Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-08-19; City Council; 17293; AT&T Wireless CUP 03-22CITY OF CARLSBAD -AGENDA BILL AB# 17,293 MTG. 8-19-03 TITLE: AT&T WIRELESS CUP 03-22 DEPT. PLNA Project application(s) I CITY MGR k Administrative Reviewed by and To be Reviewed - Approvals Final at Planning Final at Council RECOMMENDED ACTION: CUP 03-22 That the City Council DIRECT the City Attorney to prepare documents approving the requested Conditional Use Permit, CUP 03-22. .. - Commission X ITEM EXPLANATION: Number of antennas Screening method Radio Base Station (RBS) Screening method Air Conditioning units providedlrequired Horizontal distance of antennas to nearest residence Vertical distance relative to nearest residential pad Curbside utility box 6 panel Within faux chimney 240 square feet Within faux garage Yes, within faux garage 93 feet 103 feet 35 feet Yes Yes, below grade 6 panel I 1 microwave Painted to match tower 180 square feet Within block wall enclosure Yes, within enclosure 14 feet / 22’ to pool grade In September of 2000, AT&T Wireless requested approval to install 6 wireless antennas and the required utility boxes at 751 2 Cadencia. In October 2001, the City denied the request. Thereafter, AT&T filed suit in the United States District Court alleging that the City unlawfully denied the application. The U.S. District Court ruled in February 2003 that the City did in fact not have a basis supported by substantial evidence to deny the application. The court’s ruling overturned the City’s denial of the Conditional Use Permit and remanded the matter to the City to allow AT&T to install the requested wireless equipment at 751 2 Cadencia. Although, by court order, AT&T has the right to install a wireless facility at 7512 Cadencia Street, AT&T has the opportunity to ask the City Council to consider an alternative location. This Conditional Use Permit, submitted on June 19, 2003, requests approval for the alternative location at SDG&E tower 173. In October 2000, a similar application submitted by GTE for this location was denied by the City. The following fact sheet, written analysis and exhibits will provide information to compare the quantifiable pros and cons of each location. FACT SHEET LOCATION 751 2 Cadencia I SDG&E tower 173 Citv Policv 64, Wireless Communication Facilities City Policy 64 is not applicable to AT&T’s request to locate on SDG&E Tower 173. However, the policy has been referenced in determining a staff recommendation for City Council’s action. LO CAT1 0 N GUIDELINES Under the heading of Preferred locations, SDG&E tower 173 qualifies as a public utility installation in .L/,LY3 PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. an open space zone and specifically as an installation on an existing lattice tower. The site at 7512 Cadencia Street does not qualify as any of the “preferred locations”. Under the heading of Discouracred locations, SDG&E tower 173 is discouraged since it is within a major power transmission corridor next to a residential zone. The site at 7512 Cadencia Street is discouraged since it is within a residential zone. Under the heading of Visibilitv to the Public, antennas affixed to SDG&E tower 173 will be visible to the general public from a limited area on Esfera Street and will be visible from private properties adjacent to and near the site. The RBS walled enclosure will only be visible from some private properties adjacent to the site. The installation at 7512 Cadencia Street is proposed as a faux chimney and garage additions that will be visible to the general public from limited areas on Cadencia and Venado Streets and from some private properties adjacent to and near the site. Under the heading of Collocation, the SDG&E tower 173 installation qualifies as “encouraged” since it proposes to collocate with a major power transmission tower. The 7512 Cadencia Street location does not include any collocation benefits. DESIGN GUIDELINES Stealth Design and Ecruimnent call for antenna installation to visually blend into the background or the surface on which it is mounted. Radio base station equipment is preferred to be located within existing buildings or new screen structures must be treated to match nearby architecture or the surrounding landscape. The SDG&E tower 173 installation proposes compliance in the form of painting the antennas to match the color of the lattice tower and a block wall surrounding the RBS. The 751 2 Cadencia Street installation satisfies the stealth design criteria by creating a faux chimney and garage to house the antennas and RBS respectively. PERFORMANCE GUIDELINES Under the heading of Noise, all equipment must comply with City noise standards. The equipment may not generate noise at a decibel level of 60 Cnel or more as measured five feet within the property line of surrounding properties. The RBS for the SDG&E tower 173 installation is proposed to be enclosed by a block wall. The equipment has been tested and will generate 74 decibels at its peak. The equipment Cnel will be less because 1) Cnel is an average taken over a twenty-four hour period and 2) the block wall enclosure has significant noise reduction properties. The equipment at 7512 Cadencia Street would be fully enclosed and will also not exceed city noise standards. Under the heading of Liclhting, motion sensors should be used to turn security lights on and the use of security lighting should be kept to a minimum. Neither the SDG&E tower 173 nor the 7512 Cadencia Street installation proposes the use of security lights. Network Coverage Based on information provided by AT&T, a single wireless facility on the SDG&E tower 173 site will provide greater service coverage than a single facility at 7512 Cadencia Street. Network coverage equal to that achieved from an installation on the SDG&E tower can be achieved with the Cadencia Street site and the addition of a second facility in the vicinity of Rancho Santa Fe Road and La Costa Avenue. See exhibit “Network Coverage”. Federal Communications Commission No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the placement, construction, environmental effects of PAGE 3 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 17,2g3 radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the FCC regulations concerning such emissions. As a matter of information, it can be noted that the tower 173 proposal can be classified as a “Categorically Excluded” facility. This classification by the FCC means that the combination of technical factors associated with the project, like type of antenna, watts per channel and how high above ground the antennas will be mounted, create an environment where compliance with the FCC guideline limits for exposure is assumed. Because of the assumed compliance with FCC regulations, no further environmental assessment relative to radio frequency emissions is required. During the previous review of the 7512 Cadencia Street site, it was determined that the wireless facility would operate well below the radio frequency levels considered safe by the FCC. Similar to the SDG&E tower, no further evaluation relative to radio frequency emissions is required. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The construction and installation of small, new equipment facilities or structures is a Class 32 Categorical Exemption under the Environmental Quality Act (Guidelines section 15303). In addition, the FCC requires compliance with radio frequency power density standards (ANSIAEEE C95.1-1992) for the general public, therefore, the project will not have a significant adverse environmental impact on the environment. No additional environmental analysis is required to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no direct fiscal impact to the City since installation and maintenance of the wireless facility will be solely at the expense of the applicant. EXHIBITS: 1. Location Map 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Local Government Official’s Guide 7. Distance Map: 7512 Cadencia Street Distance Map: SDG&E Tower 173 Network Coverage: 7512 Cadencia Street Network Coverage: SDG&E Tower 173 Exhibits “A - “F” (on file in the Planning Department) DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Christer Westman, (760) 602-4614, cwest@ci.carlsbad.ca.us 3 EXHIBIT 1 ' SITE AT&T WIRELESS CUP 03-22 EXHIBIT 2 I "I 751 2 Cadencia Street 0 50 100 Feet w W C 6 I 1 5- EXHIBIT 3 50 100 Feet I O- SDG&E Tower 173 EXHIBIT 4 7 EXHIBIT 5 ! EXHIBIT 6 0 0 Local and State Government Advisory Committee A Local Government Official’s Guide to Transmitting Antenna RF Emission Safety: Rules, Procedures, and Practical Guidaiace June 2,2000 9 A Local Government Official’s Guide to Transmitting Antenna RF Emission Safety: Rules, Procedures, and Practical Guidance Over the past two years, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and its Local and State Government Advisory Committee (LSGAC) have been working together to prepare a voluntary guide to assist state and local governments in devising efficient procedures for ensuring that the antenna facilities located in their communities comply with the FCC’s limits for human exposure to radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields. The attached guide is the product of this joint effort. We encourage state and local govemment officials to consult this guide when addressing issues of facilities siting within their communities. This guide contains basic information, in a form accessible to officials and citizens alike, that will alleviate misunderstandings in the which contains detailed technical information regarding RF issues, and should continue to be used and consulted for complex sites. The guide contains information, tables, and a model checklist to assist state and local officials in identifying sites that do not raise concerns regarding compliance with the Commission’s RF exposure limits. In many cases, the model checklist offers a quick and effective way for state and local officials to establish that particular RF facilities are unlikely to exceed specific federal guidelines that protect the public from the environmental effects of RF emissions. Thus, we believe ths guide will facilitate federal, state, and local governments working together to protect the public while bringing advanced and innovative communications services to consumers as rapidly as possible. We hope and expect that use of this guide will benefit state and local governments, service providers, and, most importantly, the American public. . complex area of RF emissions safety. This guide is not intended to-replace .QETBulletin 65, .- We wish all of you good luck in your facilities siting endeavors. William E. Kennard, Chairman Federal Communications Commission Kenneth S. Fellman, Chair Local and State Government Advisory Committee FCCLSGAC @a1 Official’s Guide to RF A LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL’S GUIDE TO TRANSMITTING ANTENNA FW EMISSION SAFETY: RULES, PROCEDURES, AND PRACTICAL GUIDANCE A common question raised in discussions about the siting of wireless telecommunications and broadcast antennas is, “Will this tower create any health concerns for our citizens?” We have designed this guide to provide you with information and guidance in devising efficient procedures for assuring that the antenna facilities located in your community comply with the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC’s) limits for human exposure to radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields.’ We have included a checklist and tables to help you quickly identify siting applications that do not raise RF exposure concerns. Appendix A to this guide contains a checklist that you may use to identify “categorically excluded” facilities that are unlikely to cause RF exposures in excess of the FCC’s guidelines. Appendix B contains tables and figures that set forth, for some of the most common types of facilities, “worst case” distances beyond which there is no realistic possibility that exposure could exceed the FCC’s guidelines. - - - -4---- As discussed below, FCC rules require transmitting facilities to comply with RF exposure guidelines. The limits established in the guidelines are designed to protect the public health with a very large margin of safety. These limits have been endorsed by federal health and safety agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration. The FCC’s rules have been upheld by a Federal Court of Appeals.* As discussed below, most facilities create maximum exposures that are only a small fraction of the limits. Moreover, the limits themselves are many times below levels that are generally accepted as having the potential to cause adverse health effects. Nonetheless, it is recognized that any instance of noncompliance with the guidelines is potentially very serious, and the FCC has therefore implemented procedures to enforce compliance with its rules. At the same time, state and local governments may wish to verify compliance with the FCC’s exposure limits in order to protect their own citizens. As a state or local government official, you can play an important role in ensuring that innovative and beneficial communications services are provided in a manner that is consistent with public health and safety. This document addresses only the issue of compliance with RF exposure limits established by the FCC. It does not address other issues such as construction, siting, permits, inspection, zoning, environmental review, and placement of antenna facilities within communities. Such issues fall generally under the jurisdiction of states and local governments, within the limits imposed for personal wireless service facilities by Section 332(c)(7) of the Communications ’ This guide is intended to complement, but not to replace, the FCC’s OET Bulletin 65, “Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields,” August 1997. Bulletin 65 can be obtained from the FCC’s Office of Engineering and Technology (phone: 202-418-2464 or e-mail: rfsafety@fcc.gov). Bulletin 65 can also be accessed and downloaded from the FCC’s “RF Safety” website: http:/Jm. fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety. See Cellular Phone TasYorce v. FCC, 205 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 2000). FCCLSGAC (local Official’s Guide to‘RF ” ’ ’ ’ This document is not intended to provide legal guidance regarding the scope of state or local government authority under Section 332(c)(7) or any other provision of law. Section 332(~)(7)~ generally preserves state and local authority over decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities: subject to specific limitations set forth in Section 332(c)(7). Among other things, Section 332(c)(7) provides that “[n]o State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio fiequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the [FCC’s] regulations concerning such emissions.” The full text of Section 332(c)(7) is set forth in Appendix C. State and local governments and the FCC may differ regarding the extent of state and local legal authority under Section 332(c)(7) and other provisions of law. To the extent questions arise regarding such authority, they are being addressed by the courts. Rather than address these legal questions, this document recognizes that, as a practical matter,state and-localgoy.ernments have ._ a role to play in ensuring compliance with the FCC’s limits, and it provides guidance to assist you in effectively fulfilling that role. The twin goals of this document are: (1) to define and promote locally-adaptable procedures that will provide you, as a local official concerned about transmitting antenna emissions, with adequate assurance of compliance, while (2), at the same time, avoiding the imposition of unnecessary burdens on either the local government process or the FCC’s licensees. First, we’ll start with a summary of the FCC’s RF exposure guidelines and some background information that you’ll find helpful. Next, we’ll review the FCC’s procedures for verifjlng compliance with the guidelines and enforcing its rules. Finally, we’ll offer you some practical guidance to help you determine if personal wireless service facilities may raise compliance concerns. Note, however, that this guide is only intended to help you distinguish sites that are unlikely to raise compliance concerns from those that may raise compliance concerns, not to identify sites that are out of compliance. Detailed technical information necessary to determine compliance for individual sites is contained in the FCC’s OET Bulletin 65 (see footnote 1, above). 47 U.S.C. 5 332(c)(7). Under limited circumstances, the FCC also plays a role in the siting of wireless facilities. Specifically, the FCC reviews applications for facilities that fall within certain environmental categories under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), see 47 C.F.R. 5 1.1307(a). Antenna structures that are over 200 feet in height or located near airport runways must be marked or lighted as specified by the Federal Aviation Administration and must be registered with the FCC, see 47 C.F.R. Part 17. Section 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act is identical to Section 704(a) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. “Personal wireless services” generally includes wireless telecommunications services that are interconnected with the public telephone network and are offered commercially to the public. Examples include cellular and similar services (such as Personal Communications Service or “PCS”), paging and similar services, certain dispatch services, and services that use wireless technology to provide telephone service to a fured location such as a home or office. FCCILSGAC @a1 Official’s Guide to RF Before we start, however, let’s take a short tour of the radiofrequency spectrum. RF signals may be transmitted over a wide range of fiequencies. The frequency of an RF signal is expressed in terms of cycles per second or “Hertz,” abbreviated “Hz.” One kilohertz (kHz) equals one thousand Hz, one megahertz (MHz) equals one million Hz, and one gigahertz (GHz) equals one billion Hz. In the figure below, you’ll see that AM radio signals are at the lower end of the RF spectrum, while other radio services, such as analog and digital TV (DTV), cellular and PCS telephony, and point-to-point microwave services are much higher in frequency. Shortwave Radi AM Band Cordless Cordless Cordless. Phones Phones Phones Microwaves Aircraft Ham P.C.S. Phones CB VHF VHF UHF TV+DTV - N+DN N+DW--- Cellular Phone Ham Pagers FM Band 3 Mh 30 Mhz 300 Mh 3000 Mh As the frequency increases, the wavelength of the transmitted signal decreases b Mhz = Megahertz = Millions of cycles per second Illustration 1 The FCC’s limits for maximum permissible exposure (MPE) to RF emissions depend on the frequency or frequencies that a person is exposed to. Different frequencies may have different MPE levels. Later in this document we’ll show you how this relationship of frequency to MPE limit works. I. The FCC’s RF Exposure Guidelines and Rules. Part 1 of the FCC’s Rules and Regulations contains provisions implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). NEPA requires all federal agencies to evaluate the potential environmental significance of an agency action. Exposure to RF energy has been identified by the FCC as a potential environmental factor that must be considered before a facility, operation or transmitter can be authorized or licensed. The FCC’s requirements dealing with RF exposure can be found in Part 1 of its rules at 47 C.F.R. 3 1.1307(b). The exposure limits themselves are specified in 47 C.F.R. 3 1.13 10 in terms of frequency, field strength, power density and averaging time. Facilities and transmitters licensed and authorized by the FCC either comply with these guidelines or else an applicant must file an Environmental Assessment (EA) with the FCC as specified in 47 C.F.R. 5 1.1301 et seq. An EA is an official document required by the FCC’s rules whenever an action may have a significant environmental impact (see discussion below). In practice, however, a potential environmental RF exposure problem is typically resolved before an EA would become necessary. Therefore, compliance with the FCC’s RF guidelines constitutes a de facto threshold for obtaining FCC approval to construct or operate a station or transmitter. The FCC guidelines are based on exposure criteria 3 /3 FCCLSGAC Coca1 Official’s Guide to kF ” ‘ recommended in 1986 by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NO) and on the 1991 standard developed by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and later adopted as a standard by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI/IEEE C95.1- 1992). The FCC’s guidelines establish separate MPE limits for ‘‘general populatioduncontrolled exposure” and for “occupationalkontrolled exposure.” The general populatioduncontrolled limits set the maximum exposure to which most people may be subjected. People in this group include the general public not associated with the installation and maintenance of the transmitting equipment. Higher exposure limits are permitted under the “occupationalkontrolled exposure” category, but only for persons who are exposed as a consequence of their employment (e.g., wireless radio engineers, technicians). To qualify for the occupationalkontrolled exposure category, exposed persons must be made fully aware of the potential for exposure (e.g., through training), and they must be able to exercise control over their exposure. In addition, people passing through a location, who are made aware of the potential for exposure, may be exposed under the occupationakontrolled criteria. The MPE limits adopted by the FEbr occupationalkontrolled and general populatioduncontrolled exposure incorporate a substantial margin of safety and have been established to be well below levels generally accepted as having the potential to cause adverse health effects. Determining whether a potential health hazard could exist with respect to a given transmitting antenna is not always a simple matter. Several important factors must be considered in making that determination. They include the following: (1) What is the frequency of the RF signal being transmitted? (2) What is the operating power of the transmitting station and what is the actual power radiated from the antenna? (3) How long will someone be exposed to the RF signal at a given distance from the antenna? (4) What other antennas are located in the area, and what is the exposure from those antennas? We’ll explore each of these issues in greater detail below. For all fiequency ranges at which FCC licensees operate, Section 1.13 10 of the FCC’s rules establishes maximum permissible exposure (MPE) limits to which people may be exposed. The MPE limits vary by fiequency because of the different absorptive properties of the human body at different frequencies when exposed to whole-body RF fields. Section 1.13 10 establishes MPE limits in terms of “electric field strength,” “magnetic field strength,” and “far-field equivalent power density” (power density). For most frequencies used by the wireless services, the most relevant measurement is power density. The MPE limits for power density are given in terms of “milliwatts per square centimeter” or mW/cm*. One milliwatt equals one thousandth of one watt (1/1000 of a watt).7 In terms of power density, for a given frequency the FCC MPE limits can be interpreted as specifying the maximum rate that energycan be transferred (ie., the power) to a square centimeter of a person’s body over a period of time (either 6 or 30 minutes, as explained Power travels from a transmitter through cable or other connecting device to the radiating antenna. “Operating power of the transmitting station” refers to the power that is fed from the transmitter (transmitter output power) into the cable or connectihg device. “Actual power radiated from the antenna” is the transmitter output power minus the power lost (power losses) in the connecting device plus an apparent increase in power (if any) due to the design of the antenna. Radiated power is often specified in terms of “effective radiated power” or “EW or “effective isotropic radiated power” or “EW (see footnote 14). Thus, by way of illustration, it takes 100,000 milliwatts of power to fully illuminate a 100 watt light bulb. 7 FCCLSGAC aal Official’s Guide to FW below). In practice, however, since it is unrealistic to measure separately the exposure of each square centimeter of the body, actual compliance with the FCC limits on RF emissions should be determined by “spatially averaging” a person’s exposure over the projected area of an adult human body (this concept is discussed in the FCC’s OET Bulletin 65). For determining compliance, exposure is averaged over the approximate projected area of the body. .- -\--- Power decreases as the dktance from the antenna increases. 1 Illustration 2 Electric field strength and magnetic field strength are used to measure “near field” exposure. At frequencies below 300 MHz, these are typically the more relevant measures of exposure, and power density values are given primarily for reference purposes. However, evaluation of far- field equivalent power density exposure may still be appropriate for evaluating exposure in some such cases. For frequencies above 300 MHz, only one field component need be evaluated, and exposure is usually more easily characterized in terms of power density. Transmitters and antennas that operate at 300 MHz or lower include radio broadcast stations, some television broadcast stations, and certain personal wireless service facilities (e.g., some paging stations). Most personal wireless services, including all cellular and PCS, as well as some television broadcast stations, operate at frequencies above 300 MHz. (See Illustration 1 .) As noted above, the MPE limits are specified as time-averaged exposure limits. This means that exposure can be averaged over the identified time interval (30 minutes for general populatioduncontrolled exposure or 6 minutes for occupationallcontrolled exposure). However, for the case of exposure of the general public, time averaging is usually not applied because of uncertainties over exact exposure conditions and difficulty in controlling time of exposure. Therefore, the typical conservative approach is to assume that any RF exposure to the general public will be continuous. The FCC’s limits for exposure at different frequencies are shown in Illustration 3, below: 5 FCCLSGAC Frequency (MHz) 0.3-3.0 3.0-30 30-300 300-1 500 1500-100.000 Range @oca1 Official’s Guide to kF *’ ’ * ’ ’ Electric Field Magnetic Field Strength Power Density Averaging Time WIm) (Nm) (mW/cm2) (minutes) 614 1.63 (1 OO)* 6 18421f 4.89lf (900/p)* 6 61.4 0.163 1 .o 6 -- -- W300 6 -- -- 5 6 Strength (E) (HI (9 /E[*, [HI* or s Illustration 3. FCC Limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) (A) Limits for OccupationaYControlled Exposure (B) Limits for General Population/Uncontroled Exposure - - .- -%--I -- f = frequency in MHz *Plane-wave equivalent power density NOTE 1 : OccupationaVcontrolled limits apply in situations in which persons are exposed as a consequence of their employment provided those persons are fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over their exposure. Limits for occupationallcontrolled exposure also apply in situations when an individual is transient through a location where occupationalkontrolled limits apply provided he or she is made aware of the potential for exposure. NOTE 2: General population/uncontrolled exposures apply in situations in which the general public may be exposed, or in which persons that are exposed as a consequence of their employment may not be fully aware of the potential for exposure or cannot exercise control over their exposure. Finally, it is important to understand that the FCC’s limits apply cumulatively to all sources of RF emissions affecting a given area. A common example is where two or more wireless operators have agreed to share the cost of building and maintaining a tower, and to place their antennas on that joint structure. In such a case, the total exposure from the two facilities taken together must be within the FCC guidelines, or else an EA will be required. A. Categorically Excluded Facilities The Commission has determined through calculations and technical analysis that due to their low power or height above ground level, many facilities by their very nature are highly unlikely to 6 /6 1 FCCLSGAC Bar Official's Guide to RF cause human exposures in excess of the guideline limits, and operators of those facilities are exempt from routinely having to determine compliance. Facilities with these characteristics are considered "categorically excluded" from the requirement for routine environmental processing for RF exposure. Section l.l307(b)( 1) of the Commission's rules sets forth which facilities are categorically excluded.' If a facility is categorically excluded, an applicant or licensee may ordinarily assume compliance with the guideline limits for exposure. However, an applicant or licensee must evaluate and determine compliance for a facility that is otherwise categorically excluded if specifically requested to do so by the FCC.' If potential environmental significance is found as a result, an EA must be filed with the FCC. No radio or television broadcast facilities are categorically excluded. Thus, broadcast applicants and licensees must affirmatively determine their facility's compliance with the guidelines before construction, and upon every facility modification or license renewal application. With respect to personal wireless services, a cellular facility is categorically-excludedif thctoaal effective radiated power (ERJ?) of all channels operated by the licensee at a site is 1000 watts or less. If the facility uses sectonzed antennas, only the total effective radiated power in each direction is considered. Examples of a 3 sector and a single sector antenna array are shown below: .. - Example of a 3 sector antenna array Sector C Antenna Array Illustration 4 Example of a single sector antenna array 1 Single Sector Antenna Array "The appropriate exposure limits . . . are generally applicable to all facilities, operations and transmitters regulated by the Commission. However, a determination of compliance with the exposure limits . . . (routine environmental evaluation), and preparation of an EA if the limits are exceeded, is necessary only for facilities, operations and transmitters that fall into the categories listed in table 1 [of 0 1.13071, or those specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section. All other facilities, operations and transmitters are categorically excluded from making studies or preparing an EA . . ." See 47 C.F.R 0 1.1307(c) and (d). 7 FCCLSGAC qocal Official's Guide to'RF '* ' 1 , In addition, a cellular facility is categorically excluded, regardless of its power, if it is not mounted on a building and the lowest point of the antenna is at least 10 meters (about 33 feet) above ground level. A broadband PCS antenna array is categorically excluded if the total effective radiated power of all channels operated by the licensee at a site (or all channels in any one direction, in the case of sectorized antennas) is 2000 watts or less. Like cellular, another way for a broadband PCS facility to be categorically excluded is if it is not mounted on a building and the lowest point of the antenna is at least 10 meters (about 33 feet) above ground level. The power threshold for categorical exclusion is higher for broadband PCS than for cellular because broadband PCS operates at a higher frequency where exposure limits are less restrictive. For categorical exclusion thresholds for other personal wireless services, consult Table 1 of Section 1.1307(b)(1).'0 For your convenience, we have developed the checklist in Appendix A that may be used to streamline the process of determining whether a proposed facility is categorically excluded. You are encouraged to adopt the use of this checklist in your jurisdiction, although such use is not mandatory. - - .- ----- .- B. What If An Applicant Or Licensee Wants To Exceed The Limits Shown In Illustration 3? Any FCC applicant or licensee who wishes to construct or operate a facility that, by itself or in combination with other sources of emissions (ie., other transmitting antennas), may cause human exposures in excess of the guideline limits must file an Environmental Assessment (EA) with the FCC. Where more than one antenna is collocated (for example, on a single tower or rooftop or at a hilltop site), the applicant must take into consideration &l of the FW power transmitted by all of the antennas when determining maximum exposure levels. Compliance at an existing site is the shared responsibility of all licensees whose transmitters produce exposure levels in excess of 5% of the applicable exposure limit. A new applicant is responsible for compliance (or submitting an EA) at a multiple-use site if the proposed transmitter would cause non-compliance and if it would produce exposure levels in excess of 5% of the applicable limit." An applicant or licensee is not permitted to construct or operate a facility that would result in exposure in excess of the guideline limits until the FCC has reviewed the EA and either found no significant environmental impact, or pursued further environmental processing including the preparation of a formal Environmental Impact Statement. As a practical matter, however, this process is almost never invoked for FW exposure issues because applicants and licensees normally undertake corrective actions to ensure compliance with the guidelines before submitting an application to the FCC. Unless a facility is categorically excluded (explained above), the FCC's rules require a licensee to evaluate a proposed or existing facility's compliance with the RF exposure guidelines and to lo Table 1 of 4 1.1307@)( 1) is reproduced in Appendix A to this guide. 'I For more information, see OET Bulletin 65, or see 47 CFR §1.1307@)(3). FCCLSGAC Ral Official's Guide to RF I determine whether an EA is required. In the case of broadcast licensees, who are required to obtain a construction permit from the FCC, this evaluation is required before the application for a construction permit is filed, or the facility is constructed. In addition, if a facility requires the filing of an EA for any reason other than RF emissions, the RF evaluation must be performed before the EA is filed. Factors other than RF emissions that may require the filing of an EA are set out in 47 C.F.R. 9 1.1307(a). Otherwise, new facilities that do not require FCC-issued construction permits should be evaluated before they are placed in operation. The FCC also requires its licensees to evaluate existing facilities and operations that are categorically excluded if the licensee seeks to modify its facilities or renew its license. These requirements are intended to enhance public safety by requiring periodic site compliance reviews. I All facilities that were placed in service before October 15, 1997 (when the current RF exposure guidelines became effective) are expected to comply with the current guidelines no later than September 1,2000, or the date of a license renewal, whichever is earlier.12 If a facility cannot meet the September 1,2000, date, the licensee of that facility Section l.l307(b) of the FCC's rules requires the licensee to provide the FGCwiih technical information showing the basis for its determination of compliance upon request. , file an EA by that date. . - 11. How the FCC Verifies Compliance with and Enforces Its Rules. A. Procedures Upon Initial Construction, Modification, and Renewal. The FCC's procedures for verifying that a new facility, or a facility that is the subject of a facility modification or license renewal application, will comply with the RF exposure rules vary depending upon the service involved. Applications for broadcast services (for example, AM and FM stations, and television stations) are reviewed by the FCC's Mass Media Bureau (MMB). As part of every relevant application, the MMl3 requires an applicant to submit an explanation of what steps will be taken to limit FW exposure and comply with FCC guidelines. The applicant must certify that RF exposure procedures will be coordinated with all collocated entities (usually other stations at a common transmitter site or hill or mountain peak). If the submitted explanation does not adequately demonstrate a facility's compliance with the guidelines, the MMB will require additional supporting data before granting the application. The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WB) reviews personal wireless service applications (for cellular, PCS, SMR, etc.). For those services that operate under blanket area licenses, including cellular and PCS, the license application and renewal form require the applicant to certify whether grant of the application would have a significant environmental impact so as to require submission of an EA. The applicant's answer to this question covers &l of the facilities sites included within the area of the license. For those services that continue to be licensed by site (e.g., certain paging renewals), the WB requires a similar certification on the application form for each site. To comply with the FCC's rules, an applicant must determine its own compliance before completing this certification for '* Prior to October 15, 1997, the Commission applied a different set of substantive guidelines. 9 19 FCCLSGAC toea1 OMicial’s Guide toRF -* ‘ ’ ’. every site that is not categorically excluded. The WTB does not, however, routinely require the submission of any information supporting the determination of compliance. B. Procedures For Responding To Complaints About Existing Facilities. The FCC frequently receives inquiries from members of the public as to whether a particular site complies with the RF exposure guidelines. Upon receiving these inquiries, FCC staff may ask the inquiring party to describe the site at issue. In many instances, the information provided by the inquiring party does not raise any concern that the site could exceed the limits in the guidelines. FCC staff will then inform the inquiring party of this determination. In some cases, the information provided by the inquiring party does not preclude the possibility that the limits could be exceeded. Under these circumstances, FCC staff may ask the licensee who operates the facility to supply information demonstrating its compliance. FCC staff may relevant physical attributes. Usually, the information obtained in this manner is sufficient to establish compliance. If compliance is established in this way, FCC staff will inform the inquiring party of this determination. also inspect the site to determine whether it is accessible to the-public, ad eLqine other .- In some instances, a licensee may be unable to provide information sufficient to establish compliance with the guideline limits. In these cases, FCC staff may test the output levels of individual facilities and evaluate the physical installation. Keep in mind, however, that instances in which physical testing is necessary to verify compliance are relatively rare. If a site is found to be out of compliance with the RF guidelines, the FCC will require the licensees at the site to remedy the situation. Depending on the service and the nature and extent of the violation, these remedies can include, for example, an immediate reduction in power, a modification of safety barriers, or a modification of the equipment or its installation. Actions necessary to bring a site into compliance are the shared responsibility of all licensees whose facilities cause exposures in that area that exceed 5% of the applicable MPE limit. In addition, licensees may be subject to sanctions for violating the FCC’s rules andor for misrepresentation. The FCC is committed to responding fully, promptly, and accurately to all inquiries regarding compliance with the RF exposure guidelines, and to taking swift and appropriate action whenever the evidence suggests potential noncompliance. To perform this function effectively, however, the FCC needs accurate information about potentially problematic situations. By applying the principles discussed in this guide about RF emissions, exposure and the FCC’s guidelines, state and local officials can fulfill a vital role in identifying and winnowing out situations that merit further attention. 