HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-09-26; City Council; ; Amendments to City Council Policy No. 64 Regarding Wireless Communication Facilities~ CITY COUNCIL
~ Staff Report
Meeting Date:
To:
From:
Staff Contact:
September 26, 2017
Mayor and City Council
Kevin Crawford, City Manager
Heather Stroud, Deputy City Attorney
heather.stroud@carlsbadca.gov or 760-434-2891
CA Review C/3
Subject: Amendments to City Council Policy No. 64 Regarding Wireless
Communication Facilities
Recommended Action
Adopt a Resolution amending City Council Policy No. 64 regarding Wireless Communication
Facilities for consistency with current Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations
and to modify the standards for placement of wireless communication facilities in the right-of-
way.
Executive Summary
City Council Policy No. 64 establishes review criteria for commercial wireless communication
facilities such as cellular and radio towers and antennas. The proposed amendments to City
Council Policy No. 64 will: (1) establish consistency with regulations recently adopted by the
FCC; and (2) modify the standards for placement of wireless communication facilities in the
right-of-way.
Discussion
The City Council first adopted City Council Policy No. 64 in 2001, by Resolution No. 2001-35, and
has amended the policy by Resolution Nos. 2003-334, 2004-182, 2009-177, and 2012-083. The
proposed amendments will update the policy to be consistent with recently adopted FCC
regulations and modify the standards for placement of wireless communication facilities in the
right-of-way.
(1) Consistency with FCC Regulations
City Council Policy No. 64 states that the city shall approve an eligible facility's request for
modification that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of the tower or base
station, and defines "substantial change" consistent with 2012 law. The FCC amended its
regulations at 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.40001 et seq., effective April 8, 2015, modifying the definition of
"substantial change" and establishing procedural rules agencies must follow when processing
applications to modify wireless communication facilities. The proposed revisions to City Council
Policy No. 64 incorporate the applicable FCC regulations by reference instead of quoting them
to avoid having to update this policy if the FCC regulations are amended in the future.
September 26, 2017 Item #2 Page 1 of 38
(2) Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities in the Right-of-Way
The proposed amendments to City Council Policy No. 64 clarify the permitting requirements for
wireless communication facilities in the right-of-way, and modify the placement location and
design guidelines for those facilities. Currently, City Council Policy No. 64 states that wireless
communication facilities are allowed "in all zones with the approval of a conditional use permit
(CUP) and subject to this policy." However, the right-of-way is not zoned, and the city did not
require CUPs for the wireless communication facilities currently in the right-of-way. The
proposed amendment would clarify that a CUP is not required for wireless communication
facilities in the right-of-way that are: (1) to be located on an existing or replacement pole; (2)
consistent with the applicable preferred locations (or if in a discouraged location has all
equipment underground); and (3) consistent with the design guidelines for wireless
communication facilities in the right-of-way. Wireless communication facilities meeting these
criteria would be eligible for an administrative right-of-way permit. A minor CUP by Process 1
would be required for wireless communication facilities in the right-of-way that are on an
existing or replacement pole and consistent with the design guidelines, but are to be located in
a discouraged location with above-ground equipment. All other wireless communication
facilities, including those on new poles, would require a CUP by Process 2 from the Planning
Commission. This change is intended to encourage the siting of facilities on existing poles in a
manner that protects public safety and addresses aesthetic concerns.
The location guidelines for placement of wireless communication facilities in the right-of-way
are modified to replace the reference to the General Plan Circulation Plan with a map showing
preferred locations for placement of wireless communication facilities, to be attached as Exhibit
A to City Council Policy No. 64. That Circulation Plan was deleted in the 2015 General Plan
update, so a stand-alone map was created to cover substantially the same streets. The
preferred locations are rights-of-way adjacent to industrial and commercial zones and limited
residential areas.
The design guidelines for wireless communication facilities in the right-of-way are modified to
address some issues that have arisen with the existing facilities installed in the right-of-way,
and to avoid issues that have arisen in other jurisdictions from the installation of new poles by
wireless communication companies. Design guidelines for new poles have been added to
establish height limits, to discourage more than one new pole per city block, and to establish
setbacks from intersections, driveways, alleys, and existing structures. Design guidelines for
equipment on existing poles have been updated to more specifically address the size limits and
concealment requirements appropriate to current technology, and to encourage equipment
associated with these facilities to be placed underground adjacent to residential zones.
At the time this staff report was drafted, Senate Bill 649 was pending in the California
legislature. The current version of this bill, if adopted, would preclude cities from requiring
discretionary permits such as CUPs for some wireless communication facilities in the right of
way. Therefore, the proposed resolution authorizes the City Attorney to waive any
requirements of City Council Policy No. 64 that the City Attorney determines to be in violation
of federal or state law.
September 26, 2017 Item #2 Page 2 of 38
Fiscal Analysis
There is no anticipated fiscal impact from the proposed amendments to City Council Policy No.
64.
Next Steps
City staff will implement the revised policy. The City Attorney will monitor Senate Bill 649 and
bring revisions of this council policy back to City Council as necessary if and when the bill
passes.
Environmental Evaluation (CEQA)
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21065 and CEQA Guidelines section 15378, the
proposed amendments to City Council Policy No. 64 do not constitute a "project" within the
meaning of CEQA because they do not have the potential for resulting in either a direct or
indirect effect on the environment, and therefore do not require environmental review.
Public Notification
Staff sent the draft revisions to Council Policy No. 64 to several wireless carriers that had
expressed interest in locating facilities in the right-of-way, and comment letters were received
from Crown Castle and AT&T. Both letters question the ability of the city to subject wireless
communication facilities to discretionary permit requirements. The court of appeal recently
upheld the City and County of San Francisco's discretionary permit requirements against a
similar challenge, in T-Mobile West LLC v. City and County of San Francisco, 3 Cal. App. 5th 334
(2016}. The California Supreme Court has granted review in this case, but the court of appeal's
decision remains good law at this time.
Several additional revisions are proposed in response to the comment letters. A reference to
California Government Code section 65850.6, which states that certain collocation of facilities is
not subject to discretionary permit requirements, has been added to the "Review Restrictions"
section at AT& T's request. A revision to the "Application and Review Guidelines" has been
made to Section E.5 atAT&T's request, which limits the circumstances where the city may grant
a CUP of less than ten years, consistent with state law. Additional commercial streets that are
considered "preferred locations" not subject to the CUP requirement have been added to the
map attached as Exhibit A, at the request of Crown Castle.
This item was noticed in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and was available for viewing
at least 72 hours prior to the meeting.
Exhibits
1. Resolution approving amendments to City Council Policy No. 64 regarding wireless
communication facilities for consistency with current FCC regulations and to modify the
standards for placement of wireless communication facilities in the right-of-way.
2. Redline version of City Council Policy No. 64
3. Comment letters received from Crown Castle and AT&T.
September 26, 2017 Item #2 Page 3 of 38
RESOLUTION NO. 2017-189
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO CITY COUNCIL POLICY NO. 64
REGARDING WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES FOR CONSISTENCY
WITH CURRENT FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (FCC)
REGULATIONS AND TO MODIFY THE STANDARDS FOR PLACEMENT OF
WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California has determined that amendments
to City Council Policy No. 64 are desirable for consistency with current FCC regulations and to modify
the standards for placement of wireless communication facilities in the right-of-way; and
WHEREAS, the FCC amended its regulations at 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.40001 et seq., effective April 8,
2015, modifying the definition of "substantial change" and establishing procedural rules agencies must
follow when processing applications to modify wireless communication facilities; and
WHEREAS, clarification to the permitting requirements for wireless communication facilities in
the right-of-way is desirable because the right-of-way is not zoned and the city did not require a
conditional use permit for the existing facilities in the right-of-way; and
WHEREAS, requiring a conditional use permit for wireless communication facilities in the right-
of-way that are located on a new pole or inconsistent with the siting and design guidelines in City
Council Policy No. 64 encourages these facilities to be sited on existing poles in a manner that protects
public safety and addresses aesthetic concerns; and
WHEREAS, amendments to the siting guidelines are desirable because the General Plan
Circulation Plan currently referenced was deleted in the 2015 General Plan update; and
WHEREAS, Exhibit A to City Council Policy No. 64, entitled Preferred Locations for Placement of
Wireless Communication Facilities in the Right-of-Way, covers substantially the same streets as the
former General Plan Circulation Plan; and
WHEREAS, amendments to the design guidelines for wireless communication facilities in the
right-of-way are desirable to include standards for new poles and to update standards for facilities on
existing poles to more specifically address size limits and concealment requirements appropriate to
current technology, and to require equipment associated with these facilities to be placed underground
adjacent to residential zones; and
September 26, 2017 Item #2 Page 4 of 38
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 649, if it passes, would require additional modifications to City Council
Policy No. 64, such that it is desirable to authorize the City Attorney to waive any requirements of City
Council Policy No. 64 that the City Attorney determines to be in violation of state or federal law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, as
follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the proposed amendments to City Council Policy No. 64, attached hereto as
Attachment "A," are approved.
3. That the City Attorney is authorized to waive any requirement of City Council Policy No.
64 that the City Attorney determines to be in violation of federal or state law.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the 26th day of September, 2017, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
M. Hall, K. Blackburn, M. Schumacher, C. Schumacher, M. Packard.
None.
None.
(SEAL)
September 26, 2017 Item #2 Page 5 of 38
{city of
Carlsbad
Council Policy Statement
Category: WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES
Policy No.
Date Issued:
Effective Date:
Resolution No.
Cancellation Date:
64
9/26/2017
9/26/2017
2017-
Supersedes No. 64 04/10/12
Specific Subject: Review and Operation Guidelines for Wireless Communication Facilities
PURPOSE:
Wireless communication facilities, or WCFs, refer to the many facilities with antennas and supporting
equipment that receive and transmit signals and together enable mobile or other "wire-free"
communication and information services. Unlike ground-wired telecommunications, such as the land-
based telephone system, wireless communication technologies, by their operational nature, require a
network of antennas mounted at various heights and attached typically to buildings, structures and
poles. A common name for a WCF is "cell site."
WCF proposals to the city became commonplace in the mid-1990s. Since then, Carlsbad has processed
dozens of new WCF applications and numerous permit renewals for existing facilities, all without
benefit of specific review criteria. As the city's population and the popularity and variety of wireless
services grow, providers are expected to install more facilities to improve coverage and gain user
capacity.
This policy's purpose is to guide the public, applicants, boards and commissions, and staff in reviewing
the placement, construction, and modification of WCFs. The goal is to assure WCFs in Carlsbad:
• Are reviewed and provided within the parameters of law.
• Are encouraged to locate away from residential and other sensitive areas, except as
allowed by Section A. of this policy-Location Guidelines for the Placement of WCFs.
• Represent the fewest possible facilities necessary to complete a network without
discriminating against providers of functionally equivalent services or prohibiting the
provision of wireless services.
• Use, as much as possible, "stealth" techniques so they are not seen or easily noticed.
• Operate consistent with Carlsbad's quality of life.
This policy applies to all commercial providers of wireless communication services. It does not apply to
amateur (HAM) radio antennas, dish antennas, collocations and/or modifications covered under
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations at 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.40001 et seq. and other
antennas installed on a residence for an individual's private use.
Page 1 of 10
ATTACHMENT A
September 26, 2017 Item #2 Page 6 of 38
Policy No. 64
BACKGROUND:
To secure the right to provide personal wireless services to a region, companies often must obtain
airwave licenses that are auctioned by the FCC, the federal agency that regulates the
telecommunications industry. For radio services that use license spectrum, the FCC mandates the
licensees establish their service networks as quickly as possible.
In Carlsbad, there are three common types of wireless communication systems: Cellular, PCS (Personal
Communications Services), and ESMR (Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio).
