The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2023-12-06; Planning Commission; ; Poinsettia Park WCF (AT&T): A request to install a new wireless communication facility (WCF) within Poinsettia Community ParkMeeting Date: Dec. 6, 2023 Item 3 To: Planning Commission Staff Contact: Kyle Van Leeuwen, Associate Planner, 442-339-2611 kyle.vanleeuwen@carlsbadca.gov Subject: Poinsettia Park WCF (AT&T): A request to install a new wireless communication facility (WCF) within Poinsettia Community Park Location: 6600 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, CA 92011/ 214-140-13-00/ District 3 Case Numbers: CUP 2022-0023 / CDP 2022-0070 (DEV2022-0206) Applicant/Representative: Harold Thomas Jr., MD7, 858-750-1798, hthomasjr@md7.com CEQA Determination: ☐Not a Project ☒ Exempt ☐ IS/ND or IS/MND ☐ EIR Permit Type(s): ☐SDP ☒ CUP ☒ CDP ☐ TM/TPM ☐ GPA ☐ REZ ☐ LCPA CEQA Status: ☐The environmental assessment IS on the Agenda for discussion. ☒A CEQA determination was already issued. That decision is final and IS NOT on the Agenda Commission Action: ☒Decision ☐ Recommendation to City Council ☐ Informational (No Action) Recommended Actions That the Planning Commission Resolution ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution (Exhibit 1) APPROVING a Minor Conditional Use Permit CUP 2022-0023 and Coastal Development Permit CDP 2022-0070, based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. Existing Conditions & Project Description Existing Setting The subject site consists of a 30-acre parcel within a 42- acre public park at 6600 Hidden Valley Road (Exhibit 2). The park contains a variety of sports facilities including tennis courts, pickleball courts, softball/baseball fields, soccer fields, a multi-sport area, and basketball courts, as well as playgrounds, restrooms, picnic areas, and dog- park. The parcel is largely flat, containing some slopes and lower elevations along the west portion of the property and some elevation changes between sports fields. Primary access to the park is provided via Hidden Valley Road to the east. The project site is within the Zone 20 Site Map Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 1 of 138 Specific Plan (SP 203) and is zoned Open Space (OS). A public park is a permitted use within the Open Space zone. Table “A” below includes the General Plan designations, zoning and current land uses of the subject site and surrounding properties. Also refer to Exhibit 2 for a larger map. TABLE A – SITE AND SURROUNDING LAND USE Location General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Current Land Use Site Open Space (OS) Open Space (OS) Public Park North Residential, 4-8 dwelling units (R-8) One-Family Residential, Qualified Development Overlay (R-1-Q) Single-Family Dwellings South Residential, 4-8 dwelling units (R-8) Planned Community (P-C) Single-Family Dwellings East Residential, 4-8 dwelling units (R-8) Residential Density- Multiple, Qualified Development Overlay (RD-M-Q) Single-Family Dwellings / Preschool Facility West Open Space (OS) Open Space (OS) Public Park Ball Field / Natural Resource Preservation General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Proposed Project The project consists of the installation, operation, and maintenance of a wireless communication facility (WCF) consisting of a baseball field light pole, with six panel antennas, nine remote radio units (RRU), and three surge protectors installed on the pole. The light pole will be 78 feet in total height, with the panel antennas installed between 50 feet and 67 feet high on the pole, and the RRU and surge protectors installed between 37 feet and 49 feet high on the pole. The proposed WCF light pole will replace an existing baseball field light pole, which is consistent with the overall height of the existing Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 2 of 138 light pole, and the equipment installed on the new light pole will be screened from view by a four-foot- diameter, radome cylinder. A ground level equipment enclosure is also proposed. The equipment enclosure will be located on the same footprint of an existing trash enclosure in the northwest portion of the park’s southern parking lot, just east of the proposed light pole. The subject trash enclosure is no longer needed within the park. The method of maintenance of the park was shifted from in-house to a contractual service several years ago. With that shift, the maintenance contractor assumed responsibility for the daily removal of trash collected from the park. The other trash enclosure, located in the northern parking lot, will remain in place. The proposed equipment enclosure has been designed to be compatible with the adjacent and remaining park maintenance building, utilizing materials, colors, and textures that will match. The project would also include the installation of an approximately 1,600-foot-long conduit to connect the WCF to existing communication infrastructure located near the park’s vehicle entrance. The WCF is proposed to be approximately 177 feet from the nearest property line to the south, with the equipment enclosure more than 160 feet from the southern property line. The site will be accessed through the existing parking lot and driveway, taking access from Hidden Valley Road. The facility will operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Since the facility is unmanned, it will not generate any traffic. Maintenance of the facility by the carrier is needed no more than once a month, except in cases of emergencies. Scheduled maintenance is subject to CMC Section 8.48.010, construction hours limitations, which does not allow maintenance work: after 6:00 p.m.; before 7:00 a.m. (8:00 a.m. on Saturdays); or any work to take place on Sunday. If an emergency arises, it is expected that maintenance crews will be immediately dispatched to correct the situation. The application is proposing a backup generator, located within the equipment enclosure. Public Outreach & Comment The Developer has completed the Early Public Notice procedures pursuant to City Council Policy No. 84 (Development Project Public Involvement Policy). A notice of project application was mailed on Jan. 23, 2023, to property owners within 600 feet and occupants within 100 feet of the subject property. One, two-foot-tall by three-foot-wide yellow sign was posted at the project site on Jan. 4, 2023, notifying all pass-by traffic of the project, which provides project name, application numbers, description, as well as both Developer and city staff contact information. A total of 361 notifications were mailed to property owners and occupants. Response to Public Comment & Project Issues A total of 28 individuals sent emails to city staff with questions and concerns about the project during the months of January and February. This feedback included: a) concerns about design, height, and visual impact; b) health concerns about radio frequency emission (RF) exposure; c) concerns about potential effects to real estate value; and d) impacts to residence during construction/installation of the facility. While the vast majority of the response to the Early Public Notice was generally not in favor of the project, two emails in support of the project were received, citing inadequate cellphone reception in the adjacent neighborhoods. Correspondence received has been included as Exhibit 14. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 3 of 138 Aesthetic impacts are typically a concern associated with this type of use due to the height of towers, which are used to support communication antennas. The visibility of a tower is a function of its height, design, and its visual exposure in the park and to surrounding properties. In response to concerns about design, height, and visual impact, the applicant worked with the city staff to improve the design of the project and increase screening/stealthing of the equipment on the light pole. The initial proposal of the project included 15 antennas and 24 RRUs placed above the ballfield lights (90-foot overall height) with no screening of the equipment. Planning Division staff shared with the applicant the requirements of City Council Policy 64 (Exhibit 5) for shielding and stealthing requirements. Over the course of six-months, the applicant twice redesigned the project to lower the overall height to be consistent with the height of the existing light poles, reduce the amount of equipment proposed on the light pole, and incorporate adequate screening/stealthing of that mounted equipment. The existing light pole, and the original, intermediate, and final design of the project, is shown in Figure A, right. The WCF is proposed to be approximately 177 feet from the nearest property line to the south. Possible health risks from exposure to the radiofrequency emissions generated by wireless communication facilities have also generated public concern. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requires facilities to comply with radio frequency (RF) exposure guidelines, and is the regulating authority related to radiofrequency exposure limits generated by wireless communication facilities. The city, during its permitting review process, ensures compliance with the FCC rules and regulations. Based on the 1996 Telecommunications Act, a local government city cannot evaluate or deny the project based on perceived health hazards of RF exposure, so long as the project complies with federally set exposure limits. However, Policy 64 requires a submission of a compliance report and the reduction in the number of antenna panels in the revised design also reduced the amount of RF the site would produce. Exhibit 8 contains a RF Electromagnetic Fields Exposure Study prepared by EBI Consulting (Oct. 25, 2023) demonstrating that the cumulative exposure levels from this facility will be below the FCC’s Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) limits for the public. Project Analysis General Plan Consistency The City of Carlsbad General Plan includes several goals and policies that guide development and land use within the city. A discussion of how the project is consistent with the applicable General Plan policies is summarized in Exhibit 3. Zone 20 Specific Plan (SP 203) Figure A: Existing Pole & Project Design Changes Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 4 of 138 The Zone 20 Specific Plan, originally approved in 1993 and last amended in 2010, has no policies, restrictions, or requirements applicable to the request for a wireless communication facility. The project is therefore consistent with the Zone 20 Specific Plan. Municipal Code Consistency The City of Carlsbad Municipal Code, most notably Tile 21 Zoning Code, includes requirements and provisions that guide development and land use within the city, consistent with the General Plan. Specific compliance with these relevant requirements is described in Exhibit 3. Local Coastal Program Consistency The project site is in the Coastal Zone and requires a Coastal Development Permit. The project complies with the Local Coastal Program (Exhibit 3), including all goals and policies of the General Plan and all zoning code standards, as referenced above. Wireless Communication Facilities Policy (City Council Policy Statement No. 64) The project is subject to City Council Policy Statement 64 (Policy 64, Exhibit 5), which sets review and operational guidelines for wireless communication facilities. A discussion of how the project is consistent with Policy 64 is summarized in Exhibit 3. Discretionary Actions & Findings The proposed Project requires approval of two permit types (Minor Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit), each of which is discussed below. Minor Conditional Use Permit (CUP 2022-0023) The proposed project is a use which is allowed in the Open Space (OS) Zone subject to the approval of a minor conditional use permit (MCUP) or conditional use permit (CUP). Pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) Section 21.42.140.B.165.b, a wireless communication facility (WCF) application that complies with both the preferred location and the stealth design guidelines of City Council Policy Statement No. 64 (Policy 64) is processed as a minor conditional use permit (MCUP). The proposed project is located in a preferred location and exhibits “stealth” design techniques. Chapter 21.42 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code requires that four findings be made in order to approve a CUP. All of these findings can be made for this project as discussed below (Exhibit 3). The Minor Conditional Use Permit would normally be acted upon by the City Planner as the final decision- maker. However, the Costal Development Permit requires action by the Planning Commission. Therefore, per CMC Section 21.54.040, Decision-making authority for multiple development permits, both applications require Planning Commission action. Coastal Development Permit (CDP 2021-0031) Approval of a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) is required because the project proposes development within the coastal zone. (CMC Section 21.06.030.) Staff finds that the required findings for this application can be met (Exhibit 3). Environmental Review In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines, the City Planner has determined that the project qualified for an exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15303 – New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. A notice of intended decision regarding the environmental determination was advertised on Oct. 13, 2023 and posted on the city’s website. No Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 5 of 138 comment letters or appeal was received and consistent with Chapter 21.54 (Procedures, Hearings, Notices, and Fees) of the Zoning Ordinance the City Planner’s written decision is final. Refer to Exhibit 11 for additional support and justification. Conclusion Considering the information above and in the referenced attachments, staff has found that the proposed project is consistent with all applicable policies of the General Plan, Local Coastal Program, and City Council Policies, provisions of the Municipal Code and Local Facility Management Zone. All required public improvement and utilities are available to serve the proposed development. In addition, there are no environmental issues associated with the project. The project is conditioned to ensure the proposed project’s compatibility with the surrounding properties and that the public health, safety, and welfare of the community are maintained. The project would be required to comply with all applicable California Building Standards Codes and engineering standards through the standard building permit and civil improvement plan checking process. Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the resolutions, recommending approval of the proposed project described in this staff report. Exhibits 1. Planning Commission Resolution 2. Location Map 3. Project Analysis 4. Disclosure Statement 5. Council Policy Statement No. 64 – Wireless Communications Facilities 6. Alternative Site Analysis 7. Photo Simulations 8. Radio Frequency Study 9. Generator Noise Assessment Letter 10. Reduced Exhibits 11. Notice of CEQA Determination 12. List of Acronyms and Abbreviations 13. Full Size Exhibits “A” – “K” dated Dec. 6, 2023 (on file in the office of the City Clerk) 14. Public Correspondence Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 6 of 138 Exhibit 1 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW THE INSTALLATION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY CONSISTING OF SIX (6) PANEL ANTENNAS MOUNTED WITHIN A 48 INCH RADOME CYLINDER ON A NEW 78-FOOT LIGHT POLE THAT WILL REPLACE AN EXISTING LIGHT POLE AND ASSOCIATED GROUND EQUIPMENT WITHIN AN EIGHT-FOOT TALL ENCLOSURE EAST OF THE SOUTHERN PARKING LOT OF POINSETTIA COMMUNITY PARK GENERALLY LOCATED AT 6600 HIDDEN VALLEY ROAD IN THE MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE CERTIFIED LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 20 CASE NAME: POINSETTIA PARK WCF (AT&T) CASE NO.: CUP 2022-0023/CDP 2022-0070 (DEV2022-0206) WHEREAS, AT&T Wireless, “Developer”, has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as THAT PORTION OF