Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 - NB-1 - A Resolution Amending and Adopting - 10/1/2019 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 1, 2019 ITEM NUMBER: NB-1 SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION AMENDING AND ADOPTING THE CITY’S SMALL CELL TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY DESIGN GUIDELINES DATE: SEPTEMBER 23, 2019 FROM: PLANNING DIVISION/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION BY: JENNIFER LE, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/ BARRY CURTIS, DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: JENNIFER LE (714) 754-5617 Jennifer.Le@costamesaca.gov RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution amending and approving the City’s Design Guidelines for Small Cell Telecommunication Facilities and provide direction to staff regarding modified procedures and requirements as described in this report. BACKGROUND: State and Federal Regulations Wireless facilities are governed by the Federal Telecommunication Act of 1996, which was intended to balance the national interest in advanced communications infrastructure deployment with the local interest in maintaining authority to protect public health, safety and welfare. The industry is also regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), and the City is subject to the Telecommunications Act, FCC regulations, and state law and regulations that control cell site deployments. Under 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II), the City may not regulate the placement, construction or modification of wireless service facilities in a manner that prohibits or effectively prohibits the provision of personal wireless services. Although recent FCC regulations sharply limit local authority over small wireless facilities federal law does not prohibit a City from reviewing a small cell facility for its aesthetics and location under reasonable, nondiscriminatory, objective, and published criteria. On January 1, 2016, California Assembly Bill No. 57 became effective which provided that applications for some types of co-location or siting of a wireless telecommunication facility be deemed automatically approved if a city fails to approve or disapprove an application within 90 days for co-location applications and 150 days for a new wireless telecommunication facility. These time periods are commonly referred to as “shotclocks”. In September 2018, the FCC adopted new regulations (FCC 18-133), which became fully effective in April 2019. The four main components of the regulations were: • The application fees a City may assess were limited to a reasonable approximation of actual and reasonable costs. • The “shot clock” deadlines to approve or reject small cell facilities were shortened to 60 days for co-locations and 90 days for wireless facilities on new structures. The FCC now includes all processing, appeals, and construction permit issuance within the totality of the shot clock period. • The definition of ”co-location” was expanded to include new installations on existing structures, regardless of whether those structures already supported existing wireless facilities. • The FCC prohibited local government aesthetics standards for small wireless facilities unless they are reasonable, no more burdensome than those applied to other types of infrastructure deployments, objective, and published in advance. Council Member Marr previously requested that the City review House Resolution 530 and Senate Bill 2012 (pending in the United States Congress) which state that the FCC ruling “shall have no force or effect.” These bills would, if passed, allow state and local governments to both collect greater fees for processing applications and managing deployments, and to repeal the shot clocks for City review of new small wireless facilities. Mayor Foley has, on behalf of the City, signed on to a National League of Cities letter to the FCC in support of House Resolution 530 and Senate Bill 2012 pursuant to Council Policy 000-8. Adoption of Small Cell Design Guidelines Costa Mesa received its first application for a small cell facility in late 2017. The majority of small cell facilities in the City are being proposed on street light poles owned and operated by Southern California Edison (SCE). SCE and an individual carrier’s technology largely dictate the designs of small cell facilities, which were (in the past) proposed in a variety of configurations. In order to provide City guidance and to ensure a degree of visual consistency and uniformity for small cell installations within the public right-of-way, staff prepared Design Guidelines for City Council consideration in spring 2018. On October 2, 2018, the City Council approved the Design Guidelines and concurrently gave first reading to Ordinance No. 18-09 amending Title 19 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code (CMMC) to incorporate a reference to the Design Guidelines. The City Council approved the second reading of the Ordinance on October 16, 2018 and the Code changes became effective on November 15, 2018. October 2, 2018 City Council Meeting Staff Report: https://www.costamesaca.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=34628 Minutes: https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=35520 Video: http://costamesa.