POLICY:
REVIEW RESTRICTIONS:
The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TCA) preserves the city's ability to regulate the
placement, construction, and modification of wireless communication facilities subject to the following
restrictions.
• The city may not favor any carrier.
Regulations may not unreasonably discriminate among functionally equivalent service
providers.
• The city may not prevent completion of a network.
Regulations may not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless
services. The denial of a single permit application may cause an effective prohibition if it would
perpetuate a significant gap even though the applicant proposes the least intrusive means to
close that gap.
• Applications are to be processed in a reasonable time.
A city must act on an application for WCFs within a "reasonable" amount of time, which the
FCC generally defines as either 60, 90, or 150 days from the time an application is submitted
and depending on the nature and scope of the proposed wireless facility.
• The city cannot deny an application because of perceived radio frequency health hazards.
If federal standards are met, cities may not deny permits on the grounds that radio frequency
emissions (RF) are harmful to the environment or to the health of residents. However, local
governments may require wireless carriers to prove compliance with the standards. The FCC
has established procedures to enforce compliance with its rules.
• The city cannot deny, and shall approve, any eligible facilities request for a modification of
an existing wireless tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical
dimensions of such tower or base station.
The FCC promulgated detailed regulations for this restriction, including a definition for
"substantial change" and procedural rules for processing these applications, which can be
found at 47 C.F.R. § 1.40001 et seq.
• Certain collocation facilities are not subject to discretionary permit requirements.
Under California Government Code section 65850.6, a collocation facility (where two or more
wireless operators have located their antennas at a common location) shall be a permitted use
not subject to discretionary permit requirements if it satisfies the requirements of that statute.
Page 2 of 10 September 26, 2017 Item #2 Page 7 of 38
Policy No. 64
• A decision to deny an application must be supported by substantial evidence.
A decision to deny a WCF application must be in writing and supported by substantial evidence
contained in a written record. The reasons for the denial must also be contained in a written
record contemporaneously available with the written denial notice and must be clear enough
to enable judicial review.
HEALTH CONCERNS & SAFEGUARDS:
Possible health risks from exposure to the RF electromagnetic fields generated by WCFs are a significant
community concern. Accordingly, the FCC requires facilities to comply with RF exposure guidelines
published in the Code of Federal Regulations (see 47 CFR § 1.1307 and 47 CFR §1.1310). The limits of
exposure established by the guidelines are designed to protect the public health with a very large
margin of safety as they are approximately 50 times below the levels that generally are accepted as
having the potential to cause a measurable change in human physiology. Both the Environmental
Protection Agency and Food and Drug Administration have endorsed the FCC's exposure limits, and
courts have upheld the FCC rules requiring compliance with the limits.
Most WCFs create maximum exposures that are only a small fraction of the limits. Furthermore,
because the antennas in a PCS, cellular, or other wireless network operate more efficiently when in a
line of sight arrangement to effectively transmit, their power is focused on the horizon instead of
toward the sky or ground. Generally, unless a person is physically next to and at the same height as an
antenna, it is not possible to be exposed to RF emissions that exceed the maximum permissible
exposure.
The FCC requires providers, upon license application, renewal, or modification, to demonstrate
compliance with RF exposure guidelines. Where two or more wireless operators have located their
antennas at a common location (called "collocation"), the total exposure from all antennas taken
together must be within FCC guidelines. Many facilities are exempt from having to demonstrate
compliance with FCC guidelines, however, because their low power generation or height above ground
level is highly unlikely to cause exposures that exceed the guidelines.
REVIEW AND APPROVAL GUIDELINES:
Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.42.140(8)(165) allows WCFs in all zones with the approval of a
conditional use permit (CUP) and subject to this policy. These guidelines should be followed in the
review of CUPs for new WCFs as well as extensions and amendments to CUPs for existing installations.
For WCFs to be located in the public right-of-way of roads, which generally is not zoned, the following
permitting requirements apply:
(1) A right of way permit shall be required instead of a CUP for a WCF that is (i) to be located on an
existing or replacement pole, (ii) is consistent with the preferred locations in Location Guideline
A.1 (or if in a discouraged location in Location Guideline A.2, has all equipment underground),
and (iii) is consistent with Design Guidelines for WCFs in the Public Right-of-Way C;
(2) A minor CUP by Process 1 shall be required for a WCF that is (i) to be located on an existing or
replacement pole, (ii) is in a discouraged location in Section A with above-ground equipment,
and (iii) is consistent with Design Guidelines for WCFs in the Public Right-of-Way C;
Page 3 of 10 September 26, 2017 Item #2 Page 8 of 38
Policy No. 64
(3) A CUP by Process 2 shall be required for all other WCFs not meeting the criteria for approval
subject to a right of way permit or a minor CUP by process 1.
A. location Guidelines For Placement of WCFs
1. Preferred locations -WCFs are encouraged to locate on existing buildings and structures.
In addition, WCFs should be located in the following zones and areas, which are listed in
order of descending preference:
a. Industrial zones.
b. Commercial zones.
c. Other non-residential zones, except open space.
d. Public right-of-way of roads adjacent to industrial and commercial zones and identified
on the map attached as Exhibit A.
e. Public property (e.g., city facilities) not in residential areas.
f. Major power transmission towers in non-residential zones or areas.
g. Public and private utility installations (not publicly accessible) in residential and open
space zones (e.g., water tanks, reservoirs, or the existing communication towers near
Maerkle Reservoir).
h. Parks and community facilities (e.g., places of worship, community centers) in
residential zones or areas.
i. Public right-of-way of roads adjacent to residential zones and identified on the map
attached as Exhibit A.
2. Discouraged Locations -WCFs should not locate in any of the following zones or areas
unless the applicant demonstrates no feasible alternative exists as required by Application
and Review Guideline E.2.
a. Open space zones and lots (except as noted in Location Guideline A.1.).
b. Residential zones or areas (except as noted in Location Guideline A.1).
c. Major power transmission towers in corridors located in/or next to a residential zone
or area.
d. Environmentally sensitive habitat.
e. Public right-of-way of roads not identified on the map attached as Exhibit A.
f. On vacant land.
3. Visibility to the Public-In all areas, WCFs should be located where least visible to the public
and where least disruptive to the appearance of the host property. Furthermore, no WCF
should be installed on an exposed ridgeline or in a location readily visible from a public
place, recreation area, scenic area or residential area unless it is satisfactorily located
and/or screened so it is hidden or disguised.
4. Collocation -Collocating with existing or other planned wireless communication facilities
is recommended whenever feasible and appropriate. Service providers are also
encouraged to collocate with water tanks, major power transmission and distribution
towers, and other utility structures when in compliance with these guidelines. The city
must approve collocation applications unless the expansion adds significantly to the height
or width of a facility.
Page 4 of 10 September 26, 2017 Item #2 Page 9 of 38
Policy No. 64
5. Monopoles -No new ground-mounted monopoles should be permitted unless the
applicant demonstrates no existing monopole, building, or structure can accommodate the
applicant's proposed antenna as required by Application and Review Guideline E.3.
B. Design Guidelines
1. Stealth Design -All aspects of a WCF, including the supports, antennas, screening methods,
and equipment should exhibit "stealth" design techniques so they visually blend into the
background or the surface on which they are mounted. Subject to city approval, developers
should use false architectural elements (e.g., cupolas, bell towers, dormers, and chimneys),
architectural treatments (e.g., colors and materials), elements replicating natural features
(e.g., trees and rocks), landscaping, and other creative means to hide or disguise WCFs.
Stealth can also refer to facilities completely hidden by existing improvements, such as
parapet walls.
2. Equipment -Equipment should be located within existing buildings to the extent feasible.
If equipment must be located outside, it should be screened with walls and plants. If small
outbuildings are constructed specifically to house equipment, they should be designed and
treated to match nearby architecture or the surrounding landscape.
3. Collocation -Whenever feasible and appropriate, WCF design and placement should
promote and enable collocation.
4. Height -WCFs should adhere to the existing height limitations of the zone in which they
are located.
5. Setbacks-WCFs, including all equipment and improvements, should adhere to the building
setback requirements of the zone in which they are located, with the following
clarifications:
a. If on a site next to a residential zone, the WCF should be set back from the residential
zone boundary a minimum distance equal to the above-ground height of the overall
support structure's height.
b. If in a residential zone and in a public utility installation, park, or community facility,
the WCF should be set back from the property boundaries of the utility installation,
park, or community facility a minimum distance equal to the above-ground height of
the overall support structure's height.
c. The Planning Commission may decrease or increase these setbacks if it finds such
changes would improve the overall compatibility of the WCF based on the factors
contained in Application and Review Guideline E.4.
6. Building or Structure-Mounted WCFs:
a. Antennas and their associated mountings should generally not project outward more
than 24 inches from the face of the building.
b. Roof-mounted antennas should be located as far away as possible from the outer edge
of a building or structure and should not be placed on roof peaks.
c. If permitted, WCFs on residential buildings should only be allowed if disguised as a
typical residential feature (e.g., a chimney, a dormer) and if all equipment is located
inside, not outside, the building.
Page 5 of 10 September 26, 2017 Item #2 Page 10 of 38
Policy No. 64
7. Ground-mounted Monopoles:
a. All antennas should be mounted as close as possible to the monopole to improve
facility appearance.
b. The placement, screening, and disguise of the monopole should fit with the
surrounding site design, architecture, and landscaping. Tree disguises, such as a
"mono-palm," may be acceptable depending on their quality and compatibility with
landscaping nearby.
c. Landscaping should be provided as necessary to screen, complement, or add realism
to a monopole. Landscaping should include mature shrubs and trees. Some of the
trees should be tall enough to screen at least three-quarters of the height of the
monopole at the time of planting. Sometimes, landscaping may not be needed because
of the monopole's location or vegetation already nearby.
d. When possible and in compliance with these guidelines, monopoles should be placed
next to tall buildings, structures, or tall trees.
8. Lattice Towers
a. New lattice towers should not be permitted in the city.
b. On existing lattice towers, all antennas should be mounted as close as possible to the
tower so they are less noticeable.
9. Undergrounding -All utilities should be placed underground.
10. Regulatory Compliance -WCFs should comply with all FCC, FAA (Federal Aviation
Administration}, and local zoning and building code requirements.
C. Design Guidelines for WCFs in the Public Right-of-Way
1. WCFs on Existing and Replacement Poles
a. The use of an existing pole, replacement pole or other existing structure shall require
the authorization of the owner of the pole or structure.
b. The antenna assembly may not exceed four feet above the height of the existing pole.
c. The antenna(s) associated with the installation shall be concealed with a radome that
also conceals the cable connections, antenna mount, and other hardware.
d. All pole-mounted equipment shall be painted to match the color of the surface of the
pole on which they are attached or shall otherwise be screened to reduce their
visibility.
2. WCFs on New Poles
a. All WCFs on new poles require a CUP by Process 2.
b. No more than one new pole per block will be permitted unless the applicant
demonstrates with clear and convincing evidence that: (1) no other existing structures
are available to the applicant; (2) a new pole or structure is essential to providing
coverage; and {3} the new pole or structure is the least intrusive means in terms of
design and placement to reasonably achieve the applicant's technical objective.
c. The centerline of any new pole must be aligned with the centerlines of existing poles
on the same sidewalk segment. Any new pole and/or equipment and other
Page 6 of 10 September 26, 2017 Item #2 Page 11 of 38
Policy No. 64
improvements associated with a new pole or an existing pole must be set back from
intersections, alleys, and driveways and placed in locations where it will not obstruct
motorists' sight lines or pedestrian access. In general, there is a presumption of no
obstruction where a new pole and/or equipment is set back at least: (1) 50 feet from
any intersection; (2) six feet from any driveway cut or alley entrance or exit; (3) and six
feet from any permanent object or existing lawfully-permitted encroachment in the
public right-of-way, including without limitation bicycle racks, traffic signs and signals,
trees, open tree wells, benches or other street furniture, streetlights, door swings, gate
swings, or sidewalk cafe enclosures.
d. The city may, in its discretion, require an additional setback for a specific pole when the
city determines that the presumptively acceptable setback would obstruct motorists'
sight lines or pedestrian access.
e. The city may require the applicant to install functional streetlights and/or banners
when technically feasible and the city determines that such additions would enhance
the overall appearance and usefulness ofthe new pole.
f. New poles shall not exceed the height limit for the zoning district nearest to the base
of the pole or the average height of poles within a 300-foot radius, whichever is less.