111. Practical Guidance Regarding Compliance. This section is intended to provide some general guidelines that can be used to identify sites that should not raise serious questions about compliance with FCC RF exposure guidelines. Sites that don’t fall into the categories described here may still meet the guidelines, but the determination 10 do FCCLSG AC @cal Official’s Guide to RF of compliance will not be as straightforward. In such cases, a detailed review may be required. The tables and graphs shown in Appendix B are intended only to assist in distinguishing sites that should not raise serious issues from sites that may require Mer inquiry. They are not intended for use in identifylng sites that are out of compliance. As noted above, the factozhat can affect exposure at any individual site, particularly a site containing multiple facilities, are too numerous and subtle to be practically encompassed within this framework. Applying the basic principles discussed in this guide should allow you to eliminate a large number of sites from further consideration with respect to health concerns. You may find it useful to contact a qualified radio engineer to assist you in your inquiry. Many larger cities and counties, and most states, have radio engineers on staff or under contract. In smaller jurisdictions, we recommend you seek initial assistance from other jurisdictions, universities that have RF engineering programs, or perhaps the engineer in charge of your local broadcast stat ion( s) . We’ll exclude any discussion of broadcast sites. As explained before, broadcast licensees are required to submit site-specific information on each facility to the FCC for review, and that information is publicly available at the station as long as the application is pending. The focus in this section is on personal wireless services, particularly cellular and broadband PCS, the services that currently require the largest numbers of new and modified facilities. Many other personal wireless services, however, such as pagin services, operate in approximately the same frequency ranges as cellular and broadband PCS. ’’ Much of the information here is broadly applicable to those services as well, and specific information is provided in Appendix B for paging and narrowband PCS operations over frequency bands between 901 and 940 MHz. -. - Finally, this section only addresses the general populatioduncontrolled exposure guidelines, since compliance with these guidelines generally causes the most concern to state and local governments. Compliance with occupationaVcontrolled exposure limits should be examined independently. A. Categorically Excluded Facilities. As a first step in evaluating a siting application for compliance with the FCC’s guidelines, you will probably want to consider whether the facility is categorically excluded under the FCC’s rules from routine evaluation for compliance. The checklist in Appendix A will guide you in making this determination. Because categorically excluded facilities are unlikely to cause any exposure in excess of the FCC’s guidelines, determination that a facility is categorically excluded should generally suffice to end the inquiry. B. Single Facility Sites. If a wireless telecommunications facility is not categorically excluded, you may want to evaluate potential exposure using the methods discussed below and the tables and figures in Appendix B. l3 The major exception is fixed wireless services, which often operate at much higher fiequencies. In addition, some paging and other licensees operate at lower frequencies * FCCLSGAC %tal Official's Guide tom '* ' ' ' If you "run the numbers" using the conservative approaches promoted in this paper and the site in question does not exceed these values, then you generally need look no further. Alternately, if the "numbers" don't pass muster, you may have a genuine concern. But remember, there may be other factors (i. e., power level, height, blockages, etc.) that contribute to whether the site complies with FCC guidelines. Where a site contains only one antenna array, the maximum exposure at any point in the horizontal plane can be predicted by calculations. The tables and graphs in Appendix B show the maximum distances in the horizontal plane from an antenna at which a person could possibly be exposed in excess of the guidelines at various levels of effective radiated power (ERP).14 Thus, if people are not able to come closer to an antenna than the applicable distance shown in Appendix B, there should be no cause for concern about exposure exceeding the FCC guidelines. The tables and graphs apply to the following wireless antennas: (1) cellular omni-directional antennas (Table B1-1 and Figure Bl-1); (2) cellular sectorized antennas (Table B1-2 and Figure B1-2); (3) broadband PCS sectorized antennas (Table B1-3 and Figure B1-3);15 and (4) high- power (900 MHz-band) paging antennas (Table B 1-4 and Figure B1-4)- Tatk&1-4 and Figure . B1-4 can also be used for omni-directional, narrowband (900 MHz) PCS antennas. Note that both tables and figures in Appendix B have been provided. In some cases it may be easier to use a table to estimate exposure distances, but figures may also be used when a more precise value is needed that may not be listed in a table. . It's important to note that the predicted distances set forth in Appendix B are based on a very conservative, "worst case" scenario. In other words, Appendix B identifies the furthest distance from the antenna that presents even a remote realistic possibility of FW exposure that could exceed the FCC guidelines. The power levels are based on the approximate maximum number of channels thai an operator is likely to operate at one site. It is hrther assumed that each channel operates with the maximum power permitted under the FCC's rules and that all of these channels are "on" simultaneously, an unlikely scenario. This is a very conservative assumption. In reality, most sites operate at a fraction of the maximum permissible power and many sites use fewer than the maximum number of channels. Therefore, actual exposure levels would be expected to be well below the predicted values. Another mitigating factor could be the presence of intervening structures, such as walls, that will reduce RF exposure by variable amounts. For all these reasons, the values given in these tables and graphs are considered to be quite conservative and should over-predict actual exposure levels. _______ ~ ERP is the apparent effective amount of power leaving the transmit antenna. The ERP is determined by factors including but not limited to transmitter output power, coaxial line loss between the transmitter and the antenna, and the "gain" (focusing effect) of the antenna. In some cases, power may also be expressed in terms of EIRP (effective isotropically radiated power). Therefore, for convenience, the tables in Appendix B also include a column for EIRP. ERP and EIRP are related by the mathematical expression: (1.64) X ERP = EIRP. 14 Is Because broadband PCS antennas are virtually always sectorized, no information is provided for omni-directional PCS antennas. 12 Aa FCC/LSGAC @a1 Official’s Guide to FW / t [Power decreases as the distance from the antenna increases .---- - - .- Illustration 5 Personal wireless service antennas typically do not emit high levels of RF energy directed above or below the horizontal plane of the antenna. Although the precise amount of energy transmitted outside the horizontal plane will depend upon the type of antenna used, we are aware of no wireless antennas that produce significant non-horizontal transmissions. Thus, exposures even a small distance below the horizontal plane of these antennas would be significantly less than in the horizontal plane. As discussed above, the tables and figures in Appendix B show distances in the horizontal plane fi-om typical antennas at which exposures could potentially exceed the guidelines, assuming “worst case” operating conditions at maximum possible power levels. In any direction other than horizontal, including diagonal or straight down, these ‘’worst case” distances would be significantly less. Where unidirectional antennas are used, exposure levels within or outside the horizontal plane in directions other than those where the antennas are aimed will typically be insignificant. In addition, many new antennas are being designed with shielding capabilities to minimize emissions in undesired directions. C. Multiple Facility Sites. Where multiple facilities are located at a single site, the FCC’s rules require the total exposure from all facilities to fall within the guideline limits, unless an EA is filed and approved. In such cases, however, calculations of predicted exposure levels and overall evaluation of the site may become much more complicated. For example, different transmitters at a site may operate different numbers of channels, or the operating power per channel may vary fi-om transmitter to transmitter. Transmitters may also operate on different fiequencies (for example, one antenna array may belong to a PCS operator, while the other belongs to a cellular operator). A large number of variables such as these make the calculations more time consuming, and make it difficult to apply a simple rule-of-thumb test. See the following illustration. 13 23 FCCLSGAC *oca, Official's Guide to'RF 1 . (Power decreases as the distance from the antenna increases Illustration 6 However, we can be overly conservative and estimate a "worst case" exposure distance for compliance by assuming that the total power (e.g., ERP) of all transmitting antennas at the site is concentrated in the antenna that is closest to the area in question. (In the illustration above, this would be the antenna that is mounted lower on the building.) Then the values in the tables and graphs in Appendix B may be used as if this were the only antenna at the site, with radiated power equal to the sum of the actual radiated power of all antennas at the site. Actual RF exposure at any point will always be less than the exposure calculated using these assumptions. Thus, if people are not able to come closer to a group of antennas than the applicable distance shown in Appendix B using these assumptions, there should be no cause for concern about exposure exceeding the FCC guidelines. This is admittedly an extremely conservative procedure, but it may be of assistance in making a "first cut" at eliminating sites from hrther consideration. IV. Conclusion. We've highlighted many of the most common concerns and questions raised by the siting of wireless telecommunications and broadcast antennas. Applying the principles outlined in this guide will allow you to make initial conservative judgments about whether RF emissions are or should be of concern, consistent with the FCC's rules. As we have explained, when first evaluating a siting application for compliance with the FCC's guidelines, you will probably want to consider whether the facility is categorically excluded under the FCC's rules from routine evaluation for compliance. The checklist in Appendix A will guide you in making this determination. Because categorically excluded facilities are unlikely to cause any exposure in excess of the FCC's guidelines, determination that a facility is categorically excluded should generally suffice to end the inquiry. If a wireless telecommunications facility is not categorically excluded, you may want to evaluate potential exposure using the methods discussed in Part 111 of this paper and the tables and figures in Appendix B. If the site in question does not exceed the values, then you generally need look no further. Alternately, if the values don't pass muster, you may have a genuine concern. But FCCLSGAC !!!!!A Official’s Guide to RF remember, there may be other factors (i.e., power level, height, blockages, etc.) that contribute to whether the site complies with FCC guidelines. If you have questions about compliance, your initial point of exploration should be with the facilities operator in question. That operator is required to understand the FCC’s rules and to know how to apply them in specific cases at specific sites. If, after diligently pursuing answers from the operator, you still have genuine questions regarding compliance, you should contact the FCC at one of the numbers listed below. Provision of the information identified in the checklist in Appendix A may assist the FCC in evaluating your inquiry. General Information: Compliance and Information Bureau, (888) CALL-FCC Concerns About RF Emissions Exposure at a Particular Site: Office of Engineering and Technology, RF Safety Program, phone (202) 418-2464, FAX (202) 418-1918, e-mail rfsafety@fcc.gov Licensing and Site Information Regarding Wireless Telecommunications Services: Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Commercial Wireless Division, (202) 4 18-0620 -4-- I .. - - - -- Licensing and Site Information Regarding Broadcast Radio Services: Mass Media Bureau, Audio Services Division, (202) 41 8-2700 Licensing and Site Information Regarding Television Service (Including DTV): Mass Media Bureau, Video Services Division, (202) 418-1600 Also, note that the RF Safety Program Web site is a valuable source of general information on the topic of potential biological effects and hazards of RF energy. For example, OET recently updated its OET Bulletin 56 (“Questions and Answers about Biological Effects and Potential Hazards of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields”). This latest version is available from the program and can be accessed and downloaded fkom the FCC’s web site at: http ://www. fcc .gov/oet/Ifsafety/ FCCLSGAC APPENDIX A @a1 Official’s Guide to RF -4---- -. - .- Optional Checklist for Determination Of Whether a Facility is Categorically Excluded d7 FCCLSGAC Coca1 Official’s Guide to h ’. Optional Checklist for Local Government To Determine Whether a Facility is Categorically Excluded Purpose: The FCC has determined that many wireless facilities are unlikely to cause human exposures in excess of RF exposure guidelines. Operators of those facilities are exempt from routinely having to determine their compliance. These facilities are termed “categorically excluded.” Section 1.1307(b)( 1) of the Commission’s rules defines those categorically excluded facilities. This checklist will assist state and local government agencies in identifying those wireless facilities that are categorically excluded, and thus are highly unlikely to cause exposure in excess of the FCC’s guidelines. Provision of the information identified on this checklist may also assist FCC staff in evaluating any inquiry regarding a facility’s compliance with the RF exposure guidelines. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. Facility Operator’s Legal Name: 2. Facility Operator’s Mailing Address: 3. Facility Operator’s Contact Namemitle: 4. Facility Operator’s Office Telephone: 5. Facility Operator’s Fax: 6. Facility Name: 7. Facility Address: 8. Facility City/Community: 9. Facility State and Zip Code: 10. Latitude: 1 1. Longitude: continue ___, FCCLSGAC mal Official's Guide to RF Optional Local Government Checklist (page 2) WALUATION OF CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION 2. Licensed Radio Service (see attached Table 1): 3. Structure Type (fkee-standing or buildinghoof-mounted): 4. Antenna Type [omnidirectional or directional (includes sectored)]: 5. Height above ground of the lowest point of the antenna (in meters): 6. 0 Check if all of the following are true: (a) This facility will be operated in the Multipoint Distribution Service, Paging and Radiotelephone Service, Cellular Radiotelephone Service, Narrowband or Broadband Personal Communications Service, Private Land Mobile Radio Services Paging Operations, Private Land Mobile Radio Service Specialized Mobile Radio, Local Multipoint Distribution Service, or service regulated under Part 74, Subpart I (see -4---- question 12). - - -- (b) This facility will be mounted on a building (see question 13). (c) The lowest point of the antenna will be at least 10 meters above the ground (see question 15). f box 16 is checked, this facility is categorically excluded and is unlikely to cause exposure in :xcess of the FCC's guidelines. The remainder of the checklist need not be completed. If box 6 is not checked, continue to question 17. 7. Enter the power threshold for categorical exclusion for this service from the attached Table 1 8. Enter the total number of channels if this will be an omnidirectional antenna, or the 9. Enter the ERP or EIRP per channel (using the same units as in question 17): ,O. Multiply answer 18 by answer 19: 1. Is the answer to question 20 less than or equal to the value fkom question 17 (yes or no)? in watts ERP or EIRP' (note: EIRP = (1.64) X ERP): maximum number of channels in any sector if this will be a sectored antenna: f the answer to question 2 1 is YES, this facility is categorically excluded. It is unlikely to cause xposure in excess of the FCC's guidelines. f the answer to question 21 is NO, this facility is not categorically excluded. Further ivestigation may be appropriate to verify whether the facility may cause exposure in excess of le FCC's guidelines. '"ERP" means "effective radiated power" and "ERP" means "effective isotropic radiated power a9 FCCLSGAC I @oca1 Official’s Guide to kF ” . ‘* 1 non-building-mounted antennas: height above ’ ground level to lowest point of antenna < 10 total power of all channels > 1000 W m ERP (1 640 W EIRP) building-mounted antennas: total power of all channels > 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP) TABLE 1: TRANSMITTERS, FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS SUBJECT TO ROUTINE ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION EVALUATION REQUIRED IF: I SERVICE (TITLE 47 CFR RULE PART) II Experimental Radio Services (Part 5) power > 100 W ERP (164 W EIRP) Multipoint Distribution Service (subpart K of part 21) ____ non-building-mounted antennas: height above ground level to lowest point of antenna < 10 m @power > 1640 W EIRP building-mounted antennas: power > 1640 W EIRP Paging and Radiotelephone Service (subpart E of part 22) ~~ non-building-mounted antennas: height above ground level to lowest point of antenna < 10 m and power > 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP) building-mounted antennas: power > 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP) Cellular Radiotelephone Service (subpart H of part 22) 30 FCCLSGAC TABLE 1 (cont.) SERVICE (TITLE 47 CFR RULE PART) Personal Comm~cations Services (Part 24) Satellite Communications (Part 25) General Wireless Communications Service (Part 26) Wireless Communications Service (Part 27) Radio Broadcast Services (Part 73) @!!a1 OfficiaI’s Guide to RF EVALUATION REQUIRED IF: (1) Narrowband PCS (subpart D): non-building-mounted antennas: height above ground level to lowest point of antenna < 10 m total power of all channels > 1000 W ERP (1 640 W Em) building-mounted antennas: total power of all channels > 1000 W ERP (1640WEIRP) . (2) Broadband P_CS (subpart -4L--- E): non-building-mounted antennas: height above ground level to lowest point of antenna < 10 m total power of all channels > 2000 W ERP (3280 W EIRP) building-mounted antennas: total power of all channels > 2000 W ERP (3280 W EIRP) all included total power of all channels > 1640 W EIRP total power of all channels > 1640 W EIRP all included FCCLSGAC TABLE 1 (cont.) SERVICE (TITLE 47 CFR RULE PART) Experimental, auxiliary, and special broadcast and other program distributional services (Part 74) Stations in the Maritime Services (Part 80) Private Land Mobile Radio Services Paging Operations (Part 90) Private Land Mobile Radio Services Specialized Mobile Radio (Part 90) @oca1 Official’s Guideto kF *‘ ‘ - . EVALUATION REQUIRED IF: subparts A, G, L: power > 100 W ERP subpart I: non-building-mounted antennas: height above ground level to lowest point of antenna < 10 m @ power > 1640 W EIRP building-mounted antennas: power > 1640 W EIRP ship earth-stations only ----- -- ~~ ~ ~~ non-building-mounted antennas: height above ground level to lowest point of antenna < 10 m power > 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP) building-mounted antennas: power > 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP) non-building-mounted antennas: height above ground level to lowest point of antenna < 10 m total power of all channels > 1000 W ERP (1 640 W EIRP) building-mounted antennas: total power of all channels > 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP) FCCLSGAC TABLE 1 (cont.) SERVICE (TITLE 47 CFR RULE PART) Amateur Radio Service @art 97) Local Multipoint Distribution Service (subpart L of part 101) ' @a1 Official's Guide to F2F EVALUATION REQUIRED IF: transmitter output power > levels specified in 0 97.13(~)(1) of this chapter non-building-mounted antennas: height above ground level to lowest point of antenna < 10 m @power > 1640 W EIRP building-mounted antennas: power > 1640 W EIRP LMDS licensees are requiM-to attach a label to subscriber transceiver antennas that: (1) provides adequate notice regarding potential radiofiequency safety hazards, e.g., information regarding the safe minimum separation distance required between users and transceiver antennas; and (2) references the applicable FCC-adopted limits for radiofkequency exposure specified in 0 1.13 10 of this chapter. 33 34 FCCLSGAC mal Official's Guide to RF Estimated "Worst Case " Distances that Should be Maintained from Single Cellular, PCS, and Paging Base Station Antennas FCCLSGAC Effective Radiated Power (watts) per channel based on maximum total of 96 channels per antenna @oca1 Official's Guide to kF * ' * . ' Effective Isotropic Radiated Power (watts) per channel based on a maximum total of 96 channels per antenna I Table B1-1. Estimated "worst case" horizontal* distances that should be maintained from a 5 10 . 25 single, omni-directional, cellular base-station antenna to meet FCC RF exposure guidelines 8.2 16.4 41 50 0.82 ._ 0.5 82 II ~~ 1.6 100 164 I II Horizontal* distance (feet) that should be maintained from a single omni- directional cellular antenna 4.8 10.8 15.2 34.1 482 For intermediate values not shown on this table, please refer to the Figure B1-1 'These distances are based on exposure at same level as the antenna, for example, on a rooftop or in a building directly across from and at the same height as the antenna. Note: These estimates are worst case, assuming an omnidirectional antenna using 96 channels. If the systems are using fewer channels, the actual horizontal distances that must be maintained will be less. Cellular omnidirectional antennas transmit more or less equally from the antenna in all horizontal directions and transmit relatively little energy directly toward the ground. Therefore, these distances are even more conservative for won-horizontal" distances, for example, distances directly below an antenna. 31 FCCLSGAC @a1 Official's Guide to RF Figure B 1-1. Estimated "worst case" horizontal* distances that should be maintained from a single omni-directional cellular base station antenna to meet FCC RF exposure guidelines 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 -a- 0.5 wattlchannel -m- 1 waWchannel -A- 5 wattslchannel + 10 wattslchannel + 25 wattslchannel + 50 wattslchannel + 100 wattskhannel 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Horizontal distance from an omnidirectional cellular antenna (feet) * These distances are based on exposure at same level as antenna, for example, on a rooftop or in a building directly across from and at the same height as the antenna. Note: These estimates are worst case, assuming an omnidirectional antenna using 96 channels. If the systems are using fewer channels, the actual horizontal distances that must, be maintained will be less. Cellular omnidirectional antennas transmit more or less equally from the antenna in all horizontal directions and transmit relatively little energy directly toward the ground. 