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=10&clip_id=3267 The City Council approved a modification to the Design Guidelines on April 2, 2019, which included one minor change recommended by the City Attorney’s Office due to FCC Regulatory Order 18-33 (described above). The Council also approved a modification to the Design Guidelines to clarify that a Minor Conditional Use Permit (MCUP) for a small cell facility located within 50 feet (when located on an arterial) or 75 feet (when located on a local street) of a residence in a residential zone would be reviewed by the Planning Commission. If located further from a residence, a MCUP would be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator. This standard replaced the prior criteria (which focused on whether or not a facility was within “direct view” of a residence as a means of determining whether a project was subject to Planning Commission or Zoning Administrator review) in favor of a more objective standard. April 2, 2019 City Council Meeting Staff Report: http://ftp.costamesaca.gov/costamesaca/council/agenda/2019/2019-04- 02/NB-1.pdf Minutes: https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=38032 Video: http://costamesa.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=10&clip_id=3358 City Council Study Session On May 28, 2019, the Planning Commission approved requests for MCUPs for seven small cell facilities, proposed by AT&T and Verizon. On May 31, 2019, Mayor Pro Tem Stephens called the MCUPs up for City Council review. Staff agendized the items for the July 2, 2019 City Council meeting. At that meeting, some community members suggested that there could be additional options that the City should consider to address their concerns and they suggested that the City review ordinances from other cities for different perspectives on small cell regulations. The City Council continued the items and requested staff schedule a Study Session and open house to further evaluate options. Per the City Council’s request, a Study Session and community open house was held on August 13, 2019. Staff re-evaluated the City’s requirements and presented options to the City Council to enhance the City’s Design Guidelines. Eight individuals spoke at the meeting, and more individuals participated in the Open house immediately following the Study Session. The City Council specifically expressed interest in staff returning to the City Council with proposed Design Guidelines modifications, as well as recommendations for adjusting the City’s review process. The City Council expressed interest in staff analyzing the following: • Requiring a preferred locational hierarchy and residential setback • Requiring minimum distances between small cell facilities • Ensuring minimal impacts to existing landscaping or requiring screening of ground-mounted equipment with landscaping • Incorporating a requirement for periodic post-installation RF emissions measurements • Incorporating a provision allowing for decommissioning of a facility • Posting a list of approved and/or constructed facilities online • Preparing a master plan or map of full build-out of small cell facilities • Requiring applications to be submitted by appointment only • Requiring a pre-application meeting and other requirements similar to the City of San Mateo’s or the City of Calabasas’ Ordinance • Creating an infrastructure or technology-related Commission to review small cell applications so as to ameliorate the number of applications reviewed by the Planning Commission • Resident notification for equipment upgrades at existing facilities August 13, 2019 City Council Study Session Staff Report: http://ftp.costamesaca.gov/costamesaca/council/agenda/2019/2019-08- 13/SS-1.pdf Video: http://costamesa.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=10&clip_id=3440 Since the Study Session, staff has engaged the City Attorney’s Office and the City’s consultant, Jonathan Kramer, Ph.D., of Telecom Law Firm. The staff team has reviewed several ordinances from cities throughout the State, evaluated recent case law and FCC regulations, and reviewed suggestions submitted by the public. The staff team is recommending modifications to the City’s Design Guidelines to reflect best practices, while still ensuring compliance with Federal and State laws. Staff has also evaluated the review process for small cell applications and is recommending additional process changes as described in this report. ANALYSIS : Proposed Design Guidelines Staff has prepared modified Design Guidelines (Attachment 1) for City Council consideration. The modified Design Guidelines include: a preferred locational hierarchy, new placement requirements including residential setbacks, and expanded options for small cell facilities to locate on support structures other than SCE poles in certain instances. Allowable Support Structures The existing Design Guidelines encourage locating small cell installations on existing or replacement light standards (primarily on SCE-owned poles). This policy is intended to leverage existing poles and to discourage new vertical elements and increased visual clutter in the public right-of-way. However, the locations and spacing of such poles is a somewhat limiting factor in selecting a site for a small cell installation, particularly in residential areas. The modified Design Guidelines expand the types of support structures to which small cell facilities located within the public right-of-way can be affixed. In order of preference, small cell facilities would be allowed within City street right-of-way on existing or new replacement light standards (SCE poles); existing or new traffic signal