3. Design Guidelines Applicable to WCFs on Existing and New Poles
a. Each antenna shall not exceed 3 cubic feet in volume; the cumulative antenna volume
per pole shall not exceed 6 cubic feet. Mounting arms, hardware, and concealment
elements such as shrouds, radomes, or other covers are included in the antenna
volume limits.
b. All other equipment associated with the WCF shall not exceed 6.5 cubic feet in volume.
All non-antenna equipment including ground-mounted meter pedestals and
concealment elements such as shrouds and cages, are included in the equipment
volume limit. Electric meters and disconnect switches that are mounted on the pole
and any equipment placed underground are not included in the equipment volume
limit.
c. Equipment shall be placed underground in discouraged locations. If it can be
demonstrated that complete undergrounding of associated equipment is not possible,
waiver requests involving landscaping or other screening techniques or visual
mitigation will be considered. All equipment not placed underground shall be: (1)
placed in a ground-mounted equipment shroud or cabinet that contains all equipment
associated with the WCF other than the antenna; and (2) set back at least 2.5 feet from
the back of the curb and within the parkway or greenway or 2.5 feet back from the
edge of the sidewalk when it is contiguous to the curb. All cables and conduits
associated with the equipment shall be concealed from view, routed directly through
the pole, and placed underground between the pole and the ground-mounted cabinet.
d. All equipment associated with the WCF shall be located so as to minimize impacts to
pedestrian access and vehicular site distance and safety.
e. Cabinets for appurtenant telephone and/or fiber optic utilities may not extend more
than 10 inches beyond the pole centerline on either side, and must be painted,
wrapped, or otherwise colored to match the pole. Microwave or other wireless
backhaul shall not have a separate and unconcealed antenna.
f. To reduce clutter and deter vandalism, excess fiber optic or coaxial cables shall not be
spooled, coiled, or otherwise stored on the pole whether in a cabinet or not.
Page 7 oflO September 26, 2017 Item #2 Page 12 of 38
Policy No. 64
D. Performance Guidelines
1. Noise -All equipment, such as emergency generators and air conditioners, should be
designed and operated consistent with the city noise standards.
2. Maintenance -All facilities, related equipment, and landscaping should be maintained in
good condition and free from trash, debris, graffiti, and any form of vandalism. All required
landscaping should be automatically irrigated. Damaged equipment and damaged, dead,
or decaying landscaping should be replaced promptly. Replacement of landscaping that
provides facility screening should be, as much as possible, of similar size (including height),
type, and screening capability at the time of planting as the plant(s) being replaced.
3. Maintenance Hours-Except in an emergency posing an immediate public health and safety
threat, maintenance activities in or within 100 feet of a residential zone should only occur
between 7 AM (8 AM on Saturdays) and sunset. Maintenance should not take place on
Sundays or holidays.
4. Lighting -Security lighting should be kept to a minimum and should only be triggered by a
motion detector where practical.
5. Compliance with FCC RF Exposure Guidelines -Within six (6) months after the issuance of
occupancy, and with each time extension or amendment request, the developer/operator
should submit to the City Planner either verification that the WCF is categorically excluded
from having to determine compliance with the guidelines per 47 CFR §1.1307(b)(1) or a
project implementation report that provides cumulative field measurements of RF
electromagnetic fields of all antennas installed at the subject site. The report should
quantify the RF emissions and compare the results with currently accepted ANSI/IEEE
standards as specified by the FCC. The City Planner should review the report for consistency
with the project's preliminary proposal report submitted with the initial project application
and the accepted ANSI/IEEE standards. If, on review, the City Planner finds the project does
not meet ANSI/IEEE standards, the city may revoke or modify the CUP.
6. Abandonment -Any WCF that is not operated for a continuous period of 180 days will be
considered abandoned. Within 90 days of receipt of notice from the city notifying the
owner of such abandonment, the WCF owner must remove the facility and restore the site,
as much as is reasonable and practical, to its prior condition. If such WCF is not removed
within the 90 days, the WCF will be considered a nuisance and in addition to any other
available remedy, will be subject to abatement under Chapter 6.16 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code. lfthere are two or more users of a single WCF, then this provision will not
become effective until all users stop using the WCF. The provider or owner must give notice
to the city of the intent to discontinue use of any facility before discontinuing the use.
E. Application and Review Guidelines
1. Besides the typical submittal requirements for a CUP (including plans, landscape details,
and color and material samples, as appropriate), all WCF applications should include the
following items:
Page 8 oflO September 26, 2017 Item #2 Page 13 of 38
Policy No. 64
a. A description of the site selection process undertaken for the WCF proposed. Coverage
objectives and the reasons for selecting the proposed site and rejecting other sites
should be provided.
b. A description or map of the applicant's existing and other proposed sites.
c. A description of the wireless system proposed (e.g., cellular, PCS, etc.) and its consumer
features (e.g., voice, video, and data transmissions).
d. Verification that the proposed WCF will either comply with the FCC's guidelines for
human exposure to RF electromagnetic fields or will be categorically excluded from
having to determine compliance with the guidelines per 47 CFR §1.1307{b){1). If WCFs
are proposed for collocation, the verification must show the total exposure from all
facilities taken together meets the FCC guidelines.
e. Color photo-simulation exhibits, prepared to scale, of the proposed WCF to show what
the project would look like at its proposed location and from surrounding viewpoints.
The City Planner may waive the requirement to provide the exhibits if he determines
they are unnecessary.
2. For WCFs proposed in a zone or area that is a discouraged WCF location as listed in Location
Guideline A.2., the applicant should provide evidence that no location in a preferred zone
or area as listed in Location Guideline A.1. can accommodate the applicant's proposed
facility. Evidence should document that preferred zone or area locations do not meet
engineering, coverage, location, or height requirements, or have other unsuitable
limitations.
3. For proposed new ground-mounted monopoles, the applicant should also provide evidence
to the city's satisfaction that no existing monopole, building, structure, or WCF site
("existing facility") could accommodate the proposal. Evidence should demonstrate any of
the following:
a. No existing facility is located within the geographic area or provides the height or
structural strength needed to meet the applicant's engineering requirements.
b. The applicant's proposed WCF would cause electromagnetic interference with the
existing antennae array or vice versa.
c. The fees, costs, or contractual provisions required by the owner to locate on an existing
facility or to modify the same to enable location are unreasonable. Costs exceeding
new monopole development are presumed to be unreasonable.
d. The applicant demonstrates to the decision-maker's {Planning Commission or City
Planner) satisfaction that there are other limiting factors that render an existing facility
unsuitable.
4. In considering a CUP for a WCF, the decision-maker {Planning Commission or City Planner)
should consider the following factors:
a. Compliance with these guidelines.
b. Height and setbacks.
c. Proximity to residential uses.
d. The nature of uses on adjacent and nearby properties.
e. Surrounding topography and landscaping.
f. Quality and compatibility of design and screening.
g. Impacts on public views and the visual quality of the surrounding area.
h. Availability of other facilities and buildings for collocation.
Page 9 of 10 September 26, 2017 Item #2 Page 14 of 38
Policy No. 64
5. Conditional Use Permits for WCFs shall be granted for a period not to exceed ten years
unless public safety reasons and/or substantial land use reasons justify a shorter term. A
WCF that is decommissioned, discontinued, or otherwise abandoned by the owner or
operator for a continuous one-year period is subject to revocation under Section 21.42.120
of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Upon a request for either an extension or an amendment
of a CUP, the WCF should be reevaluated to assess the impact of the facility on adjacent
properties, the record of maintenance and performance with reference to the conditions
of approval, and consistency with these guidelines. Additionally, the city should review the
appropriateness of the existing facility's design, and the applicant should be required to
document that the WCF maintains the design that is the smallest, most efficient, and least
visible and that there are not now more appropriate and available locations for the facility,
such as the opportunity to collocate or relocate to an existing building.
6. Collocation. For the purposes of collocation, the following definitions apply:
(i) "Collocation facility" means the placement or installation of WCFs, including
antennas, and related equipment, on or immediately adjacent to, a wireless
telecommunications collocation facility.
(ii) "Wireless telecommunications facility" means equipment and network
emergency power systems that are integral to providing wireless
telecommunications services.
(iii) "Wireless telecommunications collocation facility" or "WTCF" means a wireless
telecommunications facility that includes Collocation facilities.
a. A conditional use permit shall not be required for a proposed WCF Collocation facility
which will be placed on a previously approved WTCF provided that:
(i) The new WCF Collocation facility is consistent with requirements for the existing
WTCF installation; and
(ii) The modification of an existing wireless tower or base station does not physically
change the dimensions of such tower or base station.
b. Approval of an application to construct or reconstruct a WCF wireless facility shall not
require an escrow deposit for removal of the WCF Collocation facility or any component
thereof.
c. Notwithstanding subsection (b) above, the city may require a performance bond or
other surety or another form of security if the amount required is rationally related to
the cost of removal.
7. Applications from a single provider of wireless communication services for up to 10 permits
to locate WCFs on existing or replacement poles in the right-of-way, and meeting the
criteria for right of way permits, may be batched and processed together. A single provider
may not submit more than one batch of applications at one time.
Page 10 of 10 September 26, 2017 Item #2 Page 15 of 38
PACIFIC
OCEAN
AGUA
HEDIONDA
LAGOON
-v1--1
LAKE 1
CALAVERA
L __ r·~
-Preferred Locations for Placement of WCF in the ROW
-+-+-+ Railroad
FREEWAY
L.
I
xd, 02/08/2017 Exhibit A 0
---=====:::::i1 Miles Q
J:\Req uestsMarch2015\ComEcon Dev\Plan ning\00023705 _ 16\Policy64ROWsFor
Preferred Locations for Placement of Wireless
Communication Facilities in the Right-of-Way September 26, 2017 Item #2 Page 16 of 38
{city of
Carlsbad
Council Policy Statement
Category: WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES
Policy No.
Date Issued:
Effective Date:
Resolution No.
Cancellation Date:
Supersedes No. 64
64
~9/26/201 z
~9/26/201 z
2012 0832017-
Specific Subject: Review and Operation Guidelines for Wireless Communication Facilities
PURPOSE:
Wireless communication facilities, or WCFs, refer to the many facilities with antennas and supporting
equipment that receive and transmit signals and together enable mobile or other "wire-free"
communication and information services. Unlike ground-wired telecommunications, such as .the land-
based telephone system, wireless communication technologies, by their operational nature, require a
network of antennas mounted at various heights and attached typically to buildings, structures and
poles. A common name for a WCF is "cell site."
WCF proposals to the city became commonplace in the mid-1990s. Since then, Carlsbad has processed
dozens of new WCF applications and numerous permit renewals for existing facilities, all without
benefit of specific review criteria. As the Gity+city's population and the popularity and variety of
wireless services grow, providers are expected to install more facilities to improve coverage and gain
user capacity.
This policy's purpose is to guide the public, applicants, boards and commissions, and staff in reviewing
the placement, construction, and modification of WCFs. The goal is to assure WCFs in Carlsbad:
• Are reviewed and provided within the parameters of law.
