 $ 50.00 $
Rounds DT, 40MM EXACT IMPACT SPONGE 26.50 41 $ - $
DT, 40MM DIRECT IMPACT CS 30.00 4 $ - $
3 Less Lethal Shotgun
Shotgun REMINGTON Model 870 SHOTGUN 946.00 13 $ 50.00 $ Rounds Drag Stabilized 12-GAUGE BEANBAG ROUND 5.00 317 $ - $ 4 Rifles
Rifle Colt AR-15 223 16" 846.56 37 $ - $ *
Colt AR-15 223 SBR 1,223.64 4 $ - $ *
Geissele AR-15 223 14.5 SBR 750.00 5 $ - $ *
Geissele AR-15 5.56 10.3 SBR 925.00 5 $ - $ *
H&K MP-7 4.6X30 7.1" 1,852.20 2 $ - $ *
Rounds Winchester 223 Remington 55 Gr. Silver Tip 802.74 980 $ - $ ** Winchester 5.56 MM 55 Gr. FMJ 392.21 10,600 $ - $ **
Winchester 223 Remington 55 Gr. Frangible 668.05 1,480 $ - $ ** L-Tech 4.6 x 30MM 31 Gr. Frangible 437.50 4,800 $ - $ ** L-Tech 4.6 x 30MM 31 Gr. OTM 572.00 880 $ - $ ***
Hornady 308 WIN TAP 168 gr A-MAX TAP Precision 656.20 400 $ - $ *** 5 PepperBall Launcher
Launcher Tippmann Pepperball Gun 1,146.50 2 $ 50.00 $
Rounds PepperBall LIVE-X PROJECTILE 340 $ - 3.00 $
Euipment Make/Model Quantity Purchase
Cost
Annual Fiscal
Impact
6 Armored Vehicles
SWAT LENCO BEARCAT G2 315,518.65 1 $ 1,000.00 $
7 Mobile Command Post Vehicle (MCP)
SWAT Freightliner M2 106 vehicle 450,000.00 1 $ 1,000.00 $ 8 Distraction Devices
SWAT
COMBINED TACTICAL SYSTEMS (CTS), MODEL 7290
FLASH BANG 45.00 1 $ - $
DT, No. 15 STINGER GRENADE 36.00 15 $ - $
9 Chemical Agent and Smoke Canisters
SWAT DT, DIRECT IMPACT 40MM OC ROUND 26.50 5 $ - $
DT, FLAMELESS TRI-CHAMBER CS GRENADE 34.94 2 $ - $
DT SPEDE-HEAT CS GRENADE 28.30 15 $ - $
DT CS TRIPLE-CHASER SEPARATING CANISTER 44.89 1 $ - $
*** $ 2,000.00
DT 40MM CS FERRET POWDER BARRICADE
PENETRATING PROJECTILE ROUND 20.91 7 $ - $
DT 40MM CS FERRET LIQUID BARRICADE
PENETRATING PROJECTILE ROUND 21.53 7 $ - $
DT RIOT CONTROL CS GRENADE 32.70 15 $ - $
DT POCKET TACTICAL CS GRENADE 31.25 15 $ - $
10 Explosive Breaching Tools
SWAT Kinetic Breaching Tool (KBT) Model 3-1000 10,494.38 1 $ - $ 11 Robot
SWAT TRANSCEND Vantage Patrol Robot $ 500.00 10,000.00 $ 12 Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD)
SWAT Genasys Long-Range Acoustic Device (LRAD) Model 500X 25,000.00 1 $ - $ * Price Per
** Price Per 1000
***Total Cost
MAKE MODEL CALIBER SERIAL
DJI MAVIC 2 ENTERPRISE DUAL Drone N/A 298DG4H001ZWH9
DJI MAVIC 2 ENTERPRISE DUAL Drone N/A 4GCCJ4GR0A0707
DJI AVALA Drone N/A 1581F4QWD227B0021HFY
Make Model Caliber Serial #
DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY (DT), 40MM SINGLE SHOT LAUNCHER Launcher 40mm D36434 DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY (DT), 40MM SINGLE SHOT LAUNCHER Launcher 40mm FW21222 DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY (DT), 40MM SINGLE SHOT LAUNCHER Launcher 40mm FW21223 40 MM Rounds Quantity
DT, 40MM EXACT IMPACT SPONGE 30
DT, 40MM DIRECT IMPACT CS 4
Make Model Caliber Serial # Description Quantity
Remington 870 12 GAUGE 690535V less lethal/bean bag
Remington 870 12 GAUGE 783020V less lethal/bean bag
Remington 870 12 GAUGE V239331V less lethal/bean bag