poles (subject to an review and approval by the City); existing or new replacement utility poles (wood or steel poles); or a new standalone pole. The modified Design Guidelines continue to encourage facilities on existing poles or replacement SCE light poles. However, allowing for installations on existing City traffic signal poles (subject to Public Services standards) provides an additional option to locate small facilities in high demand areas while minimizing new installations in the public right- of- way. In addition, the modified Design Guidelines allow for a new standalone pole to be installed (small cell facility only, not a light pole). This option may be beneficial in situations in which existing poles do not allow for compliance with the City’s design standards, and installing a new pole would comply, among other benefits. Preferred Locational Hierarchy and Placement Standards The existing Design Guidelines state that proposed small cell facilities should locate 500 feet away from a residential zone when feasible. As part of staff’s standard review of an application, staff reviews the proposed location with the applicant and requests additional information as to why other poles in the facility’s service area (identified by the applicant) were not selected. The modified Design Guidelines formalizes this evaluation process by identifying a preferred locational hierarchy for small cell facilities. Applications that involve lesser- preferred locations may be approved if the applicant demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that more-preferred locations or structures within 500 feet from the proposed site do not exist or are otherwise technically infeasible. Every potential support structure within the public right-of-way within 500 feet would be evaluated. In order of preference, small cell facilities would be allowed within City street right-of-way in: • First Preference- Non-Residential Zoning Districts. (i) locations on or along major, primary, or secondary arterials (ii) locations on or along divided collector arterials or collector arterials (iii) locations on or along local streets • Second Preference- Zoning Districts with Residential Only Conditionally Permitted or Permitted by Overlay (i) locations on or along major, primary or secondary arterials (ii) locations on or along divided collector arterials or collector arterials (iii) locations on or along local streets • Third Preference- Residential Districts (i) locations on or along major, primary or secondary arterials (ii) locations on or divided collector arterials or collector arterials (iii) locations on or along local streets This hierarchy indicates the City’s clear preference for sites located in non-residential areas and also a preference for locating installations on larger commercially-oriented streets rather than on local residential streets. Installations within residential districts on local streets are the least preferred location. However, staff expects that many installations will continue to be proposed in residential neighborhoods because the wireless industry reports that those are high demand areas and because service areas for small cell facilities are limited in size. In addition, the majority of the City’s area is zoned residential. Therefore, it would be prohibitive and likely illegal to restrict small cell installations to only non-residential districts. In addition to a locational hierarchy, the modified Design Guidelines identify new specific placement standards. Staff recommends that installations would be required to be located on support structures at least 25 feet from a residence; at least 10 feet away from a residential driveway; and 50 feet away from a driveway for schools, police stations, fire stations or other emergency responder facilities. New poles would be required to locate within five feet of a property line between two parcels in residential zoning districts, so that the new pole and small cell installation is located further away from the front and center of any residence. These locational standards are more specific and more stringent than the existing guidelines. They are intended to provide a visual buffer from residences and from the primary entry points to the other unique uses listed above so as to minimize the visual impacts of small cell installations in neighborhoods. Design Standards The Design Guidelines incorporate the City’s existing design preferences for pole-top mounted installations with the antenna and Remote Radio Units (RRUs) integrated and screened within a single shroud. The modified design standards also allow for side- mounted installations on utility poles (wood or steel poles supporting electrical lines or other utilities) when pole-top mounted installations are infeasible due to regulatory requirements. The Design Guidelines have also been modified to include or clarify requirements related to compliance with existing City noise standards, lighting best practices, required underground equipment vaults, landscaping, and compliance with federal RF emissions standards. It should be noted that the modified Design Guidelines do not anticipate potential 5G designs. There are no 5G facilities in Costa Mesa and most carriers have not yet developed and shared their 5G designs and deployment plans. Therefore, staff believes it is premature at this time to pursue the issue. When 5G designs are further developed, modifications to the Design Guidelines may be necessary. Recommendations for Modifying