• Are encouraged to locate away from residential and other sensitive areas, except as
allowed by Section A. of this policy-Location Guidelines for the Placement of WCFs.
Represent the fewest possible facilities necessary to complete a network without
discriminating against providers of functionally equivalent services or prohibiting the
provision of wireless services.
Use, as much as possible, "stealth" techniques so they are not seen or easily noticed.
• Operate consistent with Carlsbad's quality oflife.
This policy applies to all commercial providers of wireless communication services. It does not apply to
amateur (HAM) radio antennas, a+W-dish antennas. collocations and/or modifications covered under
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations at 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.40001 et seq. and other
antennas_-installed on a residence for an individual's private use.
BACKGROUND:
Page 1 of12
EXHIBIT 2
September 26, 2017 Item #2 Page 17 of 38
Policy No. 64
To secure the right to provide personal wireless services to a region, companies often must obtain
airwave licenses that are auctioned by the Federal Cemm1cmicatieRs CemmissieR (FCq , the federal
agency that regulates the telecommunications industry. +Re-For radio services that use license
spectrum. the FCC mandates the licensees establish their service networks as quickly as possible.
In Carlsbad, there are three common types of wireless communication systems: Cellular, PCS (Personal
Communications Services), and ESMR (Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio). Hie tatile tielew 13re,·ides
tlie relevaRt similarities aRd differeRces tietweeR tlie tliree.
TeCAAelegy AAaleg, ESAvertiAg te
4igital
NeFNerl, Ceuerage AAaleg: estaslisAea
Digital: Oeuele13iAg Deuele13iAg
TraRsmissieR
Cell Size Raei"s
AAteaAa Ty13es
S"f3f39FtiAg
Eq"i13meRt
Tele13AeAe, call waitiAg, ·,eice mail, caller ID, 13agiRg, e mail, aAa IRtemet access
(Netes: Amilee1 ccNuler dees net fHS'>'ide eU of these features. f'SMR else effers
dispetchin!J end twe we;< rodie. PCS else hes •;idee tro%m;ssien ehi.lit;<.)
A Retwerk sf iRterceRRectea WCFs carries sigAals acress a city aAEl seyeREl. ICacl,
\A.'CF ceAtaiAs aAteAAas tAat traAsmit a Ra receive sigAals e·;er a small geegra13Aic
area l<AS"'A as a "cell." l\s tAe "sertra .. els frem eae cell ta aAetAer, tAe sigaal is
13assee frem eAe WCF ta aAetAer iA tAe Ae"t cell.
Average S miles
DisA, PaRel (er secter), aae WAif3
battiEe te,.,ers, Meae13eles, B"ileiRg er Str"Et"re 'ttaclaee
IA str"et"res geAerally "Aeer SQQ sq"are feet
"erizeA, I\T&T, CiAg"lar
-Wifeles5
IA casiAets ase"t tAe size
ef ·,eAeiAg maeAiaes
J:sfJle lllstes
Pfore facilities may Be ReeEleEI te ESFA13lete a PCS Aetwsrk siAEe its t:iigl=ler e13eratiRg freEt1;1ency limits the range of its
aAtenRas and censeEt1::1ently tRe size ef it~ cells.
• Hie antennas fer all tAree s,stems f1:1netien on a line efsigAt transmission. Antennas neeEI to Be 13laceEI at s13ecific
ReigRts in relatien te ene anetRer in order to transmit and recei•re signals. /\5 a res1;1lt, ReigRt is a eteterminiAg factor
iR tRe etesign an8 locatien ef'At(i;:s.
~fono13ele anteRna s1:11313orts may 1.:Je iRstalle8 OR l.:J1::1ildiRgs or OR tRe gre1::1A8.
/I single "'ireless cornm1:1nicatioA facility may coAsist of t"'o or more aAteAAas aA8 aAteAnas of different ty13es. A
facility may also iAcl1;1de tRe aAteARas aAd Sblj3JrnrtiAg eei1:1i13ment of more tRaR oRe 13ro11i8er. Tl=lis is l:AO"'A as
"collocation." Collocation also refers to a lM(r; 13lace8 togeU1er .,,itR 1::1tilit1 str1::1ct1::1res s1::1cA as ,.,ater tanks, ligRt
staR8arEls, aA8 transmissioA to1t•1ers.
W(Ts are 1::1s1:1ally l::IAFR3RAed and reei1::1ire rnaintenaRce is its once or t?11ice each montR.
• Hiis taBJe is Bases on c1::1rrent infermatieA-tfl~t to cRange.
•
REVIEW RESTRICTIONS:
Page 2 of 12
Formatted: Indent: Hanging: 0.19", Bulleted + Level: 1 +
Aligned at: 0.25" + Tab after: 0.5'' + Indent at: 0.5'', Tab
stops: 1.5", List tab
September 26, 2017 Item #2 Page 18 of 38
Policy No. 64
The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TCA) preserves the ti-ty'-5-city's ability to regulate the
placement, construction, and modification of wireless communication facilities subject to the following
restrictions, as esRtaiReEl iR TC/\ ~ectieR 7gq _
• The {;#y-fi!y_may not favor any carrier.
__ Regulations may not unreasonably discriminate among ESITT~etitive functionally equivalent
service providers.
The {;#y-fi!y_may not prevent completion of a network.
Regulations may not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless
ESF!1ffillRieatieR services. The denial of a single permit application may cause an effective
prohibition if it would perpetuate a significant gap even though the applicant proposes the least
intrusive means to close th at gap.
• Applications are to be processed in a reasonable time.
A city must act on an application for WCFs within a "reasonable" amount of time, re1c1ghly the
saITTe tiITTe as fer a Ry siITTilar a~~lieatieRwhich the FCC generally defines as either 60, 90, or 150
days from the time an application is submitted and depending on the nature and scope of the
proposed wireless facility.
• The {;#y-fi!y_cannot deny an application because of perceived radio frequency health hazards.
If federal standards are met, cities may not deny permits er leases on the grounds that radio
frequency emissions__IBB are harmful to the environment or to the health of residents.
However, local governments may require wireless carriers to prove compliance with the
standards. The FCC has established procedures to enforce compliance with its rules.
_•_The {;#y-fl!y_cannot deny, and shall approve, any eligible facilities request for a modification
of an existing wireless tower or base station that does not substantially change' the physical
dimensions of such tower or base station.
The FCC promulgated detailed regu lations for this restriction, including a definition for
"substantial change" and procedural rules for processing t hese applications, which can be
found at 47 C.F.R. § 1.40001 et seq.
• Certain collocation facilities are not subiect to discretionary permit requirements.
Under Californ ia Government Code section 65850.6, a collocation facility (where two or more
wireless operators have located their antennas at a common location) shall be a permitted use
not subiect to discretionary permit requirements if it satisfies the requi rements of that statute.
• A decision to deny an application must be supported by substantial evidence.
A decision to deny a WCF application must be in writing and supported by substantial evidence
contained in a written record. The reasons for the denial must also be contained in a written
record contemporaneously available with the written denial notice and must be clear enough
to enable iudicial review.
,lTRe r;ederal CoFRFRldAiEatisRs CoFRFRissieR SefiRes a "s1::18staAtial El=laRge" asiA 47 C.F.R. § 1.'1QQQ1(8)(7).:
TRe me1mtiRg of a 13rs13ese8 aAteRAa OR tl=ie tsu1er U1at wewld iRcrease tRe eicistiRg ReigRt oftRe tower 13y
more tFlaA 1G%, er 13•1 tl=ie ReigRt of SAC a88itieAal aRteARa array '"itR se13aratieR from the Rearest eicistiRg
aRtCRRa Rot to e·cceeEI t•••eRty feet, Riel=le ,er is greater, ei<cepit tRat tRe FROl::IRtiRg of the f3FBf3oseel aAtCRRa
FRaf ex:ceed U,e size limits set forth iR this 13aragra13h if ReEessary ts a"eiel iRterfereRce with existiRg aRteRRas;
eF
The rneURtiRg ef a 13re13eseel aRteRRa that '"Sule! iR"Sl"e aeleliRg aR a13fHJrteRaRce to the Eloely of the tewer
that• •e1:1lel 13retrnele freFR the eelge ef the te..,er FR ere thaR P"eRtyfeet, er r-risre tAaR the" ielth efU1e te\••er
strnct1;1re at the le\ el sf tRe a13131:1rteRaRee, •••hicl=lel'er is greater, eJEee13t tRat the FAOl::lRtiRg of tRe 13ro13ose8
aRteRRa may eJlEeeel the size limits set fortR iR tRis 13aragra13R if Reeessar,1 ts shelter the aRteRAa freFR
iAclerneAt 11•eaU1er er te ceAReEt the aRteAAa te the te" er, ia eaBle.
Page 3 of12
September 26, 2017 Item #2 Page 19 of 38
Policy No. 64
HEALTH CONCERNS & SAFEGUARDS:
Possible health risks from exposure to the raElis fre~ueAEy (RF} electromagnetic fields generated by
WCFs are a significant community concern. Accordingly, the FCC requires facilities to comply with RF
exposure guidelines published in the Code of Federal Regulations (see 47 CFR §_1.1307 and 47 CFR
§1.1310). The limits of exposure established by the guidelines are designed to protect the public health
with a very large margin of safety as they are mafly-approximately 50 times below the levels that
generally are accepted as having the potential to cause aElverse health effectsa measurable change in
human physiology. Both the Environmental Protection Agency and Food and Drug Administration have
endorsed the FCC's exposure limits, and courts have upheld the FCC rules requiring compliance with
the limits.
Most WCFs create maximum exposures that are only a small fraction of the limits. Furthermore,
because the antennas in a PCS, cellular, or other wireless network ~operate more efficiently
when in a line of sight arrangement to effectively transmit, their power is focused on the horizon
instead of toward the sky or ground. Generally, unless a person is physically next to and at the same
height as an antenna, it is not possible to be exposed to Hie estaslishea limits for RF emissions that
exceed the maximum permissible exposure.
The FCC requires providers, upon license application, renewal, or modification, to demonstrate
compliance with RF exposure guidelines. Where two or more wireless operators have located their
antennas at a common location (called "collocation"), the total exposure from all antennas taken
together must be within FCC guidelines. Many facilities are exempt from having to demonstrate
compliance with FCC guidelines, however, because their low power generation or height above ground
level is highly unlikely to cause exposures that exceed the guidelines.
REVIEW AND APPROVAL GUIDELINES:
Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.42.~140(8)(165) allows WCFs in all zones with the approval
of a conditional use permit (CUP) and subject to this policy. These guidelines should be followed in the
review of csAElitisAal use ~ermitsCUPs for new •,11ireless facilitiesWCFs as well as extensions and
amendments to CUPs for existing installations.
For WCFs to be located in the public right-of-way of roads, which generally is not zoned, the following
permitting requirements apply:
(1) A right of way permit sha ll be required instead of a CUP for a WCF that is (i) to be located on an
existing or replacement pole, (ii) is consistent with the preferred locations in Location Guideline
A.1 (or if in a discouraged location in Location Guideline A.2, has all equipment underground),
and (iii) is consistent with Design Guidelines for WCFs in the Public Right-of-Way C;
(2) A minor CUP by Process 1 sha ll be required for a WCF that is (i) to be located on an existing or
replacement pole, (ii) is in a discouraged location in Section A with above-ground equipment,
and (iii) is consistent with Design Guidelines for WCFs in the Public Right-of-Way C;
f±)(3) A CUP by Process 2 shall be required for all other WCFs not meeting the criteria for
approval subject to a right of wa y permit or a minor CUP by process 1.