Remington 870 12 GAUGE T042967V less lethal/bean bag
Remington 870 12 GAUGE 960539V less lethal/bean bag
Remington 870 12 GAUGE 723829V less lethal/bean bag
Remington 870 12 GAUGE T042966V less lethal/bean bag
Remington 870 12 GAUGE T010634V less lethal/bean bag
Remington 870 12 GAUGE V244491V less lethal/bean bag
Remington 870 12 GAUGE T010242V less lethal/bean bag
Remington 870 12 GAUGE 960501V less lethal/bean bag
Remington 870 12 GAUGE 689221V less lethal/bean bag
Remington 870 12 GAUGE T010764V less lethal/bean bag 13 Rounds Quantity
40MM Beanbag Rounds 317
870 Slug Rifle Rounds 500
Make Model Caliber Barrel length Serial # Quantity
COLT AR-15 223 16” LBD020522
COLT AR-15 223 16” LBD020525
COLT AR-15 223 16” LBD020531
COLT AR-15 223 16” LBD020543
COLT AR-15 223 16” LBD020577
COLT AR-15 223 16” LBD020636
COLT AR-15 223 16” LBD020643
COLT AR-15 223 16” LBD020646
COLT AR-15 223 16” LBD020660
COLT AR-15 223 16” LBD020670
COLT AR-15 223 16” LBD020675
COLT AR-15 223 16” LBD020706
COLT AR-15 223 16” LBD020707
COLT AR-15 223 16” LBD025455
COLT AR-15 223 16” LBD025460
COLT AR-15 223 16” LBD025461
COLT AR-15 223 16” LBD025470
COLT AR-15 223 16” LBD025477
COLT AR-15 223 16” LBD025539
COLT AR-15 223 16” LBD025556
COLT AR-15 223 16” LBD025557
COLT AR-15 223 16” LBD025563
COLT AR-15 223 16” LBD025565
COLT AR-15 223 16” LBD025568
COLT AR-15 223 16” LBD025601
COLT AR-15 223 16” LBD025605
COLT AR-15 223 16” LBD025606
COLT AR-15 223 16” LBD025696
COLT AR-15 223 16” LBD025718
COLT AR-15 223 16” LBD025734
COLT AR-15 223 16” LBD030890
COLT AR-15 223 16” LBD031268
COLT AR-15 223 16” LBD031447
COLT AR-15 223 16” LBD031450
COLT AR-15 223 16” LBD031467
COLT AR-15 223 16” LBD031469
COLT AR-15 223 16” SP145545 37
COLT AR-15 223 SBR A0402810
COLT AR-15 223 SBR A0402798
COLT AR-15 223 SBR A0402808
COLT AR-15 223 SBR CR824915 4
Geissele AR-15 223 14.5 SBR SD556-006606
Geissele AR-15 223 14.5 SBR SD556-006760
Geissele AR-15 223 14.5 SBR SD556-006228
Geissele AR-15 223 14.5 SBR SD556-006610
Geissele AR-15 223 14.5 SBR SD556-006757 5
Geissele AR-15 5.56 10.3 SBR SD556-034191
Geissele AR-15 5.56 10.3 SBR SD556-034198
Geissele AR-15 5.56 10.3 SBR SD556-034193
Geissele AR-15 5.56 10.3 SBR SD556-034189
Geissele AR-15 5.56 10.3 SBR SD556-034211 5
H&K MP-7 4.6X30 7.1” 164-021384
H&K MP-7 4.6X30 7.1” 164-021385 2
Rounds Quantity
Winchester 223 Remington 55 Gr. Silver Tip 980
Winchester 5.56 MM 55 Gr. FMJ 10,600
Winchester 223 Remington 55 Gr. Frangible 1,480
L-Tech 4.6 x 30MM 31 Gr. Frangible 4,800
L-Tech 4.6 x 30MM 31 Gr. OTM 880
Hornady 308 WIN TAP 168 gr A-MAX TAP Precision 400
Make Model Caliber Serial #
Tippmann Pepperball Gun GAS-RIOT PEPPERBALL 1528367
Tippmann Pepperball Gun GAS-RIOT PEPPERBALL 1528394
Pepperball Rounds Quantity
PepperBall LIVE-X PROJECTILE 240
SWAT OPERATORS INVENTORY LIST
Operator Rifle Plate Carrier/Vest Ballistic Plate Helmet Colt Ar-15 Velocity Systems IIIA soft armor Protech XCAL LP Ops Core FAST Ballistic Helmet SN: A0402808 SN: 975046 SN: 289, 290 SN: 2233070016