the City’s Review Process Existing Review Process In 2010, the City adopted an ordinance requiring review and approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit (MCUP) for any proposed telecommunication facility within the public right-of-way that does not meet certain criteria listed in Section 19-15 of the CMMC. A Minor Conditional Use Permit is required to establish and operate a wireless communication facility within the public right-of-way if it meets any of the following three criteria: • Antenna or any supporting equipment is not integrated with and screened by the proposed structure as illustrated in the Design Guidelines; • Requires an above ground cabinet/equipment; or • Facility located within 500 feet of a residential zone. Per Council direction, the MCUP for a small cell facility located within 50 feet (when located on an arterial) or 75 feet (when located on a local street) of a residence in a residential zone is reviewed by the Planning Commission. If located further from a residence, the MCUP is reviewed by the Zoning Administrator. All decisions are currently appealable to a higher reviewing body and ultimately to the City Council, but are also subject to the very strict constraints of the FCC’s September 2018 order. If an application does not require an MCUP, it proceeds to the Public Services Department for review and issuance of a ministerial Encroachment Permit. Recommended Review Process Due to FCC mandated “shotclocks,” the City has 10 calendar days, including weekends and holidays, to review an application for a small cell facility and to deem the application incomplete if required application materials are not submitted. If the City does not deem the application incomplete within 10 days, the application is automatically deemed complete per federal regulations. The City has a total of 60 days for co-locations or 90 days for wireless facilities on new structures from the submittal date to approve or reject an application (including any appeals or reviews filed) and to issue all required permits for construction (including building permits and encroachment permits, as applicable). Accordingly, it is imperative that the City adopt an expedited review process for small cell installations that makes it possible to meet mandated shotclocks, while ensuring compliance with our Design Guidelines. In order to be able to comply with required shotclocks, staff is recommending that the City Council consider a more streamlined review process for small cell facilities whereby a new small cell approval type (not an MCUP) is created specifically for this use. Specific application requirements, review criteria including compliance with the adopted Design Guidelines, and standard conditions would be adopted and applied to each proposal. The Director of Economic and Development Services or designee would review the application and approve or deny it based on compliance with pre-defined requirements and standards. This decision would be ministerial as it involves only a determination of compliance or non-compliance with specific standards and would not be appealable. If the proposal does not comply with placement requirements or other required provisions of the Design Guidelines, the applicant would be required to submit clear and convincing evidence demonstrating that there are no other support structures or locations within 500 feet of the proposed site that are feasible and that comply with the Design Guidelines. In certain circumstances, a third-party review of the application may be necessary to determine whether the justification of technical infeasibility is sufficient. After reviewing the applicant’s analysis and justification, the Director would either deny the application or concur that there are no other feasible options within 500 feet of the proposed site, such that denial of the application would effectively prohibit the provision of personal wireless services in the area. In this case, the Director would approve the application. The Director’s review of the applicant’s analysis and justification would be treated as a discretionary matter. Notice would be provided to property owners and occupants within 100 feet of the proposed site at least 10 days prior to the Director’s decision. The Director would consider written comments from the public. The Director’s decisions would be posted online and that decision could be appealed within seven days to the City Manager or designee. This decision on the matter would be final. Decision-Making Body To ensure compliance with strict federal regulations and the time-sensitive shotclocks, staff is recommending that the Director of Economic and Development Services or designee be the decision-making body for small cell applications. At the August 13 Study Session, the idea of creating a separate Communications and Technology Commission specifically to review small cell applications was suggested. The City Council has the option to direct staff to create a separate Commission. However, staff believes that creating a new Commission (which will function similarly to the Planning Commission) will ultimately result in the same frustration that is currently experienced by both decision makers and the public, but with increased costs related to staff time to plan for and attend these new Commission meetings. As the federal regulations and case law for small cell sites are so prescriptive, it may be more prudent to delegate this function to the City’s staff, as the subject