Page 4 of12
September 26, 2017 Item #2 Page 20 of 38
Policy No. 64
A. Location Guidelines For Placement of WCFs
1. Preferred Locations -WCFs are encouraged to locate on existing buildings and structures.
In addition, WCFs should..h.g locate.ct in the following zones and areas, which are listed in
order of descending preference:
a. Industrial zones.
b. Commercial zones.
c. Other non-residential zones, except open space.
d. Public right-of-way of roads adjacent to industrial and commercial zones and identified
on the Cim1latioR PlaR coRtaiRed iR the CirrnlatioR EleFReRt of the city's GeReral
Plaflmap attached as Exhibit A.
e. Public property (e.g., city facilities) not in residential areas.
f. Major power transmission towers in non-residential zones or areas.
g. Public and private utility installations (not publicly accessible) in residential and open
space zones (e.g., water tanks, reservoirs, or the existing communication towers near
Maerkle Reservoir).
h. Parks and community facilities (e.g., places of worship, community centers) in
residential zones or areas.
Public right-of-way of roads adjacent to residential zones and identified on the
CirculatioR PlaR coRtaiRed iR the CirculatioR EleFReRt of the city's GeReral PlaR.!:!J.ill2
attached as Exhibit A.
2. Discouraged Locations -WCFs should not locate in any of the following zones or areas
unless the applicant demonstrates no feasible alternative exists as required by Application
and Review Guideline .Qf.2.
a. Open space zones and lots (except as noted in Location Guideline A.1.).
b. Residential zones or areas (except as noted in Location Guideline A.1).
c. Major power transmission towers in corridors located in/or next to a residential zone
or area.
d. Environmentally sensitive habitat.
e. Public right-of-way of roads not identified on the Cim1latioA PlaR EORtained iR the
CirculatioR EleFReRt of the city's GeAeral PlaRmap attached as Exhibit A.
f. On vacant land.
3. Visibility to the Public-In all areas, WCFs should ll.g_locateg where least visible to the public
and where least disruptive to the appearance of the host property. Furthermore, no WCF
should be installed on an exposed ridgeline or in a location readily visible from a public
place, recreation area, scenic area or residential area unless it is satisfactorily located
and/or screened so it is hidden or disguised.
4. Collocation -Collocating with existing or other planned wireless communication facilities
is recommended whenever feasible and appropriate. Service providers are also
encouraged to collocate with water tanks, major power transmission and distribution
towers, and other utility structures when in compliance with these guidelines. The Gity-£1!y
must approve collocation applications unless the expansion adds significantly to the height
or width of a facility.
Page 5 ofl2
September 26, 2017 Item #2 Page 21 of 38
Policy No. 64
5. Monopoles -No new ground-mounted monopoles should be permitted unless the
applicant demonstrates no existing monopole, building, or structure can accommodate the
applicant's proposed antenna as required by Application and Review Guideline .g!;.3.
B. Design Guidelines
1. Stealth Design -All aspects of a WCF, including the supports, antennas, screening methods,
and equipment should exhibit "stealth" design techniques so they visually blend into the
background or the surface on which they are mounted. Subject to Gi-Pf--9!.Y....approval,
developers should use false architectural elements (e.g., cupolas, bell towers, dormers, and
chimneys), architectural treatments (e.g., colors and materials), elements replicating
natural features (e.g., trees and rocks), landscaping, and other creative means to hide or
disguise WCFs. Stealth can also refer to facilities completely hidden by existing
improvements, such as parapet walls.
2. Equipment-Equipment should be located within existing buildings to the extent feasible.
If equipment must be located outside, it should be screened with walls and plants. If small
outbuildings are constructed specifically to house equipment, they should be designed and
treated to match nearby architecture or the surrounding landscape.
3. Co/location -Whenever feasible and appropriate, WCF design and placement should
promote and enable collocation.
4. Height -WCFs should adhere to the existing height limitations of the zone in which they
are located.
5. Setbocks-WCFs, including all equipment and improvements, should adhere to the building
setback requirements of the zone in which they are located, with the following
clarifications:
a. If on a site next to a residential zone, the WCF should be set back from the residential
zone boundary a minimum distance equal to the above-ground height of the
~overall support structure's height.
b. If in a residential zone and in a public utility installation, park, or community facility,
the WCF should be set back from the property boundaries of the utility installation,
park, or community facility a minimum distance equal to the above-ground height of
the ~overall support structure's height.
c. The Planning Commission may decrease or increase these setbacks if it finds such
changes would improve the overall compatibility of the WCF based on the factors
containe.d in Application and Review Guideline -9!;.4.
6. Building or Structure-Mounted WCFs:
a. Antennas and their associated mountings should generally not project outward more
than ±8-24 inches from the face of the building.
b. Roof-mounted antennas should be located as far away as possible from the outer edge
of a building or structure arid should not be placed on roof peaks.
c. If permitted, WCFs on residential buildings should only be allowed if disguised as a
typical residential feature (e.g., a chimney, a dormer) and if all equipment is located
inside, not outside, the building.
Page 6 of12
September 26, 2017 Item #2 Page 22 of 38
Policy No. 64
7. Ground-mounted Monopoles:
a. All antennas should be mounted as close as possible to the monopole to improve
facility appearance.
b. The placement, screening, and disguise of the monopole should fit with the
surrounding site design, architecture, and landscaping. Tree disguises, such as a
"mono-palm," may be acceptable depending on their quality and compatibility with
landscaping nearby.
c. Landscaping should be provided as necessary to screen, complement, or add realism
to a monopole. Landscaping should include mature shrubs and trees. Some of the
trees should be tall enough to screen at least three-quarters of the height of the
monopole at the time of planting. Sometimes, landscaping may not be needed because
of the monopole's location or vegetation already nearby.
d. When possible and in compliance with these guidelines, monopoles should be placed
next to tall buildings, structures, or tall trees.
8. Lattice Towers
a. New lattice towers should not be permitted in the Gtyfi!y.
b. On existing lattice towers, all antennas should be mounted as close as possible to the
tower so they are less noticeable.
9. Undergrounding-AII utilities should be placed underground.
10. Regulatory Compliance -WCFs should comply with all FCC, FAA (Federal Aviation
Administration), and local zoning and building code requirements.
11. WCFs iR P1,1/,/ic W§Rt ef Wey
a. a. ARteRRas far faEilities shall 13e attaEheel te eJcistiRg 13eles (e.g. street lights),
sul3staRtially similar re13laEemeRt 13eles iR the same leEatieR, er ·,ertical structures
alreasy leEates iR the right ef way. The iRstallatien ef new 13eles er vertiEal struEtures
shall enly 13e 13ermittes if it EaR 13e semeRstrates that a Rew 13ele er struEture is
essential te provising ceverage.
13. The antenna asseml31y may Ret ei(cees the height efthe elcistiAg ,:rnle.
E. The use ef aA elcisting pele, replacemeAt pele er ether eJcistiAg vertiEal struEture shall
require the autherizatieR ef the ewRer ef the pele er structure. If a city street light er
ether city ewRes structure is uses, cem13eRsatieR shall 13e pais te the city as the ewRer.
If a 13rivate 13ele er structure is uses, a right ef way 13ermit shall 13e el3taines frem the
€i-ty.
s. PaRel aRteAAas shall 13e vertiEally meuRtes ts a 13ele er stnrnt1,1re iA cem13liaRce with
aRy a13131ical31e separatieR requiremeAts aAs shall Aet eJ(cees eight iRches in sistaAce
frem the pele te the fro At sise ef the 13aAel. ·
e. ~le mere thaA fe1,1r PaRel /\RteAnas ertwe emni sirectienal /\ntenRas shall 13e meuRtes
eR any 1,1tility pele er struct1,1re 13y any ene previser.
f. ARteRnas shall 13e paintes te match the ce ler ef the surface ef the pele en which they
are attaches er shall etherwise 13e sEreeRes te reeluce their visil3ility.
h. /\II ether equipment asseEiates with the faEility shall 13e 13laEes undergreuns wherever
13essil31e. If it can 13e semenstratea that cemplete uRsergrounsing ef asseciateel
Page 7 of12
September 26, 2017 Item #2 Page 23 of 38
Policy No. 64
e~t1i13meAt is Rot 13ossisle, waiver re~tiests iAvolviAg laAdsca13iAg or ottier screeAiAg
techAi~ties or vistial mitigatioA will se coAsidered. All e~t1i13meAt Rot 13laced
t1Adergrot1Ad shall se setsack at least 2.S feet from the sack of the rnrs a Ad withiA the
13arkway or greeAway or 2.S feet sack from the edge of the sidewall< wheA it is
COAtigtiOtlS to the rnrs.
j. h. .0,11 e~t1i13meAt associated with the facility shall se located so as to miAimi,e
im13acts to 13edestriaA access a Ad vehirnlar site distaAce aAd safety.
C. Design Guidelines for WCFs in the Public Right-of-Woy
1. WCFs on Existing ond Replacement Poles
a. The use of an existing pole, replacement pole or other existing structure shall require
the authorization of the owner of the pole or structure.
b. The antenna assembly may not exceed four feet above the height of the existing pole.
c. The antenna{s) associated with the installation shall be concealed with a radome that
also conceals the cable connections. antenna mount, and other ha rdware.
d. All pole-mounted equipment shall be painted to match the color of the surface of the
pole on which they are attached or shall otherwise be screened to reduce their
visibility.
2. WCFs on New Poles
a. All WCFs on new poles require a CUP by Process 2.
b. No more than one new pole per block will be permitted unless the applicant
demonstrates with clear and convincing evidence that: (1) no other existing structures
are available to the applicant; (2) a new pole or structure is essential to providing
coverage; and (3) the new pole or structure is the least intrusive means in terms of
design and placement to reasonably achieve the applicant's technical objective.
c. The centerline of any new pole must be aligned with the centerlines of existing poles
on the same sidewalk segment. Any new pole and/or equipment and other
improvements associated with a new pole or an existing pole must be set back from
intersections, alleys, and driveways and placed in locations where it will not obstruct
motorists' sight lines or pedestrian access. In general, there is a presumption of no
obstruction where a new pole and/or equipment is set back at least: (1) 50 feet from
any intersection; (2) six feet from any driveway cut or alley entrance or exit; (3) and six
feet from any permanent object or existing lawfully-permitted encroachment in the
public right-of-way. including without limitation bicycle racks, traffic signs and signals,
trees, open tree wells, benches or other street furniture, streetlights, door swings, gate
swings, or sidewalk cafe enclosures.
d. The city may, in its discretion. require an additional setback for.a specific pole when the
city determines that the presumptively acceptable setback would obstruct motorists'
sight lines or pedestrian access.
e. The city may require the applicant to install functional streetlights and/or banners
when technically feasible and the city determines that such additions would enhance
the overall appearance and usefulness of the new pole.
f. New poles shall not exceed the height limit for the zoning district nearest to the base
of the pole or the average height of poles within a 300-foot radius, whichever is less.
3. Design Guidelines Applicable to WCFs on Existing ond New Poles
Page 8 of12
September 26, 2017 Item #2 Page 24 of 38
Policy No. 64
a. Each antenna shall not exceed 3 cubic feet in volume; the cumulative antenna volume
per pole shall not exceed 6 cubic feet. Mounting arms, hardware, and concealment
elements such as shrouds, radomes, or other covers are included in the antenna
volume limits.
b. All other equipment associated with the WCF shall not exceed 6.5 cubicfeet in volume.