37 FCCLSGAC @oca1 Oficial's Guide tok . * '-. Table B 1-2. Estimated "worst case" horizontal* distances that should be maintained from a single, sectorized, cellular base-station antenna to meet FCC RF exposure guidelines Effective Radiated Power (watts) per channel based on maximum total of 21 channels per sector 1 I 5 I 10 II 100 Effective Isotropic Radiated Power (watts) per channel basedon maximum total of 21 channels per sector Horizontal* distance (feet) that should be maintained from a single sectorized cellular antenna 0.82 1.6 - -I - -- --2.3- 1.6 8.2 5 16.4 7.1 41 11.3 I 82 16 I 1 64 22.6 I For intermediate values not shown on this table, please refer to the Figure B1-2 *These distances are based on exposure at same level as the antenna, for example, on a rooftop or in a building directly across from and at the same height as the antenna. Note: These estimates are "worst case," assuming a sectorized antenna using 21 channels. If the systems are using fewer channels, the actual horizontal distances that must be maintained will be less. Cellular sectorized antennas transmit more or less in one direction from the antenna in a horizontal direction and transmit relatively little energy directly toward the ground. Therefore, these distances are even more conservative for "non-horizontal" distances, for example, distances directly below an antenna. 38 Figure B 1-2. Estimated "worst case" horizontal* distances that should be maintained fiom a single sectorized, cellular base station antenna to meet FCC RF exposure guidelines 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 + 0.5 waWchannel -m- 1 waWchannel -A- 5 wattskhannel -+- 10 wattslchannel -+- 25 wattskhannel + 50 wattskhannel + 100 watts/channel 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111213141516171819202122232425 Horizontal distance from a sectorized cellular antenna (feet) * These distances are based on exposure at same level as antenna, for example, on a rooftop or in a building directly across from and at the same height as the antenna. Note: These estimates are "worst case", assuming a sectorized antenna using 21 channels. If the systems are using fewer channels, the actual horizontal distances that must be maintained will be less. Cellular sectorized antennas transmit more or less in one direction from the antenna in a horizontal direction and transmit relatively little energy directly toward the ground. 39 FCCLSGAC Effective Isotropic Radiated Power (watts) per channel based on maximum total of 21 @oca1 Official's Guide to k " * * '' ~~ ~~ Horizontal* distance (feet> that should be maintained fiom a single sectorized Broadband PCS antenna I Table B1-3. Estimated "worst case" horizontal* distances that should be maintained fiom a single sectorized Broadband PCS base station antenna to meet FCC RF exposure guidelines ~ ~ 16.4 41 82 164 Effective Radiated Power (watts) per channel based on maximum total of 2 1 channels per sector 5.4 8.6 12.1 17.2 I' 25 50 100 channels per sector I 1.2 I 0.82 .a._?, -4 - -- 1.6 ~____ 3.8 1 8.2 For intermediate values not shown on this table, please refer to the Figure B1-3 *These distances are based on exposure at same level as the antenna, for example, on a rooftop or in a building directly across from and at the same height as the antenna. Note: These estimates are "worst case," assuming a sectorized antenna using 21 channels. If the system is using fewer than 21 channels, the actual horizontal distances that must be maintained will be less. PCS sectorized antennas transmit more or less in one direction from the antenna in a horizontal direction and transmit relatively little energy directly toward the ground. Therefore, these distances are even more conservative for "non-horizontal" distances, for example, distances directly below an antenna. Figure B 1-3. Estimated "worst case" horizontal* distances that should be maintained from a single sectorized, PCS base station antenna to meet FCC RF exposure guidelines 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 + 0.5 waWchannel -m- 1 watVchannel -A- 5 wattskhannel + 10 wattskhannel + 25 wattskhannel t 50 wattskhannel + 100 wattslchannel 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Horizontal distance from a sectorized PCS antenna (feet) * These distances are based on exposure at same level as antenna, for example, on a rooftop or in a building directly across from and at the same height as the antenna. Note: These estimates are ''worst case", assuming a sectorized antenna using 21 channels. If the systems are using fewer channels, the actual horizontal distances that must be maintained will be less. PCS sectorized antennas transmit more or less in one direction from the antenna in a horizontal direction and transmit relatively little energy directly toward the ground. FCCLSGAC Effective Radiated Power (watts) based on one channel per antenna @oca1 Official’s Guide tok -’ ’ *’ Horizontal* distance (feet) that should be maintained from a single omnidirectional paging or narrowband PCS antenna Effective Isotropic Radiated Power (watts) I Table B 1-4. Estimated ‘‘worst case” horizontal* distances that should be maintained from a single omnidirectional paging or narrowband PCS antenna to meet FCC RF exposure guidelines. Note: this table and the associated figure only apply to the 900-940 MHz band; paging antennas at other frequencies are subject to different values. 50 100 250 500 1,000 2,000 3,500 -TI--- - .- 82 3.4 410 7.5 164 4.8 820 10.6 1,640 15.1 3,280 21.3 5,740 28.2 For intermediate values not shown on this table, please refer to the Figure B1-4 *These distances are based on exposure at same level as the antenna, for example, on a rooftop or in a building directly across from and at the same height as the antenna. Note: These distances assume only one frequency (channel) per antenna. Distances would be greater if more than one channel is used per antenna. Omnidirectional paging and narrowband PCS antennas transmit more or less equally from the antenna in all horizontal directions and transmit relatively little energy toward the ground. Therefore, these distances are even more conservative for “non-horizontal” distances, for example, distances directly below an antenna J *>: . FCCLLSGAC @a1 Official's Guide to RF Figure B 1-4. Estimated "worst case" horizontal* distances that should be maintained from a single omnidirectional paging or narrowband PCS antenna to meet FCC RF exposure guidelines. Note: this figure and the associated table only apply to the 900-940 MHz band; paging antennas at other frequencies are subject to different values 3,500 - 2,000 - 1,000 - 500 - - ----- -- -a- 25 wattslantenna + 50 wattstantenna -A- 100 wattslantenna + 250 wattstantenna 100 - -e 500 wattslantenna + 1000 wattstantenna + 2000 wattstantenna +I- 3500 wattstantenna 250 - 50 - I I I I I I 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Horizontal distance from an omnidirectional paging or narrowband PCS antenna (feet) * These distances are based on exposure at the same level as the antenna, for example, on a rooftop or building directly across from and at the same height as the antenna. Note: These distances assume only one frequency (channel) per antenna. Distances would be greater if more than one channel is used per antenna. Omnidirectional paging and narrowband PCS antennas transmit more or less equally from the antenna in all horizontal directions and transmit relatively little energy towards the ground. 43 FCCASGAC APPENDIX C e Text of 47 U.S. C. 8 332(c)(7) (7) PRESERVATION OF LOCAL ZONING AUTHORITY. (A) GENERAL AUTHORITY. Except as provided in this paragraph, nothing in this Act shall limit or affect the authority of a State or local government or instrumentality thereof over decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities. I (B) LIMITATIONS. The regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by and State or local government or instrumentality thereof (I) shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; and (II) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting- the-wision of personal wireless services. A State or local government or instrumentality thereof shall act on any request for authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time after the request is duly filed with such government or instrumentality, taking into account the nature and scope of such request. Any decision by a State or local government or instrumentality thereof to deny a request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, or modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio fiequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions. Any person adversely affected by any final action or failure to act by a State or local government or any instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent with this subparagraph may, within 30 days after such action or failure to act, commence an action in any court of competent jurisdiction. The court shall hear and decide such action on an expedited basis. Any person adversely affected by an act or failure to act by a State or local government or any instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent with clause (iv) may petition the Commission for relief. .. - (C) DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this paragraph (i) (ii) (iii) the term “personal wireless services” means commercial mobile services, unlicensed wireless services, and common carrier wireless exchange access services; the term “personal wireless service facilities” means facilities for the provision of personal wireless services; and the term “unlicensed wireless service” means the offering of telecommunications service using duly authorized devices which do not require individual licenses, but does not mean the provision of direct-to-home satellite services (as defined in section 3 03 (v)) . 44 September 2003 Cellular Phone Facility Locations Considered by GTE & ATTWS in Carlsbad GTE’s Alternatives 1. SDG&E Tower 171 2. SDG&E Power Pole north of Cadencia Street ,‘b 3. SDG&E Tower 173 4. Four residences on Fosca Street ATTWS Alternatives to Cadencia First Round 5. La Costa Resort and Spa 6. La Costa and El Camino Real shopping center 7. Alicante view apartments at 2385 Caringa Way Second Round (from site visit with City Attorney and City Planner) 8. West Bluff Plaza 9. Vons at corner of Alga and El Camino Real IO. Senior Citizen’s residential complex at Alga and El Camino Real 11. La Costa Resort and Spa (second pass) 12. Sprint Collo facility at El Camino Real and La Costa 13. Albertsons at El Camino Real and La Costa 14. Lot owned by water district (near collo facility) 15. Rancho La Costa Village at La Costa and Rancho Santa Fe Road These are the 1 1 XI 7 exhibits that were provided to us by AT&T. Accompanying them are: 1. 2. 3. Colored exhibit of coverage for the SDG&E tower 173 Colored exhibit of coverage for 7512 Cadencia Street Aerial photographs with distances from panel antennas to nearby structures. One photograph for SDG&E Tower 173 and the other for 7512 Cadencia Street Photo of an actual panel antenna for the SDG&E tower 4. There are three extra sets of the 11x1 7 exhibits. Official exhibits provided by: Christer Westman Senior Planner Planning Department City of Carlsbad 760-602-4614 PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2010 & 2011 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of San Diego I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to or interested in the above- entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of North County Times Formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been adjudicated newspapers of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of California, for the City of Oceanside and the City of Escondido, Court Decree number 171349, for the County of San Diego, that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpariel), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp Proof of Publication of Lot 401 of Carlsbad Tract 72-20 La Costa Vale Unit No. 3 in the Ci of Carlsbad Coun of &an Diego State of Califonha acco& to map thereof Ro. 7950. flled'in the office of thd County &corder of San Diego County. June 3. 1974 as an alternative to a wireless telecommunications facility at 751 Cadencia Street, more particularly described as : Lot 486 of Carlsbad Tract 72-20 of La Costa Vale Unit No 3 in the Ci of Carlsbad, Coun of San Diego. State of alifomia accod'u, to map thereof go. 7950. filed in the ofke of thd County &order of San Diego County. I I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 03-22 ifa roved is estabdsheagv sde law Dated at SAN MARCOS California This -- DayofAugust,2003 dL corres ndence delivered to Attn: &y Clerk 1200 Carls- bad V e Driv; Carlsbad CA 92% at or lklor to thd public hearing. AT&T,WIRELESS CASE FWk CUP 03-22 CUP 03-22 CASE NAME: AT= Wireless PWLIZUI: August 8.2003 CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL Legal Advertising AT&T W I R E LESS CUP 03-22 Smooth Feed SheetsTM CARLSBAD UNlF SCHOOL DlST 6225 EL CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD CA 92009 SAN DlEGUlTO SCHOOL DlST 701 ENCINITAS BLVD ENClNlTAS CA 92024 CITY OF ENClNlTAS 505 S VULCAN AVE ENClNlTAS CA 92024 CITY OF VISTA PO BOX 1988 VISTA CA 92085 CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME 4949 VIEWRIDGE AVE SANDIEGO CA 92123 LAFCO 1600 PACIFIC HWY SAN DIEGO CA 92101 U.S. FISH &WILDLIFE 6010 HIDDEN VALLEY RD CARLSBAD CA 92009 CITY OF CARLSBAD PU BLI C W ORKS/COMMU N ITY SERVICES CITY OF CARLSBAD PROJECT PLANNER CHRISTER WESTMAN mAVERY@ Address Labels SAN MARCOS SCHOOL DlST 1 CIVIC CENTER DR SAN MARCOS CA 92069 LEUCADIA CNTY WATER DlST 1960 LA COSTA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 CITY OF SAN MARCOS 1 CIVIC CENTER DR SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949 VALLECITOS WATER DlST 201 VALLECITOS DE OR0 SAN MARCOS CA 92069 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY STE 100 9174 SKY PARK CT SAN DIEGO CA 92123-4340 AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DlST 9150 CHESAPEAKE DR SAN DIEGO CA 92123 CA COASTAL COMMISSION STE 103 7575 METROPOLITAN DR SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402 CITY OF CARLSBAD PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING DEPT AT&T WIRELESS PCS, LLC STE 2002 110 W C ST SAN DIEGO CA 92101 Use template for 516@? ENClNlTAS SCHOOL DlST 101 RANCHO SANTA FE RD ENClNlTAS CA 92024 OLIVENHAIN WATER DlST 1966 OLIVENHAIN RD ENClNlTAS CA 92024 CITY OF OCEANSIDE 300 NORTH COAST HWY OCEANSIDE CA 92054 5 E I.P.U.A. SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND URBAN STUDIES SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505 SD COUNTY PLANNING STE B 5201 RUFFIN RD SAN DIEGO CA 92123 SANDAG STE 800 401 B STREET SAMDIEGO CA 92101 ATTN TED ANASIS SAN DIEGO COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY PO BOX 82776 SAN DIEGO CA 92138-2776 CITY OF CARLSBAD MUN IC1 PAL WATER DISTRICT f laser 5 160@ Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 516@ i DAVID AND KAREN CANADY 3105 LA COSTA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 GEORGE AND AIDA SULTANYAN 3107 LA COSTA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 ROBERT AND SHERRILL BAKER PO BOX 2129 RANCHO SANTA FE CA 92067 PARKER FAMILY 3111 LA COSTA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 SIMON AND SYLVIA PEREZ 3115 LA COSTA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 MAHMOUD AKHAVAN 834 W GRAPE ST SAN DIEGO CA 92101 JOSEPH AND REBECCA ARLUAS KAS 3206 AZAHAR PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 BERND AND MIMI BRUST 3110 AZAHAR ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 MARGARET MCALLISTER 3108 AZAHAR ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 GENE AND SHEILA NOVELLO 7901 E DAVENPORT DR SCOTTSDALE AZ 85260 JON AND CHERYL OPALSKI 3204 AZAHAR PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 BRENT AND SONDRA REISINGER 3103 CADENCIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 MOHAMMED AND FERESHTEH NAZARI 3203 LA COSTA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 MURPHY FAMILY 3205 LA COSTA BLVD CARLSBAD CA 92009 EMILIE CUTHBERT 3207 LA COSTA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 JONATHAN AND CATHERINE NERENBERG 3204 CARVALLO CT CARLSBAD CA 92009 JEFF ADAMOFF 3202 CARVALLO CT CARLSBAD CA 92009 EMMA MCGREGOR 502 E GLAUCUS ST ENCINITAS CA 92024 THOMAS AND JACQUELINE SOU LL I ERE 3208 CARVALLO CT CARLSBAD CA 92009 H JASON AND ELLEN HAINES 3212 CARVALLO CT CARLSBAD CA 92009 KATHLEEN SCHRADER 3210 CARVALLO CT CARLSBAD CA 92009 ROBERT AND COLLINS-MELISSA PORTER 3217 CARVALLO CT CARLSBAD CA 92009 GILBERT DINGLEY AND JL S ARGEN T 3213 CARVALLO CT CARLSBAD CA 92009 MARGARET KORNACKER 3215 CARVALLO CT CARLSBAD CA 92009 CHRISTOPHER AND KATHERINE HINSHAW 3207 CARVALLO CT CARLSBAD CA 92009 KERNS FAMILY 1844 HAYMARKET RD ENCINITAS CA 92024 DEHUFF FAMILY 1036 CALAVERAS DR SAN DIEGO CA 92107 LOUIS PAQUIN AND J SURVIVORS MARY 7583 DELGADO PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 BARRY NIMAN 7585 DELGADO PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 DAVID TREPANIER 7581 DELGADO PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 aAVERY@ Address Labels Laser 6241TM Smooth Feed Sheetsm Use template for 516C@ ALONZO HUNTER AND DIANA KLEIN 7577 DELGADO PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 GREGORY AND ROB KEPPLER 7575 DELGADO PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 MARJORIE ACQUISTAPACE 7579 DELGADO PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 PHILIP AND PAULA KACSIR 7573 DELGADO PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 MARY HORNER 7571 DELGADO PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 JASON AND JAMIE PATTON 7599 CALOMA CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009 CONCEPTION GARCIA 7597 CALOMA CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009 FRED AND ANNE EADY JR 7595 CALOMA CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009 GILL LIVING 7593 CALOMA CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009 SONNY ZANTUA AND PENNY NEGANO 7591 CALOMA CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009 MITSUHIRO AND TOMOKO UCHIMURA 7587 CALOMA CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009 LEONID GORNIK 7589 CALOMA CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009 JEFFREY COHEN AND GWEN DAMSKY-COHEN 7585 CALOMA CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009 SAUNDERS 7583 CALOMA CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009 ROBERT FELL 7581 CALOMA CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009 JAMES AND JUDY PINPIN 7579 CALOMA CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009 DAMON WEISSER 7577 CALOMA CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009 MARILYN MARTINEAU PO BOX 12623 LA JOLLA CA 92039 GREGORY AND REBECCA CARROLL 7573 CALOMA CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009 ROBERT AND TAMARA KEEFE MARVIN AND CAROLYN CRENSHA- 7571 CALOMA CIR 823 MORNING SUN DR CARLSBAD CA 92009 OLIVENHAIN CA 92024 JERRY AND SHERYL PORTNOY 7565 CALOMA CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009 RENNE FANNIN AND LISA KANTOR 7563 CALOMA CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009 SCHMIDT 7336 CADENCIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 ANTHONY AND CHERYL NENKO 2436 SACADA CIR SUITE A CARLSBAD CA 92009 MARILY SHERTZ AND DANA SHERTZ 7557 CALOMA CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009 SAM AND MAY MORISHIMA 2540 DONNER WAY SACRAMENTO CA 95818 SUBHASH AND SUBALA FAMILY NANGIA 7578 CALOMA CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009 WILLIAM SARATI 7580 CALOMA CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009 MARIA RODRIGUEZ 7555 CALOMA CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009 ~AS/ERY@ Address Labels Laser 6241TM Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160'F * TOMISLAV PETROVIC 7582 CALOMA CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009 FREDERICK AND HELEN ARBUCKLE JR 3307 PIRAGUA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 PS WOODCOX AND JANE FISHER 3309 PIRAGUA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 BARTL 3305 PIRAGUA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 SHAKHSHIR FAMILY 3303 PIRAGUA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 EDWIN AND MARION ALLARD 3301 PIRAGUA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 JAMES AND JOAN MIRINGOFF 7551 ESFERA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 ROBERT AND HOLLY DENNIS 7521 ESFERA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 THOMAS MAXWELL 3341 VENADO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 PETER AND BARBARA CANCELLIER 3335 VENADO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 GERMAINE OLMSTED 7720 EL CAMINO REAL SUITE B CARLSBAD CA 92009 SUNNY LOPETER 611 6 LONDONBERRIE CT MIDLAND MI 48640 DAVID AND DEB1 CAPR 3322 VENADO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 FRED AND SHIRLEY DANIEL 3332 VENADO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 LEE AND DIANE WOOD 3336 VENADO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 JASMIT KAUR 3342 VENADO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 SUNG TAO AND LIN MALI KO 42 BAYBROOK LN OAK