matter experts. City staff will render decisions in concert with and under the advice of the City Attorney, enabling the City to make timely legal decisions without creating another governmental body. Moreover, it would take additional staff time and resources to educate the new Commission regarding state and federal laws and regulations, case law, and the City’s design guidelines, potentially creating further inefficiencies and delays. Review by a Commission at a noticed public hearing will create an expectation that the Commission has broad discretion to consider public concerns (which up to this point have been primarily related to concerns regarding RF emissions) and to approve or deny applications based on those concerns. In reality, the Commission’s ability to apply its own judgment and discretion to small cell installations is severely limited by federal regulations. In fact, its only discretion would be to determine whether or not there are other feasible support structures within 500 feet of a proposed site. This is primarily a technical decision that can be more easily made at the staff level. Lastly, there is a cost associated with creating a new Commission and staffing it. In addition, the lead time associated with agendizing and noticing items for a public hearing (in addition to the Planning Commission) requires staff resources and is also a concern due to the time-sensitive mandated shotclocks. For these reasons, staff does not recommend the use of a separate Commission for this purpose. Next Steps Because the requirement for a MCUP for wireless facilities in the public right-of-way (and the associated decision process and appeals) is embedded within the Municipal Code itself, changing the review process would require City Council approval of a Code Amendment. If the City Council desires to modify the review process, staff recommends that application requirements for small cell facilities be substantially expanded and detailed in the Municipal Code, as well. This would allow staff to deem an application incomplete until all required materials as specifically outlined in the Municipal Code are submitted. Application requirements could be updated to include, for example, an acoustical analysis to demonstrate planned compliance with City noise standards and the RF emissions report. Standard conditions could also be included in the Municipal Code and applied to each installation as mandatory requirements. Such standard conditions could include a requirement for post-installation certifications or RF emissions measurements, commitments for site maintenance, cost reimbursement provisions, and requirements for decommissioning of a facility. These issues were raised by the City Council during the Study Session and would be best addressed as part of a Code Amendment. The proposed additional materials would also enhance staff’s ability to properly evaluate applications within the time limits of the respective shotclock periods. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed Resolution has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA guidelines, and the City’s environmental procedures, and has been found to be exempt pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (general rule) of the CEQA Guidelines, in that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the modified of existing Design Guidelines to be more detailed and more stringent will have a significant effect on the environment. The adoption of the Resolution, if approved by the City Council, does not in itself approve any installation of any cell site, but simply creates rules governing such installation. Any future actual project requesting discretionary review of a small wireless facility would be subject to CEQA review. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: The City Council may adopt the Design Guidelines as proposed, modify the proposed Design Guidelines, or not amend the existing Design Guidelines. The City Council may also provide direction to staff as to any desired changes to the City’s review process. Depending on the specific direction provided, staff may return to the City Council with a proposed Code Amendment. FISCAL REVIEW: There are no fiscal impacts associated with adopting the Design Guidelines. However, in the event a third-party analysis is needed in order to evaluate and confirm that there are no other feasible support structures within 500 feet of a proposed site that could provide service to that area, additional costs to the City may be incurred. If the Design Guidelines are approved by the City Council, staff would release a request for proposals for the provision of technical support services for specific instances requiring additional technical analysis and review. However, based on preliminary research, staff estimates the cost to be approximately $2,000 per small cell site, depending on the level of review required based on the elements of a particular project. It is unknown precisely how many small cell requests will be submitted in the future as well as how many would need to be reviewed by a third-party under the Design Guidelines (since this determination is dependent on the proposed location). This additional cost will be incurred by the City regardless of whether the decision making body is the Director of Economic and Development Services, the Planning Commission, or a new Commission. In the event third-party review is needed, it is staff’s intent to pass this application-specific cost on to