THE WEST HALF OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 12 SOUTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT SURVEY. (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit as shown on Exhibit(s) “A” – “K” dated Dec. 6, 2023, on file in the Planning Division, CUP 2022-0023/ CDP 2022-0070 (DEV2022-0206) – POINSETTIA PARK WCF (AT&T), as provided by Chapter 21.42 and Chapter 21.201.030 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Division studied the Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit application and performed the necessary investigations to determine if the PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 7 of 138 project qualified for an exemption from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA, Public Resources Code section 21000 et. seq.), and its implementing regulations (the State CEQA Guidelines), Article 14 of the California Code of Regulations section 15000 et. seq. After consideration of all evidence presented, and studies and investigations made by the city planner and on its behalf, the city planner determined that the project was exempt from further environmental review pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15303 – New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, in that the project is consistent with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program; the project includes the construction and location of small facilities or structures, and the installation of small equipment and facilities in small structures. The project will not have a significant effect on the environment and all the requirements of CEQA have been met; and WHEREAS, on Oct. 16, 2023, the city distributed a notice of intended decision to adopt the “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures” exemption. The notice was circulated for a 10-day period, which began on Oct. 16, 2023, and ended on Oct. 26, 2023. The city did not receive any comment letters on the CEQA findings and determination. The effective date and order of the city planner CEQA determination was Oct. 26, 2023; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on Dec. 6, 2023, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 8 of 138 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission APPROVES CUP 2022-0023/ CDP 2022-0070 (DEV2022-0206) – POINSETTIA PARK WCF (AT&T), based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings: Conditional Use Permit, CUP 2022-0023 1. That the requested use is necessary or desirable for the development of the community and is in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the general plan, including, if applicable, the certified local coastal program, specific plan or master plan, in that the use is consistent with the General Plan in that the Open Space Land Use designation does not preclude the provision of WCF uses. Within the Open Space (O-S) zone, CMC Chapter 21.33; WCFs are conditionally permitted uses. The requested WCF is necessary and desirable for the development of the community because of the benefit and demand for digital communications and data transmissions for businesses, residences, individuals, public agencies and emergency service systems in this part of the city. The use is consistent with the General Plan in that the Open Space Land Use designation does not preclude the provision of WCF uses. The use is in harmony with objectives that seek to maintain and enhance Carlsbad’s appearance in that the WCF is integrated into a light pole; is designed so that the antennas will be attached as close to the light pole as possible with a concealing radome; and associated equipment is located within an enclosure designed to be compatible with the adjacent maintenance building, utilizing materials, colors, and textures that will match the maintenance building. 2. That the requested use is not detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is to be located in that the antennas are proposed to be mounted to a replacement light pole that is the same height as the existing light pole, and antennas are mounted as close to the light pole as technology will allow, thus reducing an outward noticeable appearance and minimizing visual impacts. The Telecommunication Act of 1996 preempts local governments from regulating the "placement, construction and modification of wireless communication facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of Radio Frequency (RF) emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Federal Communication Commission's (FCC) standards for such emissions." The proposed project would be consistent with the FCC's Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 9 of 138 regulations for wireless facilities. The project complies with the FCC RF Exposure Guidelines. Lastly, a Generator Noise Assessment Letter was prepared by EBI Consulting (Oct. 28, 2022) in accordance with the City of Carlsbad’s Noise Element of the General Plana and Noise Guidelines. The analysis concludes that the noise produced from operation of the proposed emergency back-up generator will comply with the Carlsbad Exterior Noise Limits at all receiving property lines. Therefore, based on the above, the project would not result in any detriment or significant health or safety risks to the surrounding area. 3. That the site for the proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, parking, loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping and other development features prescribed in this code and required by the City Planner, planning commission or City Council, in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood, in that the light pole on which the proposed antennas are to be located is the same height as the existing pole; the associated equipment is proposed to be located within an enclosure designed to be compatible with the adjacent remaining maintenance building, utilizing materials, colors, and textures that will match the maintenance building; the light pole and equipment are not within any required front, rear or side yard setbacks; and the proposed pole and equipment enclosure are located more than 160 feet from the nearest adjacent residential property. 4. That the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic generated by the proposed use, in that the unmanned WCF will require, on average, only monthly maintenance visits and occasional visits in response to operational issues. The existing street system is adequate to properly handle any traffic generated by the use. 5. That the proposed WCF is consistent with City Council Policy No. 64 in that the location, a public park, is a “preferred” location. The WCF is proposed to be installed on a structure that already exists, which will reduce its visibility and will be the least disruptive to the appearance of the park. The WCF will not be located on an exposed ridgeline and is satisfactorily screened and disguised by being located on a structure which will light an athletic field. The new antennas will be mounted as close to the light pole as technologically feasible within a four-foot diameter radome. The radome will be painted to match the color of the light pole, thereby minimizing visual impacts. The proposed ground mounted equipment will be located within an enclosure, which is designed and treated to match and compliment the adjacent maintenance building. The proposed light pole is consistent with the height requirements of the Open Space zone and will be the same height as the existing light pole to be replaced and the other existing light poles for the baseball field. The proposed installation is more than 160 feet away from the adjacent residentially zoned properties, which is more than double the 78-foot setback called for by the policy. Site selection information was provided Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 10 of 138 that indicates other locations are not feasible. Color photo-simulations have been provided to show that the project will not substantially alter views to the site from surrounding viewpoints. A Generator Noise Assessment Letter was prepared by EBI Consulting (Oct. 28, 2022) in accordance with the City of Carlsbad’s Noise Element of the General Plana and Noise Guidelines. The analysis concludes that the noise produced from operation of the proposed emergency back-up generator will comply with the Carlsbad Exterior Noise Limits at all receiving property lines. Coastal Development Permit, CDP 2021-0031 6. That the proposed development is in conformance with the Certified Local Coastal Program and all applicable policies in that the site is designated for non-residential uses and is already developed with an athletic-fields with field lights and other park amenities. The project consists of replacing one of the existing field light poles with a new pole that is the same height as the existing, and installing an unmanned WCF on the light pole. The WCF will not obstruct views of the coastline as seen from public lands or the public right-of-way, nor otherwise damage the visual beauty of the coastal zone. No agricultural activities, sensitive resources, geological instability, flood hazard or vertical coastal access opportunities exist onsite. Furthermore, the WCF facility is not in an area of known geologic instability or flood hazards. 