BROOK IL 60523 MICHAEL AND MICHELLE SENGEr 3319 PIRAGUA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 GEOFFREY AND MARIE HILDEBRANDT 3315 PIRAGUA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 MAXWELL AND LINDA COLON 3317 PIRAGUA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 YOURE AND LINDA SHADIAN 3321 VENADO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 RICHARD AND CLAUDIA BARBOUR 3311 PIRAGUA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 JOHN AND STEPHANIE MITHCELL 3302 VENADO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 RICHARD AND TERI MACY JR 3306 VENADO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CHRISTOPHER AND VELYN ANDERSON 3314 VENADO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 WARD AND JANE KAO 3312 VENADO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CHU SHENG FAN 3316 VENADO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 VANHOOSE 624lrM DANA TAVELMAN 3315 VENADO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 YOURE AND LINDA SHADIAN 3321 VENADO CT CARLSBAD CA 92009 PATRICK AND VIONA 7512 CADENCIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 mAVERY@ Address Labels Laser Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160@ HENRY AND CAROLYN PETERSON LARRY AND JEANETTE YGLESIA MIHOLICH FAMILY 7500 CADENCIA ST 7412 CADENCIA ST 2735 CAZADERO DR CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 PAUL AND MAIA MARANGOS BYRON AND STEPHANIE BUSER JOSEF LAGEDER 7402 CADENCIA ST 3213 HATACA RD 3116 DEL REY AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 JOHN AND JACKLYN DEMICHELE 3122 HATACA RD CARLSBAD CA 92009 JEFFREY AND BARBARA TORAASON 7406 CARLINA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 LAURA WEATHERFORD 7412 CARLINA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 JEAN TRYGSTAD 2821 CACATUA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 LOPRISCILLA 3133 HATACA RD CARLSBAD CA 92009 WALTER AND KATHLEEN S PI LLANE 3138 VERDE AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 BONNIE LOWRY AND CAROL MCKEE 7404 CARLINA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 GLEN AND ANDREA SHEPHARD JOHN AND HEIDI ROCK 7408 CARLINA ST 7410 CARLINGA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 ROY AND KAREN JACKSON MARK AND BEVERLY WEBER 7414 CARLINA ST 7416 CARLINA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 THOMAS FLYNN AND DOUGLAS GORDON ROWE 2808 REBEIRO AVE SANTA CLARA CA 95051 KRULCE 3131 HATACA RD CARLSBAD CA 92009 SHINICHI AND ROSE MOR1 CHARLES MAGANA 3127 HATACA RD 3126 DEL REY AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 GERALD AND HEATHER COPELAND SHERLOCK 3130 DEL REY AVE 3132 DEL REY AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 TERRY MOORE 905 ORCHID WAY CARLSBAD CA 92009 FAIRLIE 1809 BAYBERRY DR OCEANSIDE CA 92054 JUDITH RANKIN 7422 CARLINA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 BRUCE AND BARBARA KIRSTEIN 3129 HATACA RD CARLSBAD CA 92009 HAROLD AND CHERYL KECHTER 3128 DEL REY AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 BRADY DUGA AND GINA PISELL(’ 3134 DEL REY AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 MARIAN CARTWRIGHT AND H PATRICIA DICE 7412 BRAVA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 aAVERY@ Address Labels Laser 6241TM Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 51602> HOMAYOUN MAHMOUDI 7410 BRAVA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 LISA MARSHALL 7408 BRAVA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 JUDD AND CHERYL SILLS 7411 CARLINA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 GAUTAM GANGULY AND MARGARET BURKE 7409 CARLINA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 KEITH AND SHARI SNYDER EDWINA GUTIERREZ 7415 CARLINA ST 7418 BRAVA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 ROBERT AND E JEANNE SECHLER HORTENSIA CONTRERAS 7414 BRAVA ST 7595 CADENCIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 DONALD BARNARD PAUL AND MJ HICKMAN 8419 PASEO IGLESIA 3108 HATACA RD SPRING VALLEY CA 91977 CARLSBAD CA 92009 MEHUL AND VIPASHI SHETH WILLIAM BISHOP 7515 CADENCIA ST 3139 DEL REY AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 KEVIN AND MELISSA 3135 DEL REY AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 ROBERT AND LUCILLE MCLOUGHLIN 3129 DEL REY AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 LANDRY ABBEY FAMILY 3133 DEL REY AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 GODFREY 7407 CARLINA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 FRED AND LISA SCHONEMAN 7413 CARLINA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 JOSHUA BASS AND ERIKA JANZEN 7416 BRAVA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 MARY MARUN 7585 CADENCIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 PHILLIP AND JOAN GOODMAN 7535 CADENCIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 IRWIN AND SYLVIA KANE 7330 LAS BRISAS CT CARLSBAD CA 92009 ROBERT BUCKINGHAM CATHARINE LOVE 3131 DEL REY AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 WILLIAM AND DEBORAH BRADA ROBERT BUCKINGHAM PITTS CATHERINE LOVE 3127 DEL REY AVE 3131 DEL REY AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 THOMAS AND VALERIE CONLIN DEBRA HOREN 7510 BRAVA ST 7512 BRAVA ST KENNETH FAIRCHILD ALICE AND AND AND A Z CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 826 MAR VISTA CA 92083 BETTY ZACK 7516 BRAVA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 MERIDITH KOENEKE 7518 BRAVA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 MECHELE BOATMAN 7520 BRAVA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 aAVERY@ Address Labels Laser 624lfM Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160@' ROBERT AND MARYANNE RICCI STEWART AND JANET FISHER 7522 BRAVA ST 7523 BRAVA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 MANEERAT HEAR 7517 BRAVA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 TERENCE MILLS AND SUZANNE SCHWARZ 7519 BRAVA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 VIRGIL AND MICHELE SCHMALTZ JAMES STULL 7513 BRAVA ST PO BOX 235283 CARLSBAD CA 92009 ENCINITAS CA 92023 ROBERT FERENCE AND C FAMILY 7507 BRAVA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 MARITAL RUSSAK 7620 ALDEA PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 JANICE ~AvERY@ Address Labels DOUGLAS JR 78505 BRAVA CARLSBAD CA ST 92009 CARL PRICE 7521 BRAVA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 LORINDA PATE 7515 BRAVA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CHARLES AND LAUREL LOCKMAN 7509 BRAVA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 ANGELA AND JEFFREY FLEMING 7503 BRAVA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 Laser 6241TM Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160@ DUNCAN AND JC EVANS ALAN AND NANCY FISCHER -- -_ 3312 FEBO CT CARLSBAD CA 92009 .WRY HAY 3320 FOSCA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 E'I' AL 1919 SORRENTINO DR ESCONDIDO CA 92025 GEORGE AND SUSAN BOSTROM 3318 FOSCA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CHRISTOPHER AND ADRIENNE DURSO 3322 FOSCA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 RICHARD AND DAVOS DWYER 3324 FOSCA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 JILLARD AND IONA ROBERTS TIMOTHY AND SUSAN SULLIVAN JOSEPH AND SUSAN KILKENNY 7322 LAS BRISAS CT 7324 LAS BRISAS CT 7326 LAS BRISAS CT CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 ARTHUR LECLAIR AND M INTER CATHLEEN 7328 LAS BRISAS CT CARLSBAD CA 92009 DONNA KANE 7330 LAS BRISAS CT CARLSBAD CA 92009 FRANK AND JOANN NOLAN 7331 LAS BRISAS CT CARLSBAD CA 92009 SUSAN BAHNKE AND GEORGE GAY DA 73254 LAS BRISAS CT CARLSBAD CA 92009 JOHN AND JEANETTE KOESTNER KENNETH AND JULIE CHASE 7329 LAS BRISAS CT 7327 LAS BRISAS CT CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 FRED AND S LORELLE 7321 LAS BRISAS CT CARLSBAD CA 92009 "REDERICK AND KAREN ZERLAUT MARINELLO 7323 LAS BRISAS CT CARLSBAD CA 92009 ESTA CHAMBERS 3317 FOSCA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 JOSEPH AND ANGELA BEAR 3311 FOSCA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 WENGLER 2002 7314 BORLA PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 LAUREN WASSERMAN ET AL 3319 FOSCA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 FRANK AND LUCILLE CHERASKY ARTHUR AND SYLVIA VEITCH 3315 FOSCA ST 3313 FOSCA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 RAY LI PSON THIEMENS FAMILY 7313 BORLA PL 7315 BORLA PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 ALI WAIEL 7312 BORLA PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 WILLIAM AND JODY REED MARK AND SUSAN COPPA 7315 ESFERA ST 7317 ESFERA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 MARILY FAMILY TRUST 7313 ESFERA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 STELLA MILES 7319 ESFERA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 mAVERY@ Address Labels Laser 6241TM Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 516@ - KING 1989 BRAUNSTEIN FAMIY ?O BOX 1524 3230 PIRAGUA ST RANCHO SANTA FE CA 92067 CARLSBAD CA 92009 MARK AND JACQUELINE STEVENS JAMES AND AURORA SHRIVER 7356 CADENCIA ST 7346 CADENCIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CRAIG AND PENELOPE BAUMANN YOUNG 3221 PIRAGUA ST 3230 VENADO ST ZARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 MICHAEL AND MARY GUNN 3250 VENADO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 FOYLE 437 S HIGHWAY 101 SUITE 103 SOLANA BEACH CA 92075 FREDERICK AND HELEN ARBUCKLE JR 3307 PIRAGUA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 EDWIN ALLARD AND MARION ALLARD 3301 PIRAGUA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 BCE DEVELOPMENT 33 S gTH ST MINNEAPOLIS CA 55402 DAVID AND KAY DOKE 3240 PIRAGUA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 BARTL 3305 PIRAGUA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 MICHAEL AND KAREN BURCH 3302 PIRAGUA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 ROBERT AND MICHELLE DOBSON WILLIAM AND ANNE HALL 3306 PIRAGUA ST 3308 PIRAGUA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 ISAK AND LIMA KHANIS 3312 PIRAGUA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 HOWARD AND TERRI WIEDRE 7441 ESFERA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 MICHAEL AND JOYCE COWNE GIHBSSON FAMILY 106 MAX HURT DR 3315 CABO CT MURRAY KY 42071 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CORONA LA COSTA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 343 RICHMAR AVE SAN MARCOS CA 92069 ROBERT AND ANNE SCHMIDT 7336 CADENCIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CHARLES STOOPACK 3240 VENADO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 WILLIAM AND MAUREEN HOPSON 3251 PIRAGUA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 PS WOODCOX AND JANE FISHER 3309 PIRAGUA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 SHAKHSHIR FAMILY 3303 PIRAGUA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 LOUIS. FAMILY 3304 PIRAGUA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 BRADLEY AND LAURIE OWEN 3310 PIRAGUA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 MICHAEL AND N ZINES 3319 CABO CT CARLSBAD CA 92009 ROBERT BAKER AND HELEN MAR? 3313 CABO CT CARLSBAD CA 92009 aAVERY@ Address Labels Laser 6241TM Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160@ r JORDHEIM 1993 3311 CABO CT CARLSBAD CA 92009 IVAN AND MONICA JELLINEK 3312 CABO CT CARLSBAD CA 92009 EDWARD AND PATRICIA CERDA 3314 CABO CT CARLSBAD CA 92009 WILLIAM AND CAROLYN SH I RRE FFS 3316 CABO CT CARLSBAD CA 92009 DARBY SCHAFER AND ERICA BURLES 7411 ESFERA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 KENNETH AND SARA WAHL 7421 ESFERA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 ELLIOT AND JACQUELINE BARROWS 3329 FOSCA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 DONALD BRILL SR 3333 FOSCA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 MORGAN FAMILY 3311 FOSCA ST CARSLBAD CA 92009 WELCH 3327 FOSCA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 BEATRICE KANE 3325 FOSCA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CANCELLIER FAMILY 3323 FOSCA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 AVA DAVIS 3326 FOSCA ST !CARLSBAD CA 92009 THOMAS AND LINDA MURDOCK 3328 FOSCA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 LARRY AND PENNY GUNDERSON 3330 FOSCA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 THOMAS AND JEANNE MEADOWS DAVID AND DEB1 CAPR 3322 FOSCA ST 3322 VENADO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 FRED AND SHIRLEY DANIEL 3332 VENADO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 S PRAGUE 3323 PIRAGUA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 LEE AND DIANE WOOD 3336 VENADO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 MARBREY 3325 PIRAGUA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 GANO HAROLD AND VIVIAN 1991 3321 PIRAGUA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 MICHAEL AND MICHELLE SENGER MAXWELL AND LINDA COLON 3319 PIRAGUA ST 3317 PIRAGUA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 GEOFFREY AND MARIE HILDEBRANDT 3315 PIRAGUA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 YOURE AND LINDA SHADIAN RICHARD AND CLAUDIA BARBOUF 3321 VENADO ST 3311 PIRAGUA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 ROBERT MILLER FAMILY 3222 LINDA VISTA DR SAN MARCOS CA 92069 FORD FAMILY 3318 PIRAGUA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 JEFFREY AND KRISTI PETERSO]. 3320 PIRAGUA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 aAVERY@ Address Labels Laser 6241fM Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160@ DAVID AND KIMBERLY CLARKIN 3322 PIRAGUA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 ROY WISE JR AND ROSEMARY SRAF WISE 3328 PIRAGUA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 JOHN AND STEPHANIE MITCHELL 3302 VENADO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CHRISTOPHER AND VELYN ANDERSON 3314 VENADO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 RONALD AND ROBIN ISRAEL 3324 PIRAGUA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 MARK AND CANDACE WEISS 7461 ESFERA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 RICHARD AND TERI MACY 3306 VENADO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CHU SHENG FAN 3316 VENADO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 RONALD AND JUDY BOLTON 3326 PIRAGUA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 NATHAN AND FARIBA SALEHI 7451 ESFERA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 WARD AND JANE KAO 3312 VENADO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 DANA TAVELMAN 3315 VENADO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 :fOURE AND LINDA SH LARRY AND JEANETTE YGLESIA MIHOLICH FAMILY 7412 CADENCIA ST ,2735 CAZADERO DR CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 PAUL AND MAIA MARANGOS 7402 CADENCIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 PAUL AND JACKIE SCANLAN 7324 MUSLO LN CARLSBAD CA 92009 TIMOTHY AND DANNIELLE MILL1 KEN 7326 MUSLO LN CARLSBAD CA 92009 JOSEPH AND HEIDI GROSSHART CLARK AND AURA DEARMOND TURALBA LIVING 7328 MUSLO LN 7330 MUSLO LN 7332 MUSLO LN ZARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 TIMOTHY AND JANEAN STRIPE ROGER AND LINDA NIEMEYER TOM AND LAURA RIDER 7149 ARGONAUTA WAY 3343 FOSCA ST 3341 FOSCA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 STANLEY AND GIEDRE MILAS CHANG FAMILY MICHAEL AND JAINAIN HOWARD 3339 FOSCA ST PO BOX 7028 3335 FOSCA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 RANCHO SANTA FE CA 92067 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CANCELLIER FAMILY 3323 FOSCA ST CARSLBAD CA 92009 ROBERT AND DIANE BOSTIC LACKEY FAMILY 3336 FOSCA ST 3338 FOSCA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 aAVERY@ Address Labels Laser 6241TM Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160's f CHRISTOPHER AND DIETKE FEUGE 3340 FOSCA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 RICHARD AND SUSAN 7321 MUSLO LN CARLSBAD CA 92009 JOSEPH AND SIGLIA 7316 ESFERA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 PODGORSKI PIRAINO SCOTT AND SANDRA HOOK 7325 MUSLO LN CARLSBAD CA 92009 ROBERT AND VIRGINIA ACCETTA 7319 MUSLO LN CARLSBAD CA 92009 DARIN AND LAURI LOESCH 7318 ESFERA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 PATRICK AND SANDRA GRAVITT ROBERT COSGROVE 7410 ESFERA ST 7420 ESFERA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 ADAM AND DIANA SPRAGG JAN SOVINEE 3328 CABO WAY 3330 CABO WAY CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 DONALD AND SUSAN HARTLEY JAMES AND MARY CLARK 3334 CABO WAY 3336 CABO WAY CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 SOUKUP FAMILY 7432 TRIGO LN CARLSBAD CA 92009 SHERMAN FAMILY 7446 TRIGO LN CARLSBAD CA 92009 NICOLSON FAMILY 7445 TRIGO LN CARLSBAD CA 92009 ANNICKA FABIAN 3329 CABO WAY CARLSBAD CA 92009 aAVERY@ Address Labels MARY POPOVICH 35-148 STACCATO ST PALM DESERT CA 92211 PETER HASKETT 3334 PIRAGUA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 ABRAHAM AND MARILYN ARK IN ZADEH 7441 TRIGO LN CARLSBAD CA 92009 PETER ROLF OHNSTAD 7323 MUSLO LPI CARLSBAD CA 92009 LEONARD OBERMAN AND NANCY HUTTER 7314 ESFERA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 KIPP AND ELIZABETH ANDERS 7320 ESFERA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 THOMAS AND HALICIA GONZALEZ 3326 CABO WAY CARLSBAD CA 92009 RICHARD AND EDNA MINTON 3332 CABO WAY CARLSBAD CA 92009 BETH BILLSTEIN PO BOX 1274 CARDIFF CA 92007 JAMES AND KIRSTEN RECCE 7442 TRIGO LN CARLSBAD CA 92009 RICHARD AND JULIE KOCH 3336 PIRAGUA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 SCOTT AND DIANE KAATS 811 MORNING SUN DR ENCINITAS CA 92024 WILLIAM AND FELECIA HAYS NANCY COLMER 3327 CABO WAY 7157 ARGONAUTA WAY CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 Laser 6241TM Smooth Feed SheetsTM BRIAN AND SUSAN YORK GREGORY AND TINA MURPHY 3323 CAB0 WAY 7450 ESFERA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 LORRAINE CLARK FAMILY 7466 ESFERA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 aAVERY@ Address Labels Use template for 516@ DIANNE VENNARD 7460. ESFERA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 Laser 624IrM NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO p.m. on Tuesday, August 19, 2003, to consider a Conditional Use Permit CUP 03-22 to allow the installation of a wireless telecommunications facility on an SDG&E transmission tower on property generally located between Esfera Street and Piragua Street in the SDG&E transmission corridor and more particularly described as: Lot 401 of Carlsbad Tract 72-20, La Costa Vale, Unit No. 3, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to map thereof No. 7950, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, June 3, 1974 as an alternative to a wireless telecommunications facility at 751 2 Cadencia Street, more particularly described as : Lot 486 of Carlsbad Tract 72-20 of La Costa Vale Unit No. 3, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to map thereof No. 7950, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County. Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the agenda bill will be available on and after August 15, 2003. If you have any questions, please call Christer Westman in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4614. The time within which you may judicially challenge this Conditional Use Permit 03-22, if approved, is established by state law and/or city ordinance, and is very short. If you challenge the Conditional Use Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to Attn: City Clerk, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008 at or prior to the public hearing. CASE FILE: CUP 03-22 CASE NAME: AT&T Wireless PUBLISH: August 8,2003 CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL The Coast News Decreed A Legal Newspaper by the Superior Court of San Diego County. Mail all correspondence regarding public notice advertising to The Coast News, P.O. Box 232-550, Encinitas, CA 92023 (760) 436-9737 Proof of Publication STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ss COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter. I am principal clerk of the printer of The Coast News, a newspaper printed and published weekly and which news- paper has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation for the cities of Del Mar, Solana Beach, Enchitadcardiff, Carlsbad, Oceanside, San MarcosNista and the County Judicial District by the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego (8/4/94, #677114, B2393, P396); and that the notice, of which the annexed is a print- ed copy, has been published in, each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: Auaust 14. 2003' I Icertify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Encinitas, County of San Diego, State of California on the 14th day of August, 2003. Clerk of the &ter CITY OF CARLSBAD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you. because your mterest may be affected. Ihat me Cny Canal of he (%y of Carlsbad wdl hold a publr hearvy) at the Counul chambers. 