the applicant. The FCC allows state or local governments to charge fees that recover a “reasonable approximation” of the actual and reasonable costs. However, the FCC also states that “fees must not only be limited to a reasonable approximation of costs, but in order to be reflected in fees, the costs themselves must also be reasonable.” It is unclear whether third-party technical expertise costs can be deemed “reasonable”. The definition of “unreasonably high” costs is unknown at this time. Lastly, updating the review process, standard conditions and application requirements, including preparation of a Code Amendment to implement these updates, would require some outside expertise at additional cost. Staff’s cost estimate for this work is approximately $15,000 to $20,000. LEGAL REVIEW: The City Attorney’s Office has reviewed this report and approved the Resolution and Design Guidelines. PUBLIC NOTICE: There is no public notice requirement for adoption of Design Guidelines. However, the City published a courtesy notice in the Daily Pilot newspaper 10 days prior to the date of the City Council meeting and also released information through its social media outlets. CITY COUNCIL GOALS & PRIORITIES: The proposed project is consistent with City Council Goal No. 2 (Improve our Neighborhoods and Quality of Life). CONCLUSION: The City has adopted Small Cell Facility Design Guidelines to ensure a high-quality, visually consistent, and compatible design for small cell facilities proposed within public rights-of-way. At the City Council’s request, staff has modified the City’s Design Guidelines to provide more specific guidance related to allowable locations for small cell facilities. If the City Council desires to modify the review process, staff will need to prepare an amendment to the Municipal Code and return to the City Council with an Ordinance. Application materials, standard conditions, and other related City materials will also need to be amended to reflect best practices. Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution including Exhibit A (Design Guidelines) JENNIFER LE BARRY CURTIS, AICP Assistant Director of Development Services Director of Economic and Development Services KELLY TELFORD, CPA KIMBERLY HALL BARLOW Finance Director City Attorney Resolution No. 19-xx Page 1 of 3 RESOLUTION NO. 19-xx A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR SMALL CELL TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, it is in the public interest for the City Council to establish reasonable and objective design guidelines for the development of wireless facilities that are compliant with federal and state law; and WHEREAS, design guidelines would implement General Plan Objective CD-1A, which states, “Contribute to City beautification by enhancing the visual environment of Costa Mesa’s vehicular and pedestrian paths and corridors”; and WHEREAS, design guidelines provide greater direction and assure a degree of consistency in the wireless telecommunication facility design and configuration; and WHEREAS, the City Council approved the Design Guidelines by Resolution on October 2, 2018; and WHEREAS, the City Council amended the Design Guidelines to ensure compliance with FCC Small Cell Regulatory Order 18-133 on April 2, 2019; and WHEREAS, the adopted Design Guidelines would not increase impediments to the installation of wireless communication facilities under Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 but illustrates the desired level of design quality and configuration of any proposed wireless telecommunication facility; and WHEREAS, the City held a Study Session and Open House regarding small cell regulations on August 13, 2019 and expressed interest in potential modifications to the Design Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the subject amendment to the Design Guidelines at their regular meeting on October 1, 2019 with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the amendment of the Design Guidelines; NOW THEREFORE, THE COSTA MESA CITY COUNCIL RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Resolution No. 19-xx Page 2 of 3 1. The project is found to be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15061(b)(3) for General Rule, as this action will not have any significant effect on the environment. 2. The City Council adopts and approves the amendment to the Design Guidelines attached hereto as Exhibit A. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the CEQA determination for this project reflects the independent judgment of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any section, division, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this resolution, or the documents in the record in support of this resolution, are for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of October, 2019. _____________________________ Katrina Foley, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________ _____________________________ Brenda Green, City Clerk Kimberly Hall Barlow, City Attorney Resolution No. 19-xx Page 3 of 3 THIS PAGE IS RESERVED FOR THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss CITY OF COSTA MESA ) I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 19-xx and was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa at a regular meeting held on the ___day of _____, 2019, by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the seal of the City of Costa Mesa this ___day of _____, 2019. ___________________________ Brenda Green, City Clerk