7. The proposal is in conformity with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter Three of the Coastal Act in that the project is located outside of the coastal shoreline development overlay zone. Therefore, compliance with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act is not required. 8. The project is consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.203 of the Zoning Ordinance) in that the project will adhere to the city's Master Drainage Plan, Grading Ordinance, Storm Water Ordinance, BMP Design Manual and Jurisdictional Runoff Management Program (JRMP) to avoid increased urban runoff, pollutants, and soil erosion. No steep slopes or native vegetation are located on the subject property and the site is not located in an area prone to landslides, or susceptible to accelerated erosion, floods, or liquefaction. General 9. The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 11 of 138 Conditions: NOTE: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to building permit, whichever occurs first. 1. Approval is granted CUP 2022-0023/CDP 2022-0070 (DEV 2022-0206) – POINSETTIA PARK WCF (AT&T) as shown on Exhibits “A” – “K”, dated Dec. 6, 2023, on file in the Planning Division and incorporated herein by reference. Development shall occur substantially as shown unless otherwise noted in these conditions. 2. If any of the following conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the city shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all future building permits; deny, revoke, or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; record a notice of violation on the property title; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the city’s approval of this Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit. 3. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit documents, as necessary to make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development, different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. 4. Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 5. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section 66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid, this approval shall be invalid unless the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies with all requirements of law. 6. Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and attorney’s fees incurred by the city arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) city’s approval and issuance of this Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit, (b) city’s approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 12 of 138 discretionary or nondiscretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c) Developer/Operator’s installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby, including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. This obligation survives until all legal proceedings have been concluded and continues even if the city’s approval is not validated. 7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the Building Division from the Carlsbad Unified School District that this project has satisfied its obligation to provide school facilities. 8. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required as part of the Zone 10 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits. 9. This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this project within 24 months from the date of project approval. 10. Developer shall pay the Citywide Public Facilities Fee imposed by City Council Policy #17, the License Tax on new construction imposed by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.030, and CFD #1 special tax (if applicable), subject to any credits authorized by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.040. Developer shall also pay any applicable Local Facilities Management Plan fee for Zone 10 pursuant to Chapter 21.90. All such taxes/fees shall be paid at issuance of building permit. If the taxes/fees are not paid, this approval will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall become void. 11. Prior to the issuance of the Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit, Developer shall submit to the city a Notice of Restriction executed by the owner of the real property to be developed. Said notice is to be filed in the office of the County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction of the City Planner, notifying all interested parties and successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit by Resolution(s) No. 7492 on the property. Said Notice of Restriction shall note the property description, location of the file containing complete project details and all conditions of approval as well as any conditions or restrictions specified for inclusion in the Notice of Restriction. The City Planner has the authority to execute and record an amendment to the notice which modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing of good cause by the Developer or successor in interest. 12. CUP 2022-0070 shall be reviewed by the City Planner annually to determine if all conditions of this permit have been met and that the use does not have a substantial negative effect on surrounding properties or the public health, safety and general welfare. If the City Planner determines that: 1) the Conditional Use Permit was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation; or 2) the use for which such approval was granted is not being exercised; or 3) the Conditional Use Permit is being or recently has been exercised Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 13 of 138 contrary to any of the terms or conditions of approval or the conditions of approval have not been met; or 4) the use for which such approval was granted has ceased to exist or has been suspended for one year or more; or 5) the use is in violation of any statute, ordinance, law or regulation; or 6) the use permitted by the Conditional Use Permit is being or has been so exercised as to be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or so as to constitute a nuisance, the City Planner shall recommend that the Planning Commission hold a public hearing and after providing the permittee the opportunity to be heard, the Planning Commission may revoke and terminate the Conditional Use Permit in whole or in part, reaffirm the Conditional Use Permit, modify the conditions or impose new conditions. 13. This Conditional Use Permit is granted for a period of ten (10) years from Dec. 6, 2023, through Dec. 6, 2033. This permit may be revoked at any time after a public hearing, if it is found that the use has a substantial detrimental effect on surrounding land uses and the public’s health and welfare, or the conditions imposed herein have not been met. This permit may be extended for a reasonable period of time not to exceed 10 years upon written application of the permittee made no less than 90 days prior to the expiration date. The Planning Commission may not grant such extension, unless it finds that there are no substantial negative effects on surrounding land uses or the public’s health and welfare. If a substantial negative effect on surrounding land uses or the public’s health and welfare is found, the extension shall be denied or granted with conditions which will eliminate or substantially reduce such effects. There is no limit to the number of extensions the Planning Commission may grant. 