1200 -bad Village Dnve. Camad, Caliloma at 6 00 p m on Tuesday. August 19.2003. to cowder a condibonal Use Permn CUP 03-22 to allaw me iMtal!alm 01 a Ynreless telecanmuntcabons facilny on an SDGE tnrnsmlswn tower on pmperly gema#y located between Eslera Street and Plragua Street in IJw SOGdE lransmissmn comdw ana more partcuerly described as Lot 401 ofcarlsbad Tract 72-20, La Costa Vale, Unit No. 3. in the City of Cartsbad, Gamy of San Dw. Slate of CaiMtnia according to map IJwreof No. 7950. filed h the ob of the County Recorder d San Diego County, June 3,1974 as an anernalive to a wireless teleoommunicati facilii at 7512 Cadenci street. more partiar- lartydesccibedas: Lot 486 of -bad Tract 72-20 01 La Costa Vale Unit No. 3, in the City of Carlsbad, Carnty of Ssn Mego, Slate d California. according to map there3 No. 7950. filed in the Mice of the County Recwder d San County. Those wrsons wishina to swak on mi orcxwal are cordiiltv invited to attend the wblic hearina. Cooii of the -- . agendi bill will be aiiilabie on and afier'August 15, 2W3. If you have any questions, please call Chnster Westman in the Planning Department at (760) 602- 4614. The time within which you may judicially challenge*s Conditional Use Permit 03-22, if approved, is estab lished by state law andlor ciiy ordinance, and is very short. If yw challenge the Condilional Use Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only lhose issues you or someone else raised at the pubic hearing described in this notice or in wriien conespondencs delired to Am: CiW Clerk, 1200 Carlsbad Village orive. Cabbad. CA 9Mo8 at lor prior tohe public hearhg. CN 7WOAu+WIlI. 2003 \\/I I September 8,2003 TO: Mayor Lewis Council Members FROM: City Manager RE: Agenda Item #8 - Council Meeting 9/9/03 The attached infomation was delivered Monday afternoon, September 8'h, 2003 by Chris Wahl, Vice President, Southwest Strategies LLC on behalf of AT&T. This information represents the exhibits he's been distributing on behalf of AT&T to the City Council. AT&T Wireless Tower 173 Fact Sheet AT&T Wireless (ATTWS) has submitted an application to the City of Carlsbad to place a cellular communications facility on SDG&E’s transmission tower number 173. The primary benefit of this location is that only one facility would be required. The site proposed for 7512 Cadencia would require a second location to achieve similar cellular phone coverage. In September 2000, City Council rejected an application for Tower 173 submitted by GTE Wireless. The City Council based its decision on a number of findings. Since that time, ATTWS has developed solutions to address each of the City’s findings. The table below summarizes the City’s initial findings and ATTW’s proposed solutions for Tower 173. Citv’s Initial Findinas Residential views are obscured and degraded by proposed antennas and other facilities and equipment. The location of the proposed equipment room, chain link fence and landscaping around the equipment room was not sufficient to eliminate visual impacts. Air conditioning requirements will create noise and require continual monitoring. Alternative designs or locations that would reduce impacts on the neighborhood were not entirely explored or exhausted. The facility would diminish the quality of life in the neighborhood as evidenced by testimony and petitions. ProDosed Solution ATTWS has redesigned facilities to minimize visual impacts by reducing the number of antenna panels and by placing equipment in cabinets surrounded by landscaping. ATTWS has eliminated the equipment room, and replaced it with smaller electronics cabinets that would be partially under grounded and screened with additional landscaping. The removal of the equipment room eliminates the need for large air conditioning units. Further, routine maintenance would be limited to one-to-two site checks per month without the AC units. ArrWS has analyzed at least 15 alternative locations, and Tower 173 is the only which meets the cellular phone coverage needs of AllWS. ATTWS has substantially redesigned the proposed site to reflect the concerns of the City and the community. Local quality of life could be enhanced with increased cellular phone service coverage in the area. September 2003 Cellular Phone Facility Locations Considered by GTE & ATTWS in Carlsbad GTE’s Alternatives 1. SDG&E Tower 171 2. SDG&E Power Pole north of Cadencia Street 3. SDG&E Tower 173 4. Four residences on Fosca Street ATTWS Alternatives to Cadencia First Round 5. La Costa Resort and Spa 6. La Costa and El Camino Real shopping center 7. Alicante view apartments at 2385 Caringa Way Second Round (from site visit with City Attorney and City Planner) 8. West Bluff Plaza 9. Vons at corner of Alga and El Camino Real 10. Senior Citizen’s residential complex at Alga and El Camino Real 11. La Costa Resort and Spa (second pass) 12. Sprint Collo facility at El Camino Real and La Costa 13. Albertsons at El Camino Real and La Costa 14. Lot owned by water district (near collo facility) 15. Rancho La Costa Village at La Costa and Rancho Santa Fe Road -- I :- I' i u I i i i. I -/ .: -,, r... --I '- a 'I, -- From: <SkiH204Fun@aol.com> To : <Council@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: 9/9/03 10:22AM Subject: Tower 173 - the unopened can of worms Three years ago a decision was made on this area and myself and the neighbors were thrilled with your support of the community. Now we are facing the same situation again. It has been very discouraging for those who wrote letters and did their part in a job well done 3 years ago. You may not receive the amount of letters as you did then but the sentiment is still there and the letters of 3 years ago still stand. This site that is proposed will boarder our yard. The housing unit for their "fans" which are label as AC in their specs is right next to our fence and will come above it. It is a large building and would not be the last one there if this is approved. It will open the door for all those other cell servers to do the same. This will transform a quiet community into a utility area. The visual effect on the tower is another issue by it's self. As it is, I have come to refer to it as our rather large bird perch for birds of prey. We get Hawks there often and a occasional Owl. The noise, which is often referred to as justification for a building going in next to our fence, is minimal and only occurs when there is moisture in the air. This whole thing is a can of worms. By approving this the can is open and the neighbors will be writing to you again and visiting with you again on every other thing associated with it. The only solution is to not open that can of worms. 1 am requesting that you honor your decision of 3 years ago. AT&T is a big enough company that they can go for their plan B which is tower 171 where it is now open space. I appreciate you taking the time to look at the area and consider these things. Regards, Kathy & Mike Welch Kory, Kyle, Christian, Kaitlin and Kelsy Welch From: "John R Koestner" <jrkoestner@adelphia.net:, To: <mstro@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: 9/9/03 1 :01 PM Subject: Opposition to cellular site at SDG&E Tower 173 Dear Councilman/Councilwoman: This letter is to inform you that we are opposed to the proposed cellular site and associated building at SDG&E Tower 173. The existing large tower was there when we purchased our home. However, we understood that this easement was to be used only for SDG&E transmission lines. The cellular antennas and building would be obnoxious and depreciate our property value. We are requesting that the city of Carlsbad prevent this eyesore from being constructed in a residential neighborhood. Sincerely, John and Jeanette Koestner ALL RECEIVED September 8, 2003/09/08 Dear City Council Members, When I moved to La Costa a year and a half ago, I thought Carlsbad was just an appendage to San Diego. wrong! Carlsbad is a well-run growing city, a strong community, and a great place to live. That is becoming rare in San Diego county. I couldn't have been more wrong nor more pleased to be I betieve that Carlsbad is destined to be a premier Southern California city which will attract a strong tax base if it can stay on course and avoid unplanned growth mistakes like San Marcos with its Wal Mart fiasco. Carlsbad made a fabulous decision with Policy 64 and needs to stick to it. No legal finagling from large threatening corporations using Byzantine and absurd FCC rules to twist Carlsbad's arm matters. Stand up to them! Carlsbad exists for its citizens, not for the shareholders of wireless carriers. Please do not allow cell phone operators to destroy our residential neighborhoods with intergalactic antenna array towers. Cell phones are not a vital utitity. Cell phones should be seen for what they are: simply a commercial enterprise and a convenience. And since cell phones are a commercial enterprise, they should be operated from commercially zoned areas. The new tower at the Von's shopping center on La Costa at El Camino Real is a perfect example of how a cell phone tower should be done. Placing antenna arrays, buildings, and equipment on and around an electrical tower which, I understand, carries wires that are supposed to eventually be buried anyway, in the middle of an established residential neighborhood is bad for Carlsbad. It will hurt property values, is ugly, noisy, brings unwanted service people into the neighborhood and opens the door for other commercial enterprises to harm our residential neighborhoods. I understand well that the proposed site for AT&Ts new antenna array is technically and economically ideal for AT&T. It is also my understanding that AT&T has not considered other sites for their antenna array. Simply put, AT&T and any other carrier needs to find another place for their antennas. It's common sense, it's the law, and it's what's best for Carlsbad. Thanks for supporting the citizens of Carlsbad so well on this and other issues! the voters will reciprocate at the polls. I am sure Respectfully, Christopher Rowan 3213 Fosca Street -~ Page 1 1 Marilyn Strong - Tower 173 __~ __ From: <Cathyleclair@aol.com> To: cmstro@ci.carIsbad.ca.us> Date: 9/7/03 9:44PM Subject: Tower 173 Dear Council People: Please support your community once again by voting against cell site intrusion to tower 173. Protect our quality of life. Tower 173 is ugly, often noisy and an eyesore ..... lets not make it worse by "decorating" it with paraphernalia from cell companies. Our neighborhood fought GTE successfully 3 years ago with your support. This really should be a mute issue. The LeClairs From: "Kimberly Clarkin" ckimclarkin@adelphia.net> To: <mstro@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: 9/8/03 10:47PM Subject: AT&T's Wireless Proposal Dear Councilman/ Councilwoman, I am writing this letter to express my concerns with AT&T's Wireless proposal to install cellular antennas on SDG&E Tower 173 and the construction of support buildings. Listed below are my reasons for opposition to the proposed project: Visually obstructive - eyesore Noise impact from cooling units Vehicle traffic from maintenance activity Precedent setting for additional sites and antennas Real estate value depreciation Site located in a residential area - Please consider my concerns in opposing a conditional use permit for AT&T cellular communications project. The residents of La Costa seek your vote in refusing AT&T's encroachment into a family residential area. Sincerely, David & Kimberly Clarkin Sabrina & Marleena Clarkin 3322 Piragua Street Carlsbad, CA 92009 Cleo and Leif Gihbsson 3315 Cab0 Court Carlsbad, CA 92009-7803 ALL RECEIVED Carlsbad, Sept. 4th. 2003. Honorable Mayor Claude A. Lewis City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008-1989 Dear Sir, We are writing to express our concerns about AT&T's Wireless proposal to install cellular antennas on SDG&E Tower 173 and the construction of support buildings. Listed below are our reasons for opposition to the proposed project Visually obstructive - eyesore Noise impact from cooling units Vehicle traffic from maintenance activity Precedent setting for additional cell phone providers Site located in residential area Real estate value depreciation Lack of information from AT&T When we looked for a house about 17 years ago/ we were taken to see a house on Fosca St. . Even before we looked at the inside of the house we noticed the power line facing our view. We told the real estate broker that this was not a place for us, having to look at the towers and power lines. The additional antennas and buildings certainly won't enhance the view from many of the houses in the neighborhood Carlsbad is a very nice and well run city to live in. Let us keep it that way. We are not against the development of cell phone use, but we are against having a forest of unsightly cell phone towers in residential areas as long as there are other options, even if they may cost a little more to build. Please consider our concerns in opposing a ConditionaI use permit for AT&T's cellular communications project. Nothing has changed since GTE Wireless' application for a permit was voted down by the City Council 3 years ago Therefore the residents of La Costa seek your vote in refusing AT&T's encroachment into a residential area. Sincerely WBL Cleo Gihbsson __ - __ - - Page1 1 ~ ~ ~___l I Marilyn Strong - AT&T Proposed Cellular Relay Site From: Mike Howard <mikeh@imsrecyclingservices.com> To : <MSTRO@C I .Carlsbad .CA. US> Date: 8/8/03 1 1 :34AM Subject: AT&T Proposed Cellular Relay Site Dear Counicl Members of the City of Carlsbad: Approximately three years ago, GTE requested permission from the Carlsbad City Council to construct a cellular phone relay station on the SD&GE easement at tower 173. The proposed site is located between Piragua and Esfera Streets in La Costa, Carlsbad. At that time Carlsbad residents presented their concerns to the City of Carlsbad on reasons why the project was not in the best interest of the local residents and the City. The City after considerable research on the subject voted no on the proposed project. The residents of Carlsbad have now been informed that AT&T has purchased GTE and plans to submit a similiar proposal to build a cellular phone relay station at the same location. The same rationale and justification for not permitting GTE to construct a cellular relay site are still valid. Some of those issues but not limited to, are: *Eye sore to the local area *Noise associated with mechanical equipment required to operate the *The constant maintenance activities associated with the operation of a 24 *A precedent for other type of projects to be constructed in populated *Real estate depreciation on homes affected by the location of the site facility 24 hours a day hour site (personnel and truck traffic) residential areas As a long time Carlsbad resident and on behalf of my fellow neighbors, we are again seeking your support to deny permission for the construction of this site. I would ask each City Council Member to consider whether or not they would want a project such as this constructed in their neighbor. You had the insight to do what was in the best interest of the City and its residents three years ago, please do the same again. Respectfully Submitted, Mike Howard 3335 Fosca Street Carlsbad, CA 92009 Mike Howard IMS Recycling Services, Inc. ........................................................... The information transmitted is intended only for the person(s) to whom it is addressed and may be confidential. Any dissemination or other use of this information by persons other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error please contact the sender and delete the material from your computer. This email is not intended to create legally binding rights or obligations. No representation or warranty From: "Patricia Cerda" <trished@sdcoe. kl2.ca.us> To: <mstro@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: 811 1 I03 10:46AM Subject: AT&T August 1 1,2003 Dear Carlsbad City Council Members: As residents of the area that will be affected by the approval of case file CUP 03-22, we implore you to oppose the installation of a wireless telecommunications facility on the SDG&E transmission tower on Lot 401 of Carlsbad Tract 72-20, La Costa Vale, Unit No. 3. This neighborhood must remain a residential area free of commercial enterprises. On August 19, 2003, please vote NO on this issue. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Ed and Tricia Cerda 3314 Cab0 Court (760) 436-6597 -- - i Marilyn Strong - AT&T's I proposed cell site __ at Tower 173--- - - - - -_ Page I] From: <JDMORGANL@aol.com> To: <rnstro@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: 8/13/03 12:57PM Subject: AT&T's proposed cell site at Tower 173 AUGUST 12,3000 DEAR HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS: WE VEHEMENTLY OPPOSE AT&T'S PROPOSAL FOR THE ABOVE CELLULAR SITE. IT IS UNCONSCIONABLE THAT BIG CONGLOMORATIONS CAN COME INTO A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD AND PLACE AN ANTENNA FARM ON TOWER THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE REMOVED YEARS AGO. WE CANNPT DEAL WITH ANYMORE VISUAL BLIGHT. THE NOISE THIS SITE WOULD GENERATE WIOULD GREATLY AFFECT OUR LIVES IN MANY WAYS. PLEASE HELP US;;. THANK YOU FOR EXTEN DING SOME TIME TO US FOR THIS AGENDA. THANK YOU FOR BEING A GREAT COUNCIL WHO CARES ABOUT YOUR CONSTITUENTS. YOU PROVED THAT TO US WHEN WE CAME UP AGAINST GTE IN SEPT. 2000. YOU ALL VOTED YOUR CONSCIENCE AND WE WILL NEVER FORGET IT. THIS IS DE JA VU ALL OVER AGAIN AND WE APPRECIATE ALL YOU WILL DO TO UPHOLD OUR RIGHTS TO THE QUIET ENJOYMENT OF OUR HOMES, SINCERELY; JIM AND DOTTIE MORGAN 3331 FOSCA STREET CARKSBAD, CA. 92009 Page I] _l_" - I Marilyn Strong - AT&T Cellular Site From: Esta Chambers <eechambers@adelphia.net> To : <mstro@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: 8/16/03 11:llAM Subject: AT&T Cellular Site Dear City Council Members, I live on Fosca Street near the electrical tower #173 and am again concerned about the possibility of antennas and an access building being added to the tower. The noise from the mechanical equipment and the eventual effect on my property value especially concern me. I also do not want to set a precedent for other companies to invade this community with cellular equipment. About three years ago I joined with my neighbors to inform you of our concerns and today nothing has changed for us. The issues and concerns are the same. We do not want the cellular site building or the antennas here. Please consider and respect this plea. If you lived here you would not want your neighborhood compromised either. A concerned resident, Esta Chambers 331 7 Fosca Street Carlsbad 92009 760-635-1 442 From: <jabondell@sbcglobal.net> To: <Council @smtp.ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: Sun, Aug 31,2003 8:48 AM Subject: CITY OF CARLSBAD I CONTACT US A visitor to the City of Carlsbad Web site has completed and posted the "Contact Us" form to department, City Council. Below, please find the information that was submitted: First Name: James Last Name: Bondell Address: 7250 Esfera Street City: Carlsbad State: CA Zip: 92009 Country: San Diego E-mail: jabondell @sbcglobal.net Message: Dear Council, I am against AT&T's proposal for a cellular site to be I cated t SDGE T we 173. The addition of cellular antennas to the tower will create visual pollution to our neighborhood, my home and view. I am also concerned about safety issues regarding the technology being used. The AT&T engineers should look for other sites that do not impact residential neighborhoods while providing simeilar service. I request that the Council vot NO on the condisional use permit for AT&T's cellular communication project at SDG&E Tower 173. Sincerely, James A. Bondell, Ph.D. User details: Mozilld4.0 (compatible; MSlE 6.0; Windows 98; Win 9x 4.90) /web browser / hostname 67.1 16.21 6.52 / ip address Dear Mayor/Council Member, I am writing to express my concerns with AT&T’s Wireless proposal to install cellular antennas on SDG&E Tower 173 and the construction of support buildings. Listed below are my reasons for opposition to the proposed project: Visually obtrusive - eyesore Noise impact from cooling units Vehicle traffic from maintenance activity Precedent setting for additional sites and antennas Real estate value depreciation Site located in a residential area Contradictory information supplied by AT&T Please consider my concerns in opposing a conditional use permit for AT&T’s cellular communications project. The residents of La Costa seek your vote in rehsing AT&T’s encroachment into a residential area. Sincerely, Edward Cerda 33 14 Cab0 Court Carlsbad, CA B&ce R. Kane 3325 Fa4ca 9; Cahebbad, CA 92009 AuguAt 29, 2003 ALL RECEIVED TO WffOM TT h4AY CONCERN: 1 am a k3den.t a.t 3325 Foaca Srt., Ca~bbad, CA 92009 and have awed hetre 60tr men;ty {ive yw. sUighR;ey &tu and 2owm bckind my paqxmty wme ;to be placed undagtround widtin dive yeam. That con6 in 197%. prhe & &gh%o invade a fi~.iden/tne mea. & one mea Ca bad, 1 w ;told a.t die he 06 wehabe 06 my home .that ;the un- Once again, 7 hawe been indomed &ta..t a p/tiva;te ma- How fic?~i&ntiae and indubW be flaced 0.3 - no;t a 4ens.ib.te adds noZhLng but aAkction & .th.