All non-antenna equipment including ground-mounted meter pedestals and
concealment elements such as shrouds and cages, are included in the equipment
volume limit. Electric meters and disconnect switches that are mounted on the pole
and any equipment placed underground are not included in the equipment volume
limit.
c. Equipment shall be placed underground in discouraged locations. If it can be
d·emonstrated that complete undergrounding of associated equipment is not possible,
waiver requests involving landscaping or other screening techniques or visual
mitigation will be considered. All equipment not placed underground shall be: (ll
placed in a ground-mounted equipment shroud or cabinet that contains all equipment
associated with the WCF other than the antenna; and (2) set back at least 2.5 feet from
the back of the curb and within the parkway or greenway or 2.5 feet back from the
edge of the sidewalk when it is contiguous to the curb. All cables and conduits
associated with the equipment shall be concea led from view, routed directly through
the pole, and placed underground between the pole and the ground-mounted cabinet.
d. All equipment associated with the WCF shall be located so as to minimize impacts to
pedestrian access and vehicular site distance and safety.
e. Cabinets for appurtenant telephone and/or fiber optic utilities may not extend more
than 10 inches beyond the pole centerline on either side, and must be painted,
wrapped, or otherwise colored to match the pole. Microwave or other wireless
backhaul shall not have a separate and unconcealed antenna.
f. To reduce clutter and deter vandalism, excess fiber optic or coaxial cables shall not be
spooled, coiled, or otherwise stored on the pole whether in a cabinet or not.
{;_Q. Performance Guidelines
1. Noise -All equipment, such as emergency generators and air conditioners, should be
designed and operated consistent with the Qty-fi!y_noise standards.
2. Maintenance -All facilities, related equipment, and landscaping should be maintained in
good condition and free from trash, debris, graffiti, and any form of vandalism. All required
landscaping should be automatically irrigated. Damaged equipment and damaged, dead,
or decaying landscaping should be replaced promptly. Replacement of landscaping that
provides facility screening should be, as much as possible, of similar size (including height),
type, and screening capability at the time of planting as the plant(s) being replaced.
3. Maintenance Hours-Except in an emergency posing an immediate public health and safety
threat, maintenance activities in or within 100 feet of a residential zone should only occur
between 7 AM {8 AM on Saturdays) and sunset. Maintenance should not take place on
Sundays or holidays.
4. Lighting-Security lighting should be kept to a minimum and should only be triggered by a
motion detector where practical.
Page 9 of 12
September 26, 2017 Item #2 Page 25 of 38
Policy No. 64
5. Compliance with FCC RF Exposure Guidelines -Within six (6) months after the issuance of
occupancy, and with each time extension or amendment request, the developer/operator
should submit to the PlaRRiRg DirecterCity Planner either verification that the WCF is
categorically excluded from having to determine compliance with the guidelines per 47 CFR
§1.1307(b)(1) or a project implementation report that provides cumulative field
measurements of raaio fre(l~eRE'; (RF-) electromagnetic fields of all antennas installed at
the subject site. The report should quantify the RF emissions and compare the results with
currently accepted ANSI/IEEE standards as specified by the FCC. The PlaRRiRg Director.Q!y
Planner should review the report for consistency with the project's preliminary proposal
report submitted with the initial project application and the accepted ANSI/IEEE standards.
If, on review, the PlaRning DirectorCity Planner finds the project does not meet ANSI/IEEE
standards, the Gty-£1!.y_may revoke or modify the EOAaitioRal ~se permitCUP.
6. Abandonment -Any WCF that is not operated for a continuous period of 180 days will be
considered abandoned. Within 90 days of receipt of notice from the Gty-£1!.y_notifying the
owner of such abandonment, the WCF owner must remove the facility and restore the site,
as much as is reasonable and practical, to its prior condition. If such WCF is not removed
within the 90 days, the WCF will be considered a nuisance and in addition to any other
available remedy, will be subject to abatement under Chapter 6.16 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code. If there are two or more users of a single WCF, then this provision will not
become effective until all users stop using the WCF. The provider or owner must give notice
to the Gty-£1!.y_of the intent to discontinue use of any facility before discontinuing the use.
01, Application and Review Guidelines
1. Besides the typical submittal requirements for a eoRaitioRal ~se permitCUP (including
plans, landscape details, and color and material samples, as appropriate), all WCF
applications should include the following items:
a. A description of the site selection process undertaken for the WCF proposed. Coverage
objectives and the reasons for selecting the proposed site and rejecting other sites
should be provided.
b. A description or map of the applicant's existing and other proposed sites.
c. A description of the wireless system proposed (e.g., cellular, PCS, etc.) and its consumer
features (e.g., voice, video, and data transmissions).
d. Verification that the proposed WCF will either comply with the FCC's guidelines for
human exposure to raaie freEJ~eREY (RF-) electromagnetic fields or will be categorically
excluded from having to determine compliance with the guidelines per 47 CFR
§1.1307(b)(1). If WCFs are proposed for collocation, the verification must show the
total exposure from all facilities taken together meets the FCC guidelines0
e. Color photo-simulation exhibits, prepared to scale, of the proposed WCF to show what
the project would look like at its proposed location and from surrounding viewpoints.
The Planning DirectorCity Planner may waive the requirement to provide the exhibits
if he determines they are unnecessary.
2. For WCFs proposed in a zone or area that is a discouraged WCF location as listed in Location
Guideline A.2., the applicant should provide evidence that no location in a preferred zone
or area as listed in Location Guideline A.1. can accommodate the applicant's proposed
Page 10 of12
September 26, 2017 Item #2 Page 26 of 38
Policy No. 64
facility. Evidence should document that preferred zone or area locations do not meet
engineering, coverage, location, or height requirements, or have other unsuitable
limitations.
3. For proposed new ground-mounted monopoles, the applicant should also provide evidence
to the Gty+city's satisfaction that no existing monopole, building, structure, or WCF site
("existing facility") could accommodate the proposal. Evidence should demonstrate any of
the following:
a. No existing facility is located within the geographic area or provides the height or
structural strength needed to meet the applicant's engineering requirements.
b. The applicant's proposed WCF would cause electromagnetic interference with the
existing antennae array or vice versa.
c. The fees, costs, or contractual provisions required by the owner to locate on an existing
facility or to modify the same to enable location are unreasonable. Costs exceeding
new monopole development are presumed to be unreasonable.
d. The applicant demonstrates to the decision-maker's {Planning Commission's or City
Planner) satisfaction that there are other limiting factors that render an existing facility
unsuitable.
4. In considering a CeAElitieAal Use PermitCUP for a WCF, the decision-maker {Planning
Commission or City Planner) should consider the following factors:
a. Compliance with these guidelines.
b. Height and setbacks.
c. Proximity to residential uses.
d. The nature of uses on adjacent and nearby properties.
e. Surrounding topography and landscaping.
f. Quality and compatibility of design and screening.
g. Impacts on public views and the visual quality ofthe surrounding area.
h. Availability of other facilities and buildings for collocation.
5. Conditional Use Permits for WCFs ~shall be granted for a period not to exceed ten
years unless public safety reasons and/or substantial land use reasons, iAEl~EliAg limitatieAs
en the term ef ~se im13eseEI lly the ewAer ef the 13re13erty, justify a shorter term. A WCF
that is decommissioned, discontinued, or otherwise abandoned by the owner or operator
for a continuous one-year period is subject to revocation under Section 21.42.120 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code. Upon a request for either an extension or an amendment of a
CUP, the WCF should be reevaluated to assess the impact of the facility on adjacent
properties, the record of maintenance and performance with reference to the cond itions
of approval, and consistency with these guidelines. Additionally, the Gty-fl.!Y..should review
the appropriateness of the existing facility's techAelegydesign, and the applicant should be
required to document that the WCF maintains the teEhAelegy design that is the smallest,
most efficient, and least visible and that there are not now more appropriate and available
locations for the facility, such as the opportunity to collocate or relocate to an existing
building.
6. Collocation. For the purposes of collocation, the following definitions apply:
Page 11 of12
September 26, 2017 Item #2 Page 27 of 38
Policy No. 64
(i) "Collocation facility" means the placement or installation of WCFs, including
antennas, and related equipment, on or immediately adjacent to, a wireless
telecommunications collocation facility.
(ii) "Wireless telecommunications facility" means equipment and network
emergency power systems that are integral to providing wireless
telecommunications services.
(iii) "Wireless telecommunications collocation facility" or "WTCF" means a wireless
telecommunications facility that includes Collocation facilities.
a. A conditional use permit shall not be required for a proposed WCF Collocation facility
which will be placed on a previously approved WTCF provided that:
(i) The new WCF Collocation facility is consistent with requirements for the existing
WTCF installation; and
(ii) The modification of an existing wireless tower or base station does not physically
change the dimensions of such tower or base station.
b. Approval of an application to construct or reconstruct a WCF wireless facility shall not
require an escrow deposit for removal of the WCF Collocation facility or any component
thereof .
.£,__Notwithstanding subsection (€!,) above, the Gt>f-IBY..may require a performance bond
or other surety or another form of security if the amount required is rationally related
to the cost of removal.
7. Applications from a single provider of wireless communication services for up to 10 permits
to locate WCFs on existing or replacement poles in the right-of-way, and meeting the
criteria for right of way permits, may be batched and processed together. A single provider
may not submit more than one batch of applications at one time.
Page 12 of12
September 26, 2017 Item #2 Page 28 of 38
CROWN
'-' CASTLE
January 6, 2017
Kevin Crawford
City Manager
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mr. Crawford:
Crown Castle
300 Spectrum Center Drive
Suite 1200
Irvine, CA 92618
Crown Castle is aware the City of Carlsbad is considering revisions to its wireless regulations which would affect
future, and possibly existing, wireless communications installations throughout the City of Carlsbad. We have
serious concerns about these proposed revisions and believe they would harm the City's development in the areas
of wireless connectively and economic development, posing significant challenges to the business community,
residents, and visitors. Rather than encouraging the use of technology as an enabler of innovation, in the tradition
of a "smart city," these proposed revisions would present obstacles to progress and do not align with the Carlsbad
Community Vision, which specifically articulates the values of "connectedness" and "connectivity."
Please consider the following comments to the proposed revisions to Council Policy 64:
• Preferred/Discouraged Locations. The City proposes to utilize a map of roadways (Council Policy 64
Exhibit A) to guide wireless deployment. This simplistic approach does not account for the demand-
driven nature of wireless communications, nor the broader public safety implications. In effect, with this
approach, the City unilaterally declares where it thinks wireless infrastructure is best suited, without the
support of the data or expertise of the companies who provide wireless services. It appears from the map
there is a bias that residential areas and other non-residential public gathering areas (i.e. schools, parks,
trails and open space) are not appropriate locations for wireless infrastructure. This approach runs
counter to the growing reality (supported by empirical data and industry metrics) that wireless usage and
demand is ubiquitous. Demand for reliable/affordable wireless service crosses all sectors of society, all
income ranges, and all socio-economic classifications, not to mention all zone districts and land use types.
With the emergence of the Internet of Things (IoT), Machine to Machine (M2M) functionality, and all
things "smart" (e.g. smart cars, smart meters, smart cities), the provision of high quality wireless networks
and services should be holistically evaluated and embraced rather than limited to specific areas in the
City. With more than 50% of homes dependent on wireless phone service and more than 70% of 911 calls
made from cell phones nationally, it is clear there is also a public safety consideration that transcends this
proposed map.
• Residential Zones. The proposed revisions presume that wireless facilities are not appropriate in
residential zones, and siting and review criteria serve to discourage deployment in these areas. While it is
reasonable to assume that not all locations in residential areas are preferred, this approach misses the fact
that residential zones likely have need for wireless services, and there are often locations within
residential zones where wireless facilities can be effectively deployed with minimal physical, visual, and
aesthetic impact. The effort to shape policy that effectively discourages the deployment of wireless
infrastructure in residential areas runs counter to the growing demand for wireless services in these very
same areas as residents utilize wireless devices for a growing array of services, not to mention the
personal security and public safety considerations both in home and outdoors.