14. Developer shall report, in writing, to the City Planner within 30 days, any address change from that which is shown on the permit application, any change in the telecommunications provider, or any transfer in ownership of the site. 15. Developer/Operator shall comply with the Federal Communication Commission’s guidelines on limits for human exposure to radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic fields. Within six (6) months after the issuance of occupancy, and with any time extension or amendment request, the Developer/Operator shall submit to the City Planner either (1) verification that the project is categorically excluded from having to determine compliance with the RF exposure guidelines per 47 CFR §1.1307(b)(1); or (2) a project implementation report which provides cumulative field measurements of RF emissions of all antennas installed at the subject site. The report shall quantify the RF emissions and compare the results with the exposure limits established by the FCC guidelines. Said report shall be subject to review and approval by the City Planner for consistency with the Project’s preliminary report on RF exposure submitted with the initial project application and for consistency with the FCC guidelines. If, on review, the City finds that the Project does not meet the FCC guidelines, the City may revoke or modify this conditional use permit. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 14 of 138 16. Except in an emergency posing an immediate public health and safety threat, maintenance activities shall only occur between 7 AM (8 AM on Saturdays) and sunset. Maintenance shall not take place on Sundays or holidays. 17. Future modifications to the facility shall not be approved unless the screening proposed and approved with this application, a four-foot radius radome cylinder, will continue to adequately screen new or replacement equipment. No expansion in size of the radome is allowed unless an amendment to CUP 2022-0023 and CDP 2022-0070 is approved. 18. No installed antennas or equipment shall be energized or activated unless the approved screening, a four-foot radius radome cylinder, is in place and secured on the light pole. This applies to any new or replacement equipment or antennas installed at a future date. 19. All installation activities shall be coordinated with the Community Development Department and the Parks & Recreation Department to avoid impacts to events within the public park. 20. The Developer/Operator shall maintain compliance at all times with all federal, state and local statutes, regulations, orders or other rules that carry the force of law (“laws”) applicable to the Developer/Operator, the subject property, the wireless communication facility or other infrastructure deployment or any use or activities in connection with the use authorized by this resolution, which includes without limitation any laws applicable to human exposure to RF emissions and any standards, specifications or other requirements identified by the city planner or engineering manager (such as, without limitation, those requirements conditioned with this resolution). If the city planner or engineering manager finds good cause to believe that the facility is not in compliance with any laws applicable to human exposure to RF emissions, the city planner or engineering manager may require the Developer/Operator to submit a written report certified by a qualified radio frequency engineer familiar with the facility that certifies that the facility is in compliance with all such laws. The city planner or engineering manager may order the facility to be powered down if, based on objective evidence, the city planner or engineering manager finds that the facility is in fact not in compliance with any laws applicable to human exposure to RF emissions until such time that the Developer/Operator demonstrates actual compliance with such laws. The Developer/Operator expressly acknowledges and agrees that this obligation is intended to be broadly construed and that no other specific requirements in these conditions are intended to reduce, relieve or otherwise lessen the Developer/Operator’s obligations to maintain compliance with all laws. No failure or omission by the City to timely notice, prompt or enforce compliance with any applicable provision in the Carlsbad Municipal Code, this Policy, any permit, any permit condition or any applicable law or regulation, shall be deemed to relieve, waive or lessen Developer/Operator’s obligation to comply in all respects with all applicable Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 15 of 138 provisions in the Carlsbad Municipal Code, this Policy, any permit, any permit condition or any applicable law or regulation. Code Reminders: 1. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided herein. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 16 of 138 NOTICE TO APPLICANT An appeal of this decision to the City Council must be filed with the City Clerk at 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92008, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of the Planning Commission’s decision. Pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.54, section 21.54.150, the appeal must be in writing and state the reason(s) for the appeal. The City Council must make a determination on the appeal prior to any judicial review. NOTICE Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as “fees/exactions.” You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading, or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 17 of 138 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on Dec. 6, 2023, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NAYES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: _____________________________ PETER MERZ, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: _____________________________ ERIC LARDY City Planner Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 18 of 138 HI D D E N V A L L E Y R D PA S EO DE L N O RTE P L UM T REE RD TURNSTONE RD CAMINO DE LAS ONDAS G OLDENEYE V W L O N I C E R A S T TO P M A S T D R RU S S E L I A C T T E A T R E E S T BEACON BAY DR MA R I N E R S T M ARIPOS A RD R OBI N E A D R ABELIA AV MO N T I A C T BL U E P O I N T D R LIGHTHOUSE RD SC A U P S T BELLEFLOWER RD RE D K N O T S T C L O V E R C T S EA W I N D C T SEAHORSE CT WIN D D R I F T D R LANDS END CT SNIPE CT E L C AMINO R E A L LA COSTA AV A L G A R D C A R L S B A D B L DEV 2022-0206 POINSETTIA PARK WCF SITE MAP J SITE!"