& beaurt;ica.t 06 T am vwg much against &ow&g any p~va.te compnay adchg any Man in my back viw mea. exc&en.t /rep&ed and in $op condi;tian ob Xlre yahd bo .that my ncLghbou have pleasant AwtrtoundingA. s&e& have died &A% brrain &.ma/~6. Zowm me placed. a noAe and ;the &ebidue dzza;i coma @om ;tkis -* ---- .A__- 7 9 additionat bum {OR ;the view and huve kept mu home -& In -the &u;t 8 yam Xhee &aider& on my side 06 Rhe The Web sizzle and make TU A Gtti;tkin 5 hou6e6 2ha.t ;the. &e6 and Thih induded my .We hrt6band. vag unhal-thy. WMA8 CHYNCB 7456 Trig0 Lane Carlsbad, CA. 92009 ALL RECEIVED August 3 1,2003 Dear Carlsbad City Council, My husband and I are writing to you in response to AT&T’s request to construct a cellular communication site at SDG&E Tower 173. We are opposed to the construction of a maintenance building in the easement and the hanging of cellular antennas fiom the tower. The visual blight and associated negative factors would depreciate property values. , We chose to live in Carlsbad, 17 years ago, for many reasons. One of them is the preservation of the natural landscape and the open space here in La Costa. Please do not permit AT&T to trash our neighborhood with these eyesores. Sincerely , Kathleen Lebeda &aa&A71 &2444 Robert Lebeda 32 14 Fosca Street Carlsbad, Ca. 92009 Philip Cancellier 3323 Fosca Street Carlsbad CA 92009 Dear Mayor Lewis, ALL RECEIVED September 1, 2003 You supported us in our fight to keep GTE from putting cell phone equipment on SDGE Tower 173 and building an equipment building in our residential neighborhood and we are asking for your support again to keep AT&T from doing the same thing. I believe AT&T is not acting fairly in reopening a previously decided issue and certainly has not made sufficient effort to find a site in a commercial area that would give them the coverage they desire. Their costs should not be a factor in your decision making. The wishes of the Carlsbad residents who will be impacted by the unsightly antennas on the tower, the noise of the equipment in the maintenance building, and the additional traffic on the dirt easement are the only issues that matter. If AT&T wins we anticipate our property values will fall and our quiet residential neighborhood will suffer irreparable harm. We are also concerned that the proposed antennas are only the beginning of AT&T's plans for equipment on the tower and that other cell'phone companies will also find it ideal for their equipment. I am afraid that once begun there will be no stopping further expansion. Please don't wait until it is too late. Vote NO on the conditional use permit for AT&T's cellular communication project on Tower 173. Sincerely yours, ALL RECEIVED Helen Cancellier 3323 Fosca Street Carlsbad CA 92009 September 1,2003 Dear Mayor Lewis, I want to thank you for denying GTE permission to attach their cell phone equipment to Tower 173 in my Carlsbad neighborhood and hope you will continue to support your Carlsbad neighbors against giant AT&T in their efforts to reopen this issue. I am sure you will agree that AT&T has not done its due diligence in finding a non-residential site for its cell tower. It seems it is now trying to force two residential neighborhoods to fight against each other. AT&T’s arrogance and almost blackmail like tactics in, what I believe, is a move only to save time and money are intolerable and should not be allowed to prevail. I am opposed to any cell phone equipment being attached to Tower 173 and any equipment building on the easement behind my home. The tower is unsightly but I knew it was there when I purchased my home. It is not noisy and the maintenance is minimal and not disruptive. The proposed cell phone equipment hanging from the tower would be an eyesore and vehicle traffic to build and maintain the site as well as the noise from the air conditioning units would add unnecessary noise pollution to our very quiet neighborhood. Looking into the future I am sure AT&T plans to add more equipment and from the court cases I have read it would be impossible to keep other cell phone companies from adding their equipment to the tower and building more maintenance buildings to service them. Ths is something the City Council would probably not be able to control in the fhture but you can stop AT&T now. Please vote NO on the conditional use permit for AT&T’s cellular communication project at SDGE Tower 173. Sincerely yours, d&a-- Sep-05-2003 12:21pm From- T-I58 P. 002/002 F-418 Sept. 2,2003 ALL RECEIVED Dear Mayor Claude A, %ud” Lewis, - -__ --______-_______-- ~ - - - -- -- . 1 Marilyn Strong - Down with eyesores. ~ Page 1 From: <vc.rc@sbcglobal.net> To: <mstro@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: 9/2/03 7:21 PM Subject: Down with eyesores. Dear Council Women /Council Men, We are writing to you in responce to ATT&T's request to construct a cellulur communications site at SDG&E Tower 173. We are opposed to the construction of a maintenance building in the easement and the hanging of cellulur antenas from the tower. The visual and associated blight and negative factors would depreciate our property values. We recently choose to live in Carlsbad for many reasons one of them being the preservation of the natural landscape and the open space here in LA Costa. Please do not permit AT&T to install or build these types of eyesores in our community Thank you for your votes, Richard & Valerie Corless 7436 Trigo Lane, Carlsbad CA92009 Dear Carlsbad City Council at SX&E Toner 173, I li t near the tmer value . similar service. for this cellular project. -1: am against the AT& AT&T engineers should 2 Please, council membersl vote no ditional use pedt Thank you, Esta E, Chambers 3317 Fosca Street Carlsbad 92009 760-635-1442 From: "The Luedke's" <lacostakid@adelphia.net> To: <mstro@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: 9/3/03 7:13PM Subject: AT&T Proposed Cellular Project - SDG&E Tower 173 Dear Carlsbad City Council, Our family has resided at 3334 Cadencia Street for the past 17 years and enjoy the safe, quiet neighborhood we have today. We endured the Harmony Grove fire several years ago and managed to stay afloat during several of the past El Ninos that blew through Carlsbad. Carlsbad is a fine city to live in, thanks to folks like you that continually look out for Carlsbad residents best interests. We strongly request the Carlsbad City Council to unanimously deny AT&T's proposed project to be located at SDG&E's Tower 173. The City of Carlsbad's revenue base appears to be adequate, so the income derived from this site would be minimal compared to the negative goodwill it would create if approved. The project is intrusive, offensive and not desirable to our neighborhood. There must be other areas to locate this site in a commercial area of our fine city, so it could blend in with it's surroundings versus being an eyesore and add noise to our nice and quiet neighborhood. The proposed sites appearance and added noise created from the sites equipment running late at night are concerns to all of us in this fine neighborhood. Over the past 17 years we have attended several of the Carlsbad City Council meetings and are always impressed with the Council's dedication and concern in making the right decision for the residents of Carlsbad. Your vote to prohibit AT&T's request to install any equipment at SDG&E Tower 173 would once again demonstrate the Council's recognition of what is right for the city and citizens of Carlsbad. Sincerely, Patrick & Linda Luedke 3334 Cadencia Street Carlsbad, Ca. ALL RECEIVED September 3,2003 Mayor Claude A. "Bud" Lewis City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: AT&T'S CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS PROJECT Dear Mayor Lewis: I am writing to express my concerns with AT&T's Wireless proposal to install cellular antennas on SDG&E Tower 173 and the construction of support buildings. The project is intrusive, offensive and not desirable. The proposed panels will have a negative visual impact at the site. There will be additional noise generated from the proposed support building at irregular hours. Vehicular traffic in the easement will also be increased and this is a major concern as there is an abundance of young children in this particular neighborhood. Also, AT&T has failed to demonstrate the necessity of having this particular site and I believe that the engineers at AT&T should look for other alternatives that do not impact residential neighborhoods while providing similar service. I chose to live in Carlsbad for many reasons, one of them being the preservation of the natural landscape and the open space here in La Costa. I respectfully request that you do not allow AT&T to destroy our neighborhood by installing unnecessary visual pollution. Sincerely, Susan B. York :sby 3315 Fosca Street Carlsbad, CA September 3, ZOO3 Dear Counc ilman/C ounc ilwoman I Due to poor health at the present time, we are unable to attend the September 9th meeting but are writing you in response to AT&T's request to construct a cellular communications site at SDG&E Tower173. We are opposed to the construction of a maintenance building in the easement and the hanging of cellular antennas from the tower. The visual blight and associated negative factors would depreciate property values. We chose to live in Carlsbad for many reasons, one of them being the preservation of the natural landscape and the open space here in La Costa. Please do not permit ATT&T to put these eyesores in our community. '9 Sincerely, Lucille & Frank Cherasky f- Sep 09 03 07:25a John & Beci Connolly [7601 753-8482 P.2 Petition to Disapprove CUP 03-22 AT&T Wireless I e ‘i it I. s dent in the City of Carlsbad and do not approve of the ap hr ii 1i I 1 of AT&T Wireless Communications CUP 03-22. , I I. I: eve that cellular equipment with antennae and attendant structures ht.1 )I g solely in commercial areas of the City. These items should not be iiic a led in residential neighborhoods. Such negative factors as visual blipht, -. 111) ;c pollution, view obstruction, additional traffic and devaluation of local p 1.p :rtv values arc all items of significant concern to me. , I. ,I t ler, the installation of cellular equipment on Tower 173 sets a precedcnt t1.L -C by opening thc possibility of additional companies with their attend~nt cqi,il ,merit adding themselves to this tower, further compounding the at41 x mentioned negative issues. AT&T’s current application even shows fu * .I] e expansion of their equipment at this location. Tower 173 is in the n i: IC le of a strictly rcsidcntial neighborbood and should be treated as such. I ib ,: mtential noisc impact at this site is of major concern also, especially pt :I how quiet this neighborhood is now. Air conditioners running at all h I i r ,, including after midnight, would pose a major detriment to the quality 0, ’if : in a largc area surrounding the tower, much larger than just the irII n .diutc adjacent homeowners. .. ‘I Ir ! :ity of Carlsbad has offercd numerous alternative commercial sites to CP-~II #e this matter, which AT&T has refused to consider. Courts uniiormly I1 .I e held that economic or technological necessity do not mandate approval o cws der alternative sights upon request. I believe that the City of Carlsbad’s o .I .I Policy 64 should apply to this CUP application. I; y proposed tower site or justify a failure by the tower company to I 1 sl;~ tc c upress, in the strongest terms, my disapproval of this aF Iii:at!o i on the above grounds. UJ 1 cor:. 11 tion: Please return to 33 12 Cab0 Ct. Please leave in mailbox From: "Chris Rowan" <crowan@avtechventures.com> To : cmstro@ci .cads bad .ca. us> Date: 9/8/03 1 1 : 1 3AM Subject: Smart Growth in Carlsbad Dear City Council Members, When I moved to La Costa a year and a half ago, I thought Carlsbad was just an appendage to San Diego. I couldn't have been more wrong nor more pleased to be wrong! Carlsbad is a well-run growing city, a strong community, and a great place to live. That is becoming rare in San Diego county. 1 believe that Carlsbad is destined to be a premier Southern California city which will attract a strong tax base if it can stay on course and avoid unplanned growth mistakes like San Marcos with its Wal Mart fiasco. Carlsbad made a fabulous decision with Policy 64 and needs to stick to it. No legal finagling from large threatening corporations using Byzantine and absurd FCC rules to twist Carlsbad's arm matters. Stand up to them! Carlsbad exists for its citizens, not for the shareholders of wireless carriers. Please do not allow cell phone operators to destroy our residential neighborhoods with intergalactic antenna array towers. Cell phones are not a vital utility. Cell phones should be seen for what they are: simply a commercial enterprise and a convenience. And since cell phones are a commercial enterprise, they should be operated from commercially zoned areas. The new tower at the Von's shopping center on La Costa at El Camino Real is a perfect example of how a cell phone tower should be done. Placing antenna arrays, buildings, and equipment on and around an electrical tower which, I understand, carries wires that are supposed to eventually be buried anyway, in the middle of an established residential neighborhood is bad for Carlsbad. It will hurt property values, is ugly, noisy, brings unwanted service people into the neighborhood and opens the door for other commercial enterprises to harm our residential neighborhoods. I understand well that the proposed site for AT&T's new antenna array is technically and economically ideal for AT&T. It is also my understanding that AT&T has not considered other sites for their antenna array. Simply put, AT&T and any other carrier needs to find another place for their antennas. It's common sense, it's the law, and it's what's best for Carlsbad. Thanks for supporting the citizens of Carlsbad so well on this and other issues! Christopher Rowan 321 3 Fosca Street a” aqcouncu Mayor Bud Lewis Manager City of Carlsbad City Attorney 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive cltyc- Carlsbad, California 92009 - - RE: La Costa Area Cell Site for AT&T ALL RECElVUl Dear Mayor Lewis: It has been a while since I have written you and I know you have had many issues put on your plate in-between my last letter and this one. I am the father of four living just around the corner from the proposed site on Cadencia Street. During the initial hearings where the CUP for the Cadencia site was declined and the denial reaffirmed on ATBT’s appeal, I was in the audience with my neighbors. I worked with residents of the neighborhood and compiled 180 sianatures of residents against locating a second site in the area. Chief among our concerns (and the source of our testimony, petition, and individual letters) were: 1) the proliferation of cell towers in the area (we already have one on Cadencia), 2) the unfairness of having to accept reduced property values in light of such much open space (still) being available in the area and AT&T’s vast resources in being able to find a more suitable site, 3) the inconsistency of locating this type of business in a residential neighborhood, and 4) the fact that no impact was done measuring the RF signals from the existing HAM radio, the existing cell site, and proposed AT&T site at peak operating levels for all three. I have included that petition for your review again. Additionally, I wrote to you and the City Attorney asking to be kept informed and asking as member in the community to become involved in helping in any way I could with looking for what was best for everyone. I remember your comments to the AT&T representative offering to work with them as well. At the time I made this request, it was more than likely that AT&T would sue the city. I never heard back from anyone. The suit against the City was heard with no oral arguments. The points of law sited in the judge’s decision were based on several cases that have figured in both approval and denial of cell sites. Chief among these were the issues/positions of proliferation (City of El Cajon) and burden of/ and character of substantial evidence (Virginia Beach) that appear on their face to just have easily been applied in the affirmative for the City versus AT&T. Additionally, several of AT&T’s assertions - that the judge agreed with -were very shaky and questionable given that there is the appearance that the majority of letters, petitions, and testimony were boiled down to speaking only to health issues. This is simply not true. In the most recent Council meeting (8/19/03), you had mentioned that the Council has met in closed session to discuss the lawsuit. I (and the other 179 signatures of our petition) are very interested to know what is the current thinking and action plan concerning this particular lawsuit and what you meant in your remark that “you and the council were doing what was in the best interest of the citizens of the City of Carlsbad” concerning this lawsuit. All of that being said, (and I feel this is representative of the other 179 signatures on the enclosed petition) I am in agreement with the direction that the City seems to be heading in approving the CUP for Tower 173 (The SDG&E transmission tower) for the following reasons: 1) The coveraae circle that AT&T has identified as needing could be accomplished with one site [Tower 1731 versus rewiring two sites (the Cadencia site plus another “as yet named” site). All other arguments being equal -this would impact the fewest number of people. 2) Additionally, besides impacting fewer citizens based on location, the Tower 173 site is better suited for equipment access for both initial construction and more importantly ongoing maintenance. (It also stands to reason that one site would require half as many visits to maintain versus two sites). 3) The Cadencia site is not a done deal and therefore we believe that the City’s assertion that no further fiscal impact exists is not 100% accurate. We believe - and plan on petitioning both the City and the FCC (per the Local Official’s Guide to RF and other statutes) at minimum to measure and report on the cumulative measurement of RF for the Cadencia area. This means that we feel that as a matter of principle and law that there has to be additional work done to show these measurements comply with the FCC guidelines at the peak operating time for all of the devices. The City has stated - and we believe incorrectly - that they can assume compliance. We also believe that the measurements stated in the record were not done at the peak operating time for all RF devices as required. 4) We feel that AT&T lawsuit is not done either and that therefore the City’s assertion that there is no fiscal impact is again understated. The Community believes that the City of Carlsbad should appeal the Judge’s decision based upon there were many other concerns in the public record other than the health concerns. The judge’s conclusion that these other concerns were only mentioned after the public was coached during the City Council meeting disregards all of the letters, phone calls, petitions, and the public record of the Planning Commission hearing that took place prior to the City Council hearing. We feel that the City did not put forth a “best effort” in this suit and the Judge’s ruling was heavy handed and not equitable. We look forward to the chance to discuss this as we continue to study all of our options as citizens about how to proceed in this matter. I look forward to speaking with you and the Council publicly on September 9th and would like to meet with you beforehand to discuss these issues and offer any involvement I can to helping come to the best decision concerning this matter. Please contact me 760-436-7455 at your earliest convenience so we can discuss this and/or schedule a time to meet. Sincerely, Cc: Carlsbad City Council ? 57) .. . .. . . . .. . .. J) I) . . '. I .. 