• CUP Process. The City proposes to utilize a CUP process for all wireless installations on roadways not
contained in the Exhibit A map. Since the Exhibit A map does not encompass all streets in non -residential
areas, a CUP would be necessary to install a small cell facility on a street light in some widely
traveled/high volume areas (e.g. Car Country Drive). This creates a needless additional step and
demonstrates the lack of consistency in the proposed map.
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com
EXHIBIT 3
September 26, 2017 Item #2 Page 29 of 38
Kevin Crawford
City Manager
City of Carlsbad
Page2
• Visibility to the Public. City proposes that "no WCF should be installed on an exposed
ridgeline or in a location readily visible.from a public place, recreation area, scenic area
or residential area unless it is satisfactorily located and/ or screened so it is hidden or
disguised." On its face, this requirement could make it very difficult, if not impossible, to locate small
cell facilities on street lights, traffic signals and utility poles in and alongside walks and other publicly
accessible areas regardless of the zone district. This same requirement is not placed on other essential
"above ground" public infrastructure such as street lighting and traffic signalization. It is important for
cities to recognize wireless communications as essential "above ground" infrastructure and treat it in
equivalent manner. Street lights and traffic signals are placed where needed/necessary and in a manner
sufficient to meet that need. Wireless infrastructure is no different. Street lights and traffic signals cannot
be fully hidden and/ or camouflaged to eliminate them from view. Wireless infrastructure should be
afforded the same treatment and considerations.
• Equal Treatment. There is some concern whether the City intends to selectively enforce these new
regulations. Based on the proposed policy provisions in the amended Council Policy 64, other public
utilities (e.g. Carlsbad Municipal Water District, SDG&E) seeking to place antennas for remote telemetry
and associated "wireless" services would need to seek City approval through a CUP process for all
installations along roadways and on parcels in residential areas. Is the City willing to hold these other
utilities to this new standard, and does the City expect to bring existing CMWD, SDGE and other antenna
facilities into compliance with the new standards?
We appreciate your consideration of our comments and would be happy to help provide background information
and data on wireless communications issues. I welcome you to call me at (619) 817-1274, or email at
Daniel.Schweizer@crowncastle.com with any questions or to further discuss these issues.
Sincerely,
Dan-S~(!A,,
DAN SCHWEIZER
Director, Government Relations, West Region
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com
September 26, 2017 Item #2 Page 30 of 38
..-· -......,
~at&t
ViaE-mail-
Curtis M. Jackson
Real Estate Manager
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
January 6, 2017
Re. AT&T' s Initial Comments to Council's Proposed Policy Statement No. 64
regarding Review and Operation Guidelines for Wireless Communications
Facilities ("Draft Policy")
Dear Curtis:
I write on behalf of New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC d/b/a AT&T Mobility (AT&T) to bring
attention to some specific policy and legal concerns created by the Draft Policy. To that end, I have
attached to this letter a list of policy and legal issues identified by the AT&T legal and network
teams. Before you review those comments, however, I will briefly outline the collective
challenge at hand-residents, businesses, and visitors to Carlsbad expect and require high speed
mobile data services.
Explosive Growth in Wireless Data
AT&T and the entire wireless industry has experienced an unprecedented increase in mobile data
use on its network since the release of the iPhone in 2007. Between 2007 and 2015, mobile data
usage increased 150,000% on AT&T's network. AT&T forecasts its customers' growing demand
for mobile data services to continue.
The increased volume of data travels to and from customers' wireless devices and AT&T' s
wireless infrastructure over limited airwaves -radio frequency spectrum that AT&T licenses
from the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"). AT&T uses high-band (i.e., 1.9 GHz,
2300 MHz, 2100 MHz, and 1900 MHz) and low-band (i.e., 850 MHz and 700 MHz) spectrum to
provide wireless service. Each spectrum band has different propagation characteristics and may
experience varied noise or signal interference based on network characteristics at a given
location. To address this dynamic environment, AT&T deploys multiple layers of its licensed
spectrum and strives to bring its facilities closer to the customer. When facilities are closer to the
user, the customer is presented with a stronger signal and its wireless device creates less noise
September 26, 2017 Item #2 Page 31 of 38
interference because the device is not trying to locate the strongest signal among multiple weak
signals. Signal interference, whether created by environmental clutter or noise from surrounding
wireless devices, degrades signal quality in a manner that affects throughput, data rates, service
quality, and, ultimately, coverage. Generally speaking, placing facilities closer to the customer
creates smaller coverage cells that produce faster data rates.
To address existing and forecasted demand and to support 5G services in the near future, AT&T
plans to deploy small cell facilities within public rights-of-way. Due to their minimal aesthetic
impact, small cell facilities comport with the city's land use values and present an opportunity
for the city and AT&T to work together to responsibly bring 5G services to Carlsbad.1
The Role of Small Cells
Small cells will play a critical role in advancing to 5G in the near future.2 As more than 60% of
the data traffic on AT&T's total network was video in 2015, 5G is expected to assist by
delivering speeds 10-100 times faster than today's average 4G L TE connections. Customers will
see speeds measured in gigabits per second, not megabits. For reference, at one gigabit per
second, you can download a TV show in less than 3 seconds. Customers will also see much
lower latency with 5G. Latency, for example, is how long it takes after you press play on a video
app for the video to start streaming on your device. AT&T expects 5 G latency in the range of 1
to 5 milliseconds. You can see multiple use cases on the horizon to tap this next-gen network.
Many of these 5G use cases -virtual reality, remote telemedicine, autonomous cars, etc. -are
right around the comer. But to work effectively for the mobile customer or a business, you need
multi-gigabit bandwidth speeds and low latency, which a small cell network helps provide. By
getting the physical antenna closer to the user, hence attaching on a street pole, the user is
presented with a dominate signal that provides faster throughput.
To capture the economic development, cultural, and educational opportunities linked to 5G, the
city should strive to remove deployment impediments and attempt to attract, rather than restrict,
capital investment within its boundaries. High-speed wireless networks are quickly emerging as
the bedrock for the next generation of technology, services, and economic development.
Communities that have this critical network infrastructure in place become more attractive
locations to live and do business. High-speed wireless and wireline networks are a tremendous
advantage for communities trying to attract businesses across many sectors, from manufacturing
and data centers, to software developers and high-tech companies. Additionally, these high-speed
networks nurture the tech start-ups and entrepreneurs that will provide tomorrow's jobs and help
drive economic growth.
AT&T encourages the city to adopt a policy that promotes deployment of the wireless
infrastructure necessary for ubiquitous 5G coverage in the coming years. The policy must be
1 A small cell facility consists of a low powered antenna, remote radio unit, and associated fiber and electricity
needed to connect the node to the broader network. Depending on the location, AT&T generally deploys a 2' small
cell antenna and attaches a 2' remote radio unit to the support structure (i.e., new or existing utility pole, street light,
traffic signal).
2 AT&T recently tested its 5G service in Austin, TX. https://www.engadget.com/20l6/12/05/ATT-5g-wireless-
austin-test/
2
September 26, 2017 Item #2 Page 32 of 38
consistent with the applicable federal and state laws that aim to promote and expedite
deployment of wireless telecommunications services.3 Further, the policy cannot conflict with
state law that imposes significant limitations upon the city's authority to regulate the placement
of wireless telecommunications facilities in public rights-of-way.4
With this policy framework in mind and without waiving any of its legal rights, AT&T has
identified in the attached Policy and Legal Comments document, provisions of the Draft Policy
that will pose serious challenges to the deployment of small cell technology in the city and could
create legal exposure to the city
Conclusion
AT&T understands and appreciates the city's desire to develop a comprehensive approach to
siting wireless communication facilities, which is surely needed due to significant technological
advances in the wireless industry and recent changes to the state and federal laws that govern
wireless siting. Especially as technologies advance and the types of facilities needed to meet
increasing demands change, the city and wireless providers will be better served by policies that
foster flexibility in siting wireless technologies. AT&T is confident that the city can, after
thoughtful consideration of the issues, develop a lawful policy to manage the rights-of-way. We
welcome the opportunity to work with the city to that end.
Very truly yours,
John Osborne
Attachments:
AT&T Policy and Legal Comments
3 See, e.g., Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 USC§ 332(c)(7)(B); H. Conf. Rep. No. 104-458, at 1 (1996)
("Act") (purpose of the Telecommunications Act is "to provide for a pro-competitive, de-regulatory national policy
framework designed to accelerate rapidly private sector deployment of advanced telecommunications and
information technologies and services to all Americans by opening all telecommunications markets to
competition"); Petition for Declaratory Ruling to Clarify Provisions of Section 332(c)(7)(B), WT Docket No. 08-
165, Declaratory Ruling, 24 FCC Ruling 13994 (2009) (the "Shot Clock Order"); Section 6409(a) of the Middle
Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, P.L. 112-96 (codified as 47 USC § 1455(a)); Cal Gov. Code Section
65964.1 (a).
4 See, e.g., Cal. Gov't Code § § 65964 & 65964.1; Cal. Pub. Utils. Code § § 7901 & 7901.1.
3
September 26, 2017 Item #2 Page 33 of 38
AT&T Policy and Legal Comments
to
City of Carlsbad City Council Policy No. 64 Regarding Wireless Communications Facilities.
Applicable Standards under the Telecom Act
Several sections of the City of Carlsbad City Council Policy No. 64 Regarding Wireless
Communications Facilities (the "Draft Policy") are subject to preemption under the Telecommunications
Act of 1996, which, among other things, provides that "[ n ]o State or local statute or regulation, or other
State or local legal requirement, may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to
provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service."1 Nor can a decision "regarding the
placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local
government ... prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services."2
Whereas Section 253 applies in the context of a facial challenge to local regulations themselves, Section
332 applies to individual decisions made by a local government pursuant to those regulations.3
In the Ninth Circuit, a denial of a permit for an individual location constitutes an effective
prohibition based upon "a two-pronged analysis requiring (1) the showing of a 'significant gap' in service
coverage and (2) some inquiry into the feasibility of alternative facilities or site locations."4 And once the
applicant has made that two-part showing, the city must either accept it or offer an available and feasible
alternative that is less intrusive than the applicant's proposed facility.5 There is no requirement that an
applicant demonstrate with "clear and convincing evidence" that there are "no other existing structures
available" or that the proposed new structure is "essential to providing coverage." The city cannot make
up its own standard that is inconsistent with the Ninth Circuit's test.
Comments
POLICY -Review Instructions.
This part should add that the City's regulation of wireless communications facilities (WCFs) is further
restricted by California Government Code section 65850.6, which requires mandatory City approval of
certain eligible collocation facilities.
POLICY -Review and Approval Guidelines (Introduction).
The third and fourth sentences of this introduction improperly require different permitting standards for
WCFs proposed in the public right-of-way ("ROW). Only ROW permits under City Municipal Code
section 11.16.010 et seq. should be required for all WCFs installed in the ROW, regardless of the City's
attempted preference or location rules stated in the Draft Policy.
1 47 USC 253(a).
2 47 USC 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II).
3 See Cox Communs. PCS, L.P. v. City of San Marcos, 204 F. Supp. 2d 1272, 1277 (S.D. Cal. 2002) ("Where 47
U.S.C. § 253 provides a cause of action against local regulations, section 332 gives a cause of action against local
decisions.") (emphasis in original).