^ Map generated on: 10/19/2023 Exhibit 2 Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 19 of 138 PROJECT ANALYSIS Exhibit 3 (GENERAL PLAN, MUNICIPAL CODE, AND OTHER REGULATIONS) PROJECT ANALYSIS The project is subject to the following regulations: A. Open Space (OS) General Plan Land Use Designation B. Open Space (OS) Zone (CMC Chapter 21.33) and Minor Conditional Use Permits and Conditional Use Permits (21.42) C. Local Coastal Program (Mello II Segment) D. Wireless Communication Facilities Policy (City Council Policy Statement No. 64) The recommendation for approval of this project was developed by analyzing the project’s consistency with the applicable regulations and policies. The project’s compliance with each of the above regulations is discussed in detail within the sections below. A. General Plan Open Space (VC) Land Use Designation The project site is designated Open Space (OS) on the city’s General Plan Land Use Map. The proposed WCF is consistent with the OS General Plan Land Use designation in that the OS Land Use designation does not preclude the use of WCF’s. Furthermore, a Public Park is a permitted land use within the OS designation, and WCFs are allowed with permits in public parks. The proposed use will serve and benefit the residential and business community and region as a whole, including emergency service providers. Therefore, the proposed WCF use is consistent with the OS General Plan Land Use designation. The project also complies with the noise exposure limits of the Noise Element of the General Plan and Noise Guidelines Manual. Residential use areas are limited to 60 decibels (dB) of exterior exposure, and the Generator Noise Assessment Letter provided by the applicant (EBI Consulting, Oct. 28, 2022) calculates 53.8 dBs of noise will be generated as measured from the adjacent residential property line. Additionally, the study does not include any noise attenuation of the generator noise due to the equipment being located within a walled enclosure, or that the proposed generator will only run for routine cycling/testing for a duration of no more than 15 minutes one time per week during daytime hours, or in the event of a loss of power. B. Open Space (OS) Zone (Chapter 21.20); and Minor Conditional Use Permits and Conditional Use Permits (Chapter 21.42) The proposed WCF consisting of a 78-foot tall, baseball field light pole, with six panel antennas, nine remote radio units (RRU), and three surge protectors installed on a the light pole is located within Open Space (OS) zone, which allows for a stealth wireless communication facilities (WCFs) subject to approval of a minor conditional use permit (CUP), if consistent with the preferred location and the stealth design review and approval guidelines of city council policy statement No. 64. The project is required to comply with the development standards of the O-S zone. The Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 20 of 138 PROJECT ANALYSIS (GENERAL PLAN, MUNICIPAL CODE, AND OTHER REGULATIONS) O-S zone does not specify any setbacks, lot coverage or lot size requirements. It does, however, specify that structures shall not exceed 25 feet tall unless a higher elevation is approved by a minor conditional use permit issued by the City Planner. The proposed project is a use which is allowed in the Open Space Zone subject to the approval of a minor conditional use permit (MCUP) or conditional use permit (CUP). Chapter 21.42 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code requires that four findings be made in order to approve a CUP. All of these findings can be made for this project as discussed below. Conditional uses such as Wireless Communications Facilities (WCF) possess unique and special characteristics that make it impractical to include them as permitted uses “by right” in any of the various zoning classifications (i.e. residential, commercial, office, industrial, and open space). The authority for the location and operation of these uses is subject to City Council Policy Statement No. 64 – Wireless Communication Facilities Policy (see discussion D below) and the issuance of a MCUP or CUP. Staff has reviewed the proposed project and found that all of the necessary findings can be made to approve the MCUP. The required findings and satisfaction of these findings are provided below. 1. That the requested use is necessary or desirable for the development of the community, and is in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the general plan, including, if applicable, the certified local coastal program, specific plan or master plan. The use is consistent with the General Plan in that the Open Space Land Use designation does not preclude the provision of WCF uses. Within the Open Space (O-S) zone, CMC Chapter 21.33; WCFs are conditionally permitted uses. The proposed project has been designed and conditioned to comply with all applicable zoning regulations and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) standards for radio frequency (RF) exposure. The WCF is proposed to be installed on a structure that already exists, which will reduce its visibility and will be the least disruptive to the appearance of the park. The WCF will not be located on an exposed ridgeline and is satisfactorily screened and disguised by being located on a structure, which will light an athletic field. The new antennas will be mounted as close to the light pole as technologically feasible within a four-foot diameter radome. The radome will be painted to match the color of the light pole, thereby minimizing visual impacts. City Council Policy No. 64 – Wireless Communication Facilities Guidelines indicate that there is a need to accommodate new communication technology and must be balanced with the need to minimize the number of new tower structures, thus reducing the impacts towers can have on the surrounding community. According to the applicant’s response to the Wireless Communication Facility Guidelines, the applicant examined the search for co-location opportunities and did not locate any existing freestanding co-locatable wireless towers within the search area that would provide the required height. Per the applicant, the entirety of the targeted search area is located within residentially zoned parcels or open spaces; therefore, Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 21 of 138 PROJECT ANALYSIS (GENERAL PLAN, MUNICIPAL CODE, AND OTHER REGULATIONS) more favorably zoned parcels, such as commercial or industrial, were infeasible. No co-location opportunities were available. All of this resulted in the subject proposal for a new telecommunication facility. The proposed project would help alleviate an area of poor coverage and overloaded capacity within this service area, which causes reoccurring lost calls, ineffective service, and slow data speeds. The requested WCF is necessary for the development of the community because of the benefit and demand for digital communications and data transmissions for businesses, residences, individuals, public agencies and emergency service systems in this part of the city. Federal and California law require cities provide access to telecommunications infrastructure as outlined in the restrictions contained within Policy 64. The use is consistent with the General Plan in that the Open Space Land Use designation does not preclude the provision of WCF uses. The use is in harmony with objectives that seek to maintain and enhance Carlsbad’s appearance in that the WCF is integrated into a light pole; is designed so that the antennas will be attached as close to the light pole as possible with a concealing radome; and associated equipment is located within an enclosure designed to be compatible with the adjacent maintenance building, utilizing materials, colors, and textures that will match the maintenance building. 2. That the requested use is not detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is to be located in. The antennas are proposed to be mounted to a replacement light pole that is the same height as the existing light pole, and antennas are mounted as close to the light pole as technology will allow, thus reducing an outward noticeable appearance and minimizing visual impacts. The Telecommunication Act of 1996 preempts local governments from regulating the "placement, construction and modification of wireless communication facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of RF emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the FCC standards for such emissions." The proposed project would be consistent with the FCC's regulations for wireless facilities. The project complies with the FCC RF Exposure Guidelines. The project complies with the FCC Radio Frequency (RF) Exposure Guidelines as detailed in Exhibit 8. Lastly, a Generator Noise Assessment Letter was prepared by EBI Consulting (October 28, 2022) in accordance with the City of Carlsbad’s Noise Element of the General Plan and Noise Guidelines. The analysis, detailed in Exhibit 9, concludes that the noise produced from operation of the proposed emergency back-up generator will comply with the Carlsbad Exterior Noise Limits at all receiving property lines. While the Noise Element does not establish a community park as a noise-sensitive land use, the provided study does indicate that the level of noise from the generator would be compliant with daytime and nighttime limits at a distance of 21 feet from the generator (65 dB). Additionally, the study does not include any noise attenuation of the generator noise due to the equipment being located within a walled enclosure, or that the proposed generator will only run for routine cycling/testing for a duration Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 22 of 138 PROJECT ANALYSIS (GENERAL PLAN, MUNICIPAL CODE, AND OTHER REGULATIONS) of no more than 15 minutes one time per week during daytime hours, or in the event of a loss of power. 