7 We are opposed to the AT&T proposed site to install a new 240 square foot radio base station within a new 400 square foot garage and install six antennas. We believe that the slte would disturb our quality of life and that a qulet safa heighborhood is an inappropriate locatlon for a cell sb. tn addition, three antennas were installed two homes down from this site last year, at 7412 Cadencia, and we are concerned about the cumulative affect of such installations. Our concerns include environmental impact, land use compatibility, aesthetics, public services (there is a school bus stop at the foot of this site), and public health and s8fety. Please locate the site in another area, such as a commercbl development 8-31-w 70s &w J? Ctlci3m)J GI lA/o& klh4 bw5L(s * SIGNATUW DATE ADMESS 4-9 PRlNT FULL NAME PRINT FULL NAME SIGNATURE DATE ADDRESS PRINT FULL NAME SIGNATURE DATE ADDRESS PRINT FULL NAME SIGNATURE DATE ADDRESS I ~ FCCLSGAC Local Official’s Guide to RF Frequency Electric Field Range strength (E) (MHZ) Wfm) 0.3-3.0 614 3.0-30 1842/f 30-300 61.4 300- 1500 -- 1500-100,000 -- \ Magnetic Field Strength (HI (MmI 1.63 4.89If 0.163 -- -- \ Frequency (MH4 0.3-1.34 1.34-30 30-300 300- 1500 1500-100,000 Range Illustration 3. FCC Limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) - Electric Field Magnetic Field Strength Power Density Averaging Time Wfm) Wm) (mW/cm*) (minutes) 614 1.63 (1 OO)* 30 824/f 2.19lf (1 80/F)* 30 27.5 0.073 0.2 30 -- -- f71500 30 -- -- 1 .o 30 strength (E) 0 (SI lEI2, [HI2 or S (A) Limits for OccupationalRontrolled Exposure Power Density (9 (mw/cm2) (loo)* (900/$) * 1 .o f7300 5 \ Averaging Time /El2, ]HI2 or S (minutes) 6 I 6 I (B) Limits for General Populatioflncontrolled Exposure -- -u-- - - - -- NOTE 1 : OccupationaVcontrolled limits apply in situations in which persons are exposed as a consequence of their employment provided those persons are fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over their exposure. Limits for occupational/controlled exposure also apply in situations when an individual is transient through a location where occupationaVcontrolled limits apply provided he or she is made aware of the potential for exposure. NOTE 2: General population/uncontrolled exposures apply in situations in which the general public may be exposed, or in which persons that are exposed as a consequence of their employment may not be fully aware of the potential for exposure or cannot exercise control over their exposure. Finally, it is impartant to understggd that the FCC’s limits apply cumulatively to all sources of RF emissions affecting a given area. A common example is where two or more wireless operators have agreed to share the cost of building and maintaining a tower, and to place their antennas on that joint structure. In such a case, the total exposure from the two facilities taken together must be within the FCC guidelines, or else an EA will be require$ f A. Categorically Excluded Facilities The Commission has determined through calculations and technical analysis that due to their low power or height above ground level, many facilities by their very nature are highly unlikely to 6 ’ FCCLLSGAC Local Official’s Guide to RF APPENDIX C Text of 47 U.S. C. $332(c)(7) (7) PRESERVATION OF LOCAL ZONING AUTHORITY. (A) GENERAL. AUTHORITY. Except as provided in this paragraph, nothing in this Act shall limit or affect the authority of a State or local government or instrumentality thereof over decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities. (B) LIMITATIONS. t The regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by and State or local government or instrumentality thereof (I) shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; and (II) shall not prohibit or have the effect af prohibiting-the+ccwision of personal wireless services. A State or local government or instrumentality thereof shall act on any request for authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time after the request is duly filed with such government or instrumentality, taking into account the nature and scope of such request. Any decision by a State or local government or instrumentality thereof to deny a request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. No State or local govemment or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, or modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions$o the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions. Any person adversely affected by any final action or failure to act by a State or local government or any instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent with this subparagraph may, within 30 days after such action or failure to act, commence an action in any court of competent jurisdiction. The court shall hear and decide such action on an expedited basis. Any person adversely affected by an act or failure to act by a State or local gsvernmknt or any instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent with clause (iv) may petition the Commission for relief. -- - (C) DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this paragraph (i) (ii) (iii) the term “personal wireless services” means commercial mobile services, unlicensed wireless services, and common carrier wireless exchange access services; the term “personal wireless service facilities” means facilities for the provision of personal wireless services; and the term “unlicensed wireless service” means the offering of telecommunications service using duly authorized devices which do not require individual licenses, but does not mean the provision of direct-to-home satellite services (as defined in section 3 03 (v)) . ._ - - - j Marilyn Strong - NO Cell Site Page I 1 From: "Linda Murdock" <Ijmurdock@adelphia.net> To: <mstro@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: 8/7/03 1 1 :OOAM Subject: NO Cell Site e: Mayor 8 city Cod City Manager City Attornq City Clerk Hi, I live on Fosca Street in Carlsbad. This email is to let all council members know we are against AT & T putting a cell site in our neighborhood. The towers are unsightly enough without others hanging stuff all over it. The concentration should be to bury the towers not to add to them. They shouldn't have ever been put above the ground. We don't want a cell site in our neighborhood. We understand there is going to be another one across Rancho Santa Fe Road. Why add another. I don't think they should be in neighborhoods at all .... shopping centers, industrial centers, yes, but not in beautiful neighborhoods where people live and have to look at them. You need to be considerate of the people that live in this neighborhood. This is our neighborhood. We pay the taxes to live here. If we are against this, end of story. Others should not be able to infringe upon our rights and just do as they please because they are a big company. We fought this once before and won and we will fight it again. Please vote NO to have AT & T put their cell stuff in our neighborhood!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Tom and Linda Murdock - --- Page-17 I_ LMarilyn Strong - Letter to Councilwoman Kulchin RE: Wireless Tower on SDG&E TOWER 173 ~ll"__l__lll_l__l____ ___ From: "Fran Harding" <fharding@sbcglobal.net> To: <mstro@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: 9/2/03 10:09PM Subject: 9/2/03 Letter to Councilwoman Kulchin RE: Wireless Tower on SDG&E TOWER 173 AGENDA mF.M a - 8 c1 Mayor city coundl Dear Ms. Ann Kulchin, City Manager City Attorney City Clerk I My family and I, residents of Carlsbad for 30 years. rwly request that the City Council deny AT&T Wireless, Inc. proposed cellular antenna project, which they wish to be located at SDG&E Tower 173 in the southeast part of Carlsbad. A hearing on their request is on the city council agenda next week. The proposed cell site would be a block from my house and only a few blocks from your house. Myself, like many others in this neighborhood were fully burned to the ground in the Harmony Grove fire six years ago. We have rebuilt and want to live without the gross intrusion of a massive cell site in our neighborhood. We have voted for you in many elections, and never asked for support, but we need it now! Ms. Kulchin, AT&T has been pushing this site for a long time and it looks like they really don't give a damn about the citizens who have invested multiple millions of dollars in property values in the immediate area. I encourage you to go to the proposed site. Surely you will find high voltage power lines and all the citizens saw this before they bought their homes, but adding cellular antenna's to these towers will surely be an eye sore and greatly diminish home values. High voltage towers have been used to support cellular antenna's, but in the vast majority of installations, these high voltage power sites are used solely on rural highway's, where the power lines are already installed and adding antenna array's to an existing tower, in order to support freeway wireless traffic is extremely revenue positive to the wireless carriers and to the power companies. Placing many array's of towers in citizens backyards ,in close distance to backyard pools, school bus stops, is ALWAYS a last ditch effort to get the best wireless signals for the least investment and wireless carrier tactics generally allow for spending lots of money to fight the respective cities and the local neighbors. This is a highly profitable deal for AT&T Wireless, Inc. and should be rejected on the basis that it is noisy, obtrusive and creates lots of traffic in an area where children play. So, as you look at the high voltage tower just off Esfera Street, envision what four or six layers (arrays) of 6 antennas per layer would ~- - __ - -~ __ 1 Mailyn Strong - Lettercilwoman Ii_l_____ - Kulchin RE. Wireless ~ ~~ Tower on SDG&E TOWER 173 Page 2 ' __-I__-. _I ~~ _I_ look like. It looks like an electronic jungle. In case you don't know how the cellular tower business really works, immediately after AT&T wins the ruling, they will sublet every available inch of space on that tower, to five or six other wireless carriers and make lots of profits, which will unquestionably offset the cost of engineers, lobbyists and others engaged to push the tower approval through the Carlsbad city council and related planning departments. Another issue is the noise and vast amounts of mandatory maintenance. SDG&E surely doesn't do much maintenance on a metal tower today, but each of these wireless tower tenants and their could be up to five or six separate tenants, will end up constructing a building which will have air conditioning running all day, and of course the needed barbed wire fences to keep the kids out. Note-lots of kids play in this area today. Cell technicians will be visiting these sites every week to check the electronics and create lots of vehicle traffic on the dirt path leading to the tower. Too add insult to injury, there will be a 100% chance that the contract between SDG&E and AT&T demands that SDG&E union workers do all the tower work, thus in additional to cell technician maintenance trucks every week, there will also be extraordinary traffic from those large SDG&E trucks with the big buckets that can reach the higher limits to the towers, as due to the very high safety risk on high voltage towers, typically only SDG&E teams can work on the towers. Not a bad technical option for a freeway site between Ramona and Palm Springs.a devastating option for an urban family neighborhood. Cell sites are a 7x24 hour operation and they break -down all the time and the neighbors will be listening to trucks, seeing the massive glow from necessary lighting to repair the equipments, and in general being disturbed 7x24. High voltage power towers need almost zero maintenance. Cells towers, with many tenants, require much maintenance and repairs. Another item for you to be aware of is that cellular network engineers ALWAYS pick three or four options for a wireless cell site. Clearly AT&T has offered service in this area for several years and they are now only seeking this site, as it their number one candidate, but they surely have many others that will do the same job, but they will not pursue alternate sites, until all avenues have been pursued on their number one candidate. AT&T surely knows they have a problem with the neighbors and to date have shown little caring for the residents of CarlsbadAhey and others will spend upwards of $1 million in radio equipment and tower equipment at this proposed site for purposes of making a profit over the next two years. Yet, AT&T hasn't spent one cent in working with the neighborhood residents over the last two years. I would suggest you take a hard look at what is the return to the city for upsetting so many local citizens. How many people does AT&T employee in Carlsbad? What is their property tax paid to the city for AT&T Wireless? Why hasn't AT&T Wireless, Inc proposed a stealth solution which is mandatory in many California citieswhy? The answer is easy; their mission is to get the site at the - ____~__ ~~-- __ - - - - __ - . __ 1 Marilyn --~ Strong - Letter to Councilwoman ~ - Kulchin RE: ~~~ Wireless Tower on SDG&E TOWER 173 Page 3 1 - - ~ -. ~~ .I ~~~~ ~ lowest possible cost. So, Ms. Kulchjin-please drive to the site and before you and your associates vote; fully consider the impact on the neighborhood. This is not a permit for hospital. This is not a permit for a company to hire lots of citizens and provide lots of jobs. This is not going to benefit local residents to any degree, as they surely will not do business will AT&T, if they have lousy signals today. There are no winners here and there are surely many other solutions to providing wireless signals in this area, perhaps not to the optimum levels from a high voltage tower, but surely alternate sites do exist. Wireless communications is a great technology. Cell sites come with the technology. However, placing unsightly antenna array's in residential neighborhoods which are fully built -out is an old fashioned and disturbing solution, yet it is the least costly solution for AT&T Wireless. Please pass this on to other councilmember's and the mayor if you choose. I know you will not endorse this matter without full study by your team. Thanks for your efforts. Francis Harding and Alsion Harding and Sarah Harding 3308 Febo Court Carlsbad, CA 92009 fharding@sbcglobal.net tel 760-473-8767 September 8,2003 CI Mayor City Council . Ivan and Monica Jellinek City Manager 33 12 Cab0 Ct. City Attorney Carlsbad, CA 92009 City Clerk Honorable Mayor Claude Lewis Councilwoman Ann Kulchin Councilman Matt Hall Mayor Pro Tem Ramona Finnila Councilman Mark Packard Honorable Mayor, Councilpersons and Fellow Carlsbad Residents: We are writing this letter to protest the potential installation of a cellular site at Tower 173 in La Costa. Our property shares 239 feet along the southern edge of the easement adjacent to Tower 173 and the location of the attendant equipment structure. As residents of Carlsbad for 25 years, we are distressed to once again be forced to protect our way of life here by presenting to the City some of the major negative issues attendant to the AT&T CUP. One of our major concerns is the noise emanating from the equipment building. Cleverly, AT&T does not disclose that their cooling units and equipment will be placed within 55 feet of our bedroom as well as our dining room. We sleep with our windows open, so neither our bedrooms nor our backyard would be shielded from the persistent equipment noise, which according to the AT&T application will run at 76 decibels. This is greater than the limits set by the City of Carlsbad code. In this quiet and windy location, any noise can be heard for blocks, especially in the evening. Based on visits to similar sites, we believe that there will be a constant level of noise, untenable to the immediate residents and a drone to the neighbors in the surrounding blocks. This equipment runs on an as needed basis and will no doubt be cycling on and off all night long, as well as all day. Our home represents our major financial asset. Upon discussion with local realtors, we are very concerned that, if approved, the cellular site will significantly depreciate the value of our property due to the visual blight. The negative perception that cellular units foster cannot be denied. We cannot afford to have our property value depreciated by AT&T or the myriad of other cellular companies who will want to place themselves on this tower in the future. In light of the fact that other sites will satisfy AT&T’s requirements, as expressed to us by AT&T’s own representatives, we feel that there is no reason to place our life savings in such jeopardy. The City of Carlsbad’s own Policy 64 now precludes this type of use in a residential neighborhood. While Tower 173 is located on an easement, it is surrounded on all sides by residences. We (and our neighbors) consider this open space a part of our residential neighborhood, as should the City. This area is still rural enough that wildlife frequents this easement, which enhances the quality of life that our neighborhood enjoys. We abate the weeds ourselves and look forward to the day when we might make this area a park to protect this quality of life and that of the wildlife that still remains. AT&T will bring noise, structures, dirt, traffic and blight to within 50 feet of residences. We thus believe that Policy 64 should apply to this location. AT&T proposes six panels that are each 16 inches by 52 inches and a microwave dish. For anyone in La Costa looking up at such a tower, this would not be a “stealth” application. We believe this will become a major eyesore for all of La Costa. We also believe that should this installation move forward, it would be impossible to prevent other cellular vendors from installing similar equipment at this location with their attendant buildings and cooling systems. In good conscience, we cannot believe that our City Council would choose this precedent setting path for this neighborhood of longtime residents. We love this town. We would not have chosen to live here for the last 25 years if that were not the case. That love includes our quality of life and that of our neighbors, which we value above all else. We honestly consider that quality of life to be in serious jeopardy should this proposal be approved. Please help us maintain Carlsbad as the jewel of North County, by once again defeating this bid to divide our neighborhoods and bully our local government. We hope you will reject this proposal as you did three years ago, and make it irrevocable this time. We thank you for your time, effort and support. Sincerely, I ALL RECEIVED 2Q6,'3 , c *. :@ AmT Wireless September 5,2003 The Honorable Claude A. “Buddy” Lewis and Carlsbad City Council Members 1001 16th Sireet Suite C-1 Denver, CO 60265 AGENDAlTEMb ? , Q Mayor City of Carlsbad CttJr- 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive CttrMUurr Carlsbad, CA 92008 crtrlsta#wo w- RE: AT&T Wireless Application for CUP 03-22 at Site 173 Dear Mayor Lewis and Council Members: Thank you for your interest in AT&T Wireless’ (“ATTWS”) proposal to place a cellular antenna facility on an SDG&E transmission tower C‘Site 173”) near Esfera Street, We appreciate your willingness to learn more about this project and about ATTWS’ efforts to respond to questions about the project. During recent meetings, a few questions were raised about alternative site locations. The purpose of this letter is to answer those questions and to provide you with some additional background information. As discussed, standard industry protocol is to review three or four sites before submitting an application to build a cellular antenna facility. In addition to the sites reviewed by GTE Wireless, ATTWS has considered no less than 15 locations in response to concerns raised by the Council and the community. The following is additional information about two locations that were the subject of questions earlier this week: La Costa Resort & Spa - ATTWS has reviewed the possibility of placing a cellular telephone facility on this property on three separate occasions. For example, in February 2002, ATTWS representatives joined Deputy City Attorney Cindie McMahon and City Planner Christer Westman for review of several altmative locations around the La Costa valley including the La Costa Resort. ATTWS engineers concluded that La Costa is not a feasible alternative to Site 173. La Costa is set at too low an elevation to reach the target service areas without a second site. Additionally, La Costa would provide service to the east end ofthe La Costa Valley only if ATTWS could build a 200-foot tower. As you may know, this type of structure would necessitate approval from the Federal Aviation Administration and could require appropriate safety measures, such as blinking red lights atop a red and white painted facility. Rancho La Costa Village at La Costa & Rancho Sante Fe Road - This location was reviewed by ATTWS and City representatives in February 2002 along with the other proposed alternatives. This site did not meet ATTWS’ engineering requirements for a number of reasons. Fundamentally, engineers concerns primarily relate to a “hand-off’ problem to the adjacent cell to the north. In addition, the site would require a 100-foot tower that is highly visible to residents across La Costa and Rancho Sate Fe Road. Finally, given the location of the property, at least one additional site would be required to achieve coverage similar to Site 173. Based on its extensive analysis, ATTWS strongly believes that Site 173 is the right location for a cellular antenna facility for a number of reasons. First, if Site 173 is approved, a second site would not be required. All other evaluated sites would require at least one addi tiond location. Second, Site 173 would be partially shielded from view given that it would be placed on an existing lattice-style transmission tower. Additionally, the approval of Site 173 would prevent construction of a large tower (up to 200 feet) somewhere else in town. That being said, ATTWS remains open to suggestions about how to improve Site 173 from a visual perspective. Earlier this week, ATTWS met with 12 local residents who live near Site 173 to discuss the project and listen to their concerns. We were also contacted by, and discussed the project with, residents fivm the Cadencia Street area. These discussions were very productive in helping ATTWS to better understand the perspective of community members. ATTWS is a solution-oriented company that strives to be responsive to the community. To date, we have reduced the number of antenna panels that would be placed on the transmission tower from 12 to 6 and aligned the remaining panels on the outside legs of the tower. We have eliminated large air conditioning units that were originally proposed at the site and removed the cinder block housing unit for the electronics and replaced it with partially undergrounded cabinets enshrouded in decorative landscaping. . The company’s objective for these types of projects is to provide its customers the best possible coverage, with the least amount of community inconvenience. We believe that Site 173 achieves both of these objectives. Finally, ATTWS is sensitive to the City’s general concerns about siting these types of facilities and would look foxward to discussing how best to reach an acceptable compromise with the City that involves Site 173. Should you have any questions about our proposal before the scheduled public hearing on Tuesday, September 9, please contact Chris Wahl at 858-578-4885. / Rick Sullivan Real Estate Manager, West Region AT&T Wireless Services c: Chris WaM, Southwest Strategies