4 MetroPCS, Inc. v. City & County of San Francisco, 400 F.3d 715, 731 (9th Cir.2005)
5 T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. City of Anacortes, 572 F.3d 987, 997-98 (9th Cir. 2009)
1
September 26, 2017 Item #2 Page 34 of 38
The burdensome application and permitting regulations for certain WCFs based on whether they will be
installed on existing or replacement poles, in preferred locations or zones, and with certain design
elements appears to violate AT&T Mobility's rights under CA Public Utilities Code sections 7901 and
7901.1. Those code sections grant telephone companies such as AT&T Mobility the right to install its
facilities in the public ROW in a manner equivalent to how other public utility companies install their
ROW facilities, which, under the City Code section 11.16.010, includes towers, poles, pole wires, cables,
junction boxes, and transformers. Public Utilities Code section 7901.1 (b) states that an agency's
reasonable control of the ROW "shall ... be applied to all entities in an equivalent manner." Under the
City's Code, the City has very limited bases to deny a ROW application for other utility facilities. Those
bases include indebtedness to the City and repeated permit violations, but not any design considerations.
(City Code section 11.16.110.) No burdensome catalogue of specific design, permit application,
undergrounding, camouflaging and review requirements for other public utility facilities in the ROW is
stated in that City Code.
Review and Approval Guidelines Sections A.1 and A.2.
The attempted preference under these sections to locate WCFs only in non-residential and non-open
space zones, including ROWs in or adjacent to residential and open space zones, could result in an
effective prohibition of AT&T Mobility's services in violation of 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II). Stating
that WCFs "should not" be located in residential and open space zones and areas of the City ignores the
fact that network coverage needs and network coverage gaps exist in residential and open space areas.
Section A.2 concerning discouraged locations requires an applicant to show "no feasible alternative." As
noted above, that is the wrong legal test -it is "least intrusive means" not "no feasible alternative."
The same comments apply to the restriction on location of WCFs on ROW segments not identified on
Exhibit A to the Draft Policy.
Review and Approval Guidelines Section A.3.
The factors stated in this section for possible denial of a WCF application could result in an effective
prohibition of AT&T Mobility's services in violation of 47 U.S.C. §332( c)(7)(B)(i)(II) if a proposed cell
facility is required to be placed in a location that is deemed by the City not to be the "least visible to the
public" or the "least disruptive to the appearance of the host property," but which proposed location(s) is
required for AT&T Mobility to fill a significant gap in service.
Review and Approval Guidelines Section B.1.
Section B. l defines "stealth" in a manner that creates exposure because the city could easily apply the
definition of stealth in a manner that would effectively prohibit small cell deployment if it, for example,
determined that a 2' canister antenna does not "visually blend into the background or the surface on
which they are mounted."
The requirement to use "stealth" design techniques relating to ROW facilities also violates AT&T
Mobility's rights under CA Public Utilities Code sections 7901 and 7901.1 to install its facilities in the
public ROW in a manner equivalent to how other public utility companies install their ROW facilities,
which, under the City Code section 11.16.010, includes towers, poles, pole wires, cables, junction boxes,
and transformers. Public Utility Code section 7901.l(b) states that an agency's reasonable control of the
ROW "shall ... be applied to all entities in an equivalent manner." But other public utilities, including
commercial utilities, are not required to "stealth" their visible facilities within the already visually and
spatially cluttered ROWs.
2
September 26, 2017 Item #2 Page 35 of 38
Review and Approval Guidelines Section B.4.
The WCF height limitation stated in this section could result in an effective prohibition of AT&T
Mobility's services in violation of 47 U.S.C. §332(c )(7)(B)(i)(II) if a proposed cell facility is required to
be placed at a height in excess of a height limitation for a zone as necessary for AT&T Mobility to fill a
significant gap in service.
Review and Approval Guidelines Sections B.5.a-b.
These sections could result in an effective prohibition of AT&T Mobility's services in violation of 4 7
U.S.C. §332( c )(7)(B)(i)(II) based on the limitations on siting or locating a WCF due to significantly
enhanced setback requirements that don't apply to any other structures.
Further, the increased setback regulations for a WCF stated in this section conflict with Draft Policy
Review and Approval Guidelines Sections A.1.i and B.11 regarding WCFs installed in in the ROW. The
significantly increased setback requirements typically could not be met for ROWs located within and
adjacent to residential zones.
The increased setback regulations for a WCF stated in this section also impermissibly seek to regulate
radio frequency ("RF") emissions and therefore violate 4 7 U.S.C. §332( c )(7)(B)(iv). There is no reason
for any form of increased setback regulations for a WCF beyond those that are generally applicable to any
other structure. A WCF must typically already comply with the height limits in a zone, be reasonably
stealthed or disguised, and meet all FCC, noise and building code standards to be approved. Therefore,
the proposed significantly increased minimum setback requirements just for WCFs are arbitrary and
unreasonable, and appear to be based on the unfounded fears of RF emissions, which is not a valid basis
for local regulation.
Review and Approval Guidelines Section B.6.
This section could result in an effective prohibition of AT&T Mobility's services in violation of 4 7
U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) based on the limitations on siting or locating a WCF "as far away as possible
from the outer edge of a building or structure .... " WCFs must be sited close to parapet walls on building
roofs to achieve adequate signal propagation to meet coverage objectives. The further away from a
parapet wall edge the WCF is located, the higher the antennas typically must be placed to project signals
over the parapets and to street level elevations around the building. Pushing a WCF "far away" from roof
edges will increase the height of the facility, which may exceed height limitations and will otherwise
increase the visibility of the WCF.
Review and Approval Guidelines Section B.7.c.
Requiring trees "tall enough to screen three-quarters of the height of the monopole at the time of
planting" as screening for a WCF will likely result in an effective prohibition of AT&T Mobility's
services in violation of 4 7 U.S.C. §332( c )(7)(B)(i)(II). High trees adjacent to WCF antennas cause near-
field interference with RF signals and typically significantly limit the coverage ring of a WCF. Such
screening therefore would prevent AT&T Mobility from closing a significant gap in coverage.
Review and Approval Guidelines Section B.9 and B.11.h
This section could result in an effective prohibition of AT&T Mobility's services in violation of 4 7
U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) based on the requirement for all utilities to be underground. Electrical and
other utility lines need to be connected to above-ground WCFs for the facilities to operate. Further,
3
September 26, 2017 Item #2 Page 36 of 38
equipment undergrounding relating to WCFs is in many instances not reasonable or practical due to
venting requirements, moisture seepage, and flooding concerns.
Review and Approval Guidelines Section B.11.b.
Section 11.b presents the likelihood of a successful facial challenge under both Sections 253 and
Section 332 of the Telecom Act. Prohibitive local regulations may be "saved" from preemption by
Section 253( c ), which preserves the authority of local governments "to manage the public rights-of-way
or to require fair and reasonable compensation from telecommunications providers, on a competitively
neutral and nondiscriminatory basis, for use of public rights-of-way on a nondiscriminatory basis .... " But
given that other occupiers of the public way are not similarly limited to one new pole per block under the
city code, Section 11.b is not competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory and, thus, a 253( c) claim would
likely prevail. And if the City applied section 11. b to deny an applicant for a second new pole on a block,
that decision would be subject to an effective prohibition challenge under Section 332( c ).
We also believe that the first sentence of this section violates AT&T Mobility's rights under CA Public
Utilities Code sections 7901 and 7901.1 to install its facilities in the public ROW in a manner equivalent
to how other public utility companies install their ROW facilities, which, under the City Code section
11.16.010, includes towers, poles, pole wires, cables, junction boxes, and transformers. Public Utilities
Code section 7901.l(b) states that an agency's reasonable control of the ROW "shall ... be applied to all
entities in an equivalent manner." But other public utilities that install their visible facilities within the
ROWs are not required to obtain a CUP by Process 2.
The second sentence of this section also appears to violate AT&T Mobility's rights under CA Public
Utilities Code sections 7901 and 7901.1 to install its facilities in the public ROW in a manner equivalent
to how other public utility companies install their ROW facilities. City Code section 11.16.010 et seq
does not require the same showing by other utility providers to install
The seventh sentence of this section requiring an applicant to provide "functional streetlights and/or
banners" at the City's discretion violates the law. There is no conceivable reasonable relationship and
rough proportionality related to these expensive and onerous discretionary conditions for a disguised
WCF. This would be an impermissible taking.
Review and Approval Guidelines Section B.11.e.
The City should clarify whether any horizontal elements for antenna or other facility attachments are
allowed absent a case-by-case discretionary City decision. Further, the City should clarify what
constitutes a "cross-arm," as some small cell facility configurations include a short horizontal arm or
extension from the side of a pole to hold antennas and other equipment. This section therefore may not
allow the WCF to function properly and thus would result in an effective prohibition of AT&T Mobility's
services in violation of 4 7 U.S.C. §332( c )(7)(B)(i)(II).
Review and Approval Guidelines Section B.11.f.
This section does not allow for other related miscellaneous (non-antenna) WCF equipment to be mounted
on a pole or structure, as is typically done in most small cell installations. This limitation may not allow
the WCF to function properly and thus would result in an effective prohibition of AT&T Mobility's
services in violation of 4 7 U.S.C. §332( c )(7)(B)(i)(II).
4
September 26, 2017 Item #2 Page 37 of 38
Review and Approval Guidelines Section B.11.h.
This section violates AT&T Mobility's rights under CA Public Utilities Code sections 7901 and 7901.1 to
install its facilities in the public ROW in a manner equivalent to how other public utility companies,
including commercial utilities, install their ROW facilities. City Code section 11.16.010 et seq does not
require the same equipment undergrounding and cable/conduit concealment for other utility providers'
facilities within the already visually and spatially cluttered ROWs.
Review and Approval Guidelines Sections D.l.b-c.
These sections violate AT&T Mobility's rights under the TCA regarding the requirement to submit maps
and an explanation of the communications services to be provided. City of Auburn v. Qwest Corp., 260
F.3d 1160, 1176 and 1178 (9th Cir. 2001) ( city violated the TCA by requiring maps and a description of
services to be provided; agencies do not have the authority to request information regarding systems,
plans or purposes for a WCF).
These sections also violate AT&T Mobility's rights under California law. The California Public Utility
Commission determined that the business of supplying citizens with forms of telephone service is a
statewide concern. Local agencies may not attempt to determine whether the wireless service is locally
desired or would be beneficial to the jurisdiction. In re: GTE Mobilnet of San Jose HP., 22 C.P .U.C 2d
25, 1986 Cal. PUC LEXIS 568 (Cal. Pub. Util. Com. 1986).
Further, these sections, as well as sections B.11.b, D.2 and D., appear to violate wireless carriers' rights
under CA Public Utilities Code sections 7901 and 7901.1 to install its facilities in the public ROW in a
manner equivalent to how other public utility companies, including commercial utilities, install their
ROW facilities. City Code section 11.16.010 et seq does not require the same submissions and
information from other utility providers for their facilities within the ROW.
Review and Approval Guidelines Sections D.5.
This section violates AT&T Mobility's rights under CA Government Code section 65964(b) as to the
language in the first sentence stating " ... including limitations on the term of use imposed by the owner of
the property ... " as to imposing a term of less than ten (10) years on a WCF permit. No such limitation is
stated under California law.
Further, the factors stated in this section for approval of an extended or amended permit for a WCF could
result in an effective prohibition of AT&T Mobility's services in violation of 47 U.S.C.
§332( c )(7)(B)(i)(II) if a proposed cell facility (1) is not the "smallest, most efficient," or (2) if it is
required to be placed in a location that is deemed by the City not to be the "least visible to the public" or
the "least disruptive to the appearance of the host property," but which proposed location(s) is required
for AT&T Mobility to fill a significant gap in service.
AT&T Mobility hopes the City finds these comments to the proposed modifications to City Council
Policy No. 64 helpful. We welcome the opportunity to work with the City staff to discuss our legal and
practical concerns and to develop mutually-amenable solutions.
AT&T Mobility also requests that this letter be placed in the administrative record regarding the
City's consideration of the draft changes to the Draft Policy.
5
September 26, 2017 Item #2 Page 38 of 38