Geissele Automatics Protech Project 7 Protech Model 2120-5 Protech SD-556 IIA soft armor SN:10180354362 SN: not legible
SN: SD556-006606 Model: BA-3A00S-XT03 Paraclete Model
Frnt SN:21061386 30025
Rr SN:21061385 SN:0064470283
Geissele Automatics Point Blank soft armor Revision Caiman SD-556 SN: 200000074553 SN: not legible
SN: SD556-034191 SN: 200000074552
Geissele Automatics Protech Protech
SD-556 IIA soft armor SNL: STRGBB-789
SN: SD556-034198 Frnt SN: 14074471
Rr SN: 14074472
Geissele Automatics First Spear Siege Point Blank soft armor Revision Caiman SD-556 Frnt SN: 12-00185 SN: 200000329008 SN: not legible SN: SD556-034193 Rr SN:12-00354 SN: 200000329007
Remington 700 Velocity Systems
SN: RR07763F IIIA soft armor
SN: 14074474
SN:14074473
Geissele Automatics First Spear Siege
SD-556 Frnt SN: 12-00212
SN- 556034211 Rr SN:12-00185
B. Jaipream
Unassigned behind Knight, Tittle N/A N/A
Alex Nishimura
N/A
P. Krok
J. Sansenbach
G. Kiehl First Spear Siege
K. Phan (Retired)
Agenda Item K
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
DATE: May 27, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
THRU: Patrick Gallegos, Interim City Manager
FROM: Michael Henderson, Chief of Police
SUBJECT: Implementation of Coastal Commission-Approved Beach Parking Lot Rate Increases
________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
That the City Council adopt Resolution 7651:
1. Implementing the beach-parking-lot rate schedule approved by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) on May 7, 2025, to take effect July 1, 2025; and,
2. Accepting the CCC’s conditions of approval and directing staff to satisfy the conditions imposed by the CCC; and,
3. Authorizing staff to execute and submit all documentation required by the CCC—including the Notice of Receipt & Acknowledgement, Revised Final Plans, and subsequent compliance reports—within the timelines set forth in the permits.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:
The City’s three (3) beach parking lots (1st Street, 8th Street, and 10th Street) currently charge $2.00 per hour, $10.00 daily maximum, and a $4.00 flat fee after 6 p.m. These fees were last formally adjusted during Fiscal Year 2015-16.
Escalating costs for security, lighting, resurfacing, and pay-station maintenance now outpace revenue deposited into the restricted Tidelands Fund. To sustain lot upkeep, Marine Safety staffing, and pier maintenance—while keeping Seal Beach’s rates below many neighboring jurisdictions—staff sought Coastal Development Permits (CDPs) authorizing an increase to $3.00 per hour with a $15.00 daily cap and retention of the $4.00 evening flat fee.
On October 9, 2023 the City Council authorized staff to prepare and submit Coastal Development Permit (CDP) applications to raise beach parking lot rates from $2.00 per hour ($10 daily maximum, $4 flat after 6 p.m.) to $3.00 per hour with a $15