3. That the site for the proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, parking, loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping and other development features prescribed in this code and required by the City Planner, planning commission or City Council, in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. The light pole on which the proposed antennas are to be located is the same height as the existing pole; the associated equipment is proposed to be located within an enclosure designed to be compatible with the adjacent maintenance building, utilizing materials, colors, and textures that will match the remaining maintenance building; the light pole and equipment are not within any required front, rear or side yard setbacks; and the proposed pole and equipment enclosure are located more than 160 feet from the nearest adjacent residential property. 4. That the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic generated by the proposed use. The unmanned WCF will require, on average, only monthly maintenance visits and occasional visits in response to operational issues. The existing street system is adequate to properly handle any traffic generated by the use. Construction is not expected to generate or impact the circulation network and will be coordinated to avoid impacts to any events within the park. C. Conformance with the Coastal Development Regulations for the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program (CMC Chapter 21.201) and the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone (CMC Chapter 21.203) The project site is located within the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program and is not in the appeal jurisdiction. The site is also located within and subject to the Coastal Resources Protection Overlay Zone. The project’s compliance with each of these programs and ordinances is discussed below: 1. Mello II Segment of the Certified Local Coastal Program and all applicable policies The proposed site is in the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program (LCP) and is not within the appealable jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission. The proposed WCF use is not precluded by Local Coastal Program. Furthermore, staff finds the proposed project to be consistent with the Mello II segment of the Local Coastal Program in that the site is designated for non-residential uses and is already developed with athletic fields with field lights and other park amenities. The project consists of replacing one of the existing Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 23 of 138 PROJECT ANALYSIS (GENERAL PLAN, MUNICIPAL CODE, AND OTHER REGULATIONS) field light poles with a new pole that is the same height as the existing and installing an unmanned WCF on the light pole. The WCF will not obstruct views of the coastline as seen from public lands or the public right-of-way, nor otherwise damage the visual beauty of the coastal zone. No agricultural activities, sensitive resources, geological instability, flood hazard or vertical coastal access opportunities exist onsite. Furthermore, the WCF facility is not in an area of known geologic instability or flood hazards. 2. Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone The development is subject to the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone (CMC Chapter 21.203). The Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone identifies areas of protection: a) preservation of steep slopes and vegetation; b) drainage, erosion, sedimentation, habitat; c) seismic hazards, landslides, and slope instability; and d) floodplain development. The project’s compliance with each of these areas of concern is discussed below: a. Preservation of Steep Slopes and Vegetation. Slopes greater than 25% and possessing endangered plant/animal species and/or coastal sage scrub and chaparral plant communities are considered “dual criteria” slopes and are protected in the Coastal Zone. The project does not support any “dual criteria” slopes. b. Drainage, Erosion, Sedimentation, Habitat. The project will adhere to the city’s Master Drainage Plan, Grading Ordinance, Storm Water Ordinance, BMP Design Manual and Jurisdictional Runoff Management Program (JRMP) to avoid increased urban run-off, pollutants, and soil erosion. c. Seismic Hazards, Landslides and Slope Instability. The site is not located in an area prone to landslides, or susceptible to accelerated erosion, floods or liquefaction. d. Flood Plain Development. No structures or fill are being proposed within a one-hundred- year floodplain area as identified by the FEMA Flood Map Service Center. D. Wireless Communication Facilities Policy (City Council Policy Statement No. 64) The City Council adopted Policy No. 64, Wireless Communication Facilities, on Dec. 14, 2021, establishing review and approval guidelines for WCFs. The project is consistent with City Council Policy No. 64 in that the proposed location, a public park in a residential area, is a “preferred” location. The WCF is proposed to be installed on a structure that already exists, which will reduce its visibility and will be the least disruptive to the appearance of the park. The WCF will not be located on an exposed ridgeline and is satisfactorily screened and disguised by being located on a structure, which will light an athletic field. The new antennas will be mounted as close to the light pole as technologically feasible within a four-foot diameter Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 24 of 138 PROJECT ANALYSIS (GENERAL PLAN, MUNICIPAL CODE, AND OTHER REGULATIONS) radome. The radome will be painted to match the color of the light pole, thereby minimizing visual impacts. The proposed ground mounted equipment will be located within an enclosure, which is designed and treated to match and compliment the adjacent maintenance building. The proposed light pole is consistent with the height requirements of the Open Space zone and will be the same height as the existing light pole to be replaced and the other existing light poles for the baseball field. The proposed installation is more than 160 feet away from the adjacent residentially zoned properties, which is more than double the 78-foot setback called for by the policy. Site selection information was provided that indicates other locations are not feasible. Color photo-simulations have been provided to show that the project will not substantially alter views to the site from surrounding viewpoints. All aspects of the proposed WCF, including the supports, antennas, screening methods, and equipment feature “stealth” design techniques so they visually blend into the background or the surface on which they are mounted. The applicant examined the search for co-location opportunities and did not locate any existing freestanding co-locatable wireless towers within the search area that would provide the required height. Per the applicant, the entirety of the targeted search area is located within residentially zoned parcels or open spaces; therefore, more favorably zoned parcels, such as commercial or industrial, were infeasible. No co-location opportunities were available. All of this resulted in the subject proposal for a new telecommunication facility. The FCC, which regulates the wireless communications industry, has referenced prior studies concluding that RF emission exposure levels associated with this type of facility have been determined to be safe. RF emissions generated from the proposed WCF would be below the FCC accepted guidelines/standards. Pursuant to federal law, a local government agency may not regulate the placement and modification of a WCF based on the environmental or health effects of RF emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with federal law concerning emissions. To ensure that the FCC standards are being met, a condition has been added to the permit that requires that the applicant submit a RF study to demonstrate compliance with the applicable FCC regulations. Therefore, staff does not anticipate concerns regarding RF emissions as it relates to the park or residential development in the area. A Generator Noise Assessment Letter was prepared by EBI Consulting (October 28, 2022) in accordance with the City of Carlsbad’s Noise Element of the General Plana and Noise Guidelines. The analysis concludes that the noise produced from operation of the proposed emergency back-up generator will comply with the Carlsbad Exterior Noise Limits at all receiving property lines. E. Growth Management Plan The proposed Wireless Communications Facility (WCF) is located in Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 20. Installation of the WCF on the existing site and monthly facility maintenance visits Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 25 of 138 PROJECT ANALYSIS (GENERAL PLAN, MUNICIPAL CODE, AND OTHER REGULATIONS) will not result in increased public facilities demands; therefore, the proposal will not exceed performance standards for public facilities. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 26 of 138 ( Ccityof Carlsbad DISCLOSURE STATEMENT P- 1 (A) Development Services Planning Division 1635 Faraday Avenue (442) 339-2610 www.carlsbadca.gov Applicant's statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board, Commission or Committee. The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project cannot be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print. •Note: Person is defined as "AnV individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternalorganization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, in this and any other county, city and county,city municipalify, district or other-political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit." Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name· and entity of the applicant and property ownermust be provided below. 1.APPLICANT (Not the applicant's agent)Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having afinancial interest in the application. If the applicant includes a corporation or partnership, include the names, titles, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of theshares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publicly-owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Person ------------Corp/Part AT&T Wireless Title ____________ _ Title ______________ _ Address __________ _ Address 7337 Trade Street, San Diego, CA 92121 2.OWNER (Not the owner's agent) P-1(A) Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (i.e., partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a corporation or partnership, include the names, titles, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORETHAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THESPACE BELOW. If a publicly-owned corporation, include the names, titles, andaddresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Person � �Jt,,, Corp/Part �C�it�y�of_C�a�r �ls�ba�d _______ _ Title Real Estate M� -Title --------------- Address 3096 Harding Street Address 3096 Harding Street, Carlsbad, CA 92008 Page 1 of 2 Revised 3/22 Exhibit 4 Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 27 of 138 Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 28 of 138 {city of Carlsbad Council Policy Statement Category: WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES Policy No. Date Issued: Effective Date: Resolution No. Cancellation Date: 64 9/26/2017 . 12/14/2021 2021-289 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 wireline communications, 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. The following Review and Operation Guidelines (Guidelines) have been developed to supplement and clarify the requirements of Carlsbad Municipal and Zoning codes, including chapter 21.42 of the Carlsbad Zoning Code. These requirements are meant to provide a general overview of the procedures and requirements for installation of WCFs, while accommodating and supporting deployment of WCFs to provide adequate coverage and capacity throughout the city. They also outline definitions that are quantifiable and measurable and detail development standards and design requirements which the city will use to review proposed facilities. 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. • Protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public to the extent permitted by applicable laws. • Are encouraged to locate away from residential and other sensitive areas, except as allowed by Sections A, B and C of this policy. • 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. Page 1 of 18 Dec. 14, 2021 Item #16 Page 11 of 252 Exhibit 5 Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 29 of 138 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. §§ 1.6100 et seq. (implementing Section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act (codified as 47 C.F.R. § 1455(a)) for non-substantial modifications to existing wireless towers and base stations)1 and other antennas installed on a residence for an individual’s private use. The Guidelines shall not relieve a person from the responsibility of complying with all other applicable regulations of any other local, state, or federal agencies. These Guidelines supplement existing regulations and provide clear standards and guidelines for all wireless infrastructure deployments unless specifically prohibited by applicable law. The standards and procedures contained in these Guidelines are intended to, and should be applied to, protect and promote public health, safety and welfare, and balance the benefits that flow from robust, advanced wireless services with the city’s local values. Except as expressly provided otherwise, these Guidelines shall be applicable to all applications and requests for authorization to construct, install, attach, operate, collocate, modify, reconstruct, replace, relocate or otherwise deploy WCFs, inclusive of applications which affect existing facilities. These Guidelines are also intended to establish clear procedures for application intake and completeness review. Conditional use permit applications for WCFs that were denied shall follow the process in Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.54.130 for reapplication of a new CUP. Building permit and ROW permit applications for facilities that were denied may be submitted to the Community Development Department as new applications at any time, without prejudice. Said new application will be processed as a completely separate application, with new submittal materials and fees required, and shall demonstrate compliance with these Guidelines. 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 communications 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 WCF 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. 1 If the city determines that an application submitted for approval pursuant to Section 6409(a) is, in fact, not covered by the applicable federal regulations, the applicant may resubmit the request for approval pursuant to the applicable provisions in this policy. Dec. 14, 2021 Item #16 Page 12 of 252Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 30 of 138 • The city may not favor any carrier. Regulations may not unreasonably discriminate among functionally equivalent service providers. A “functionally equivalent provider” means a competitor. • 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. According to the FCC’s recent order in 2018, the denial of a single permit application may cause an effective prohibition if it “materially inhibits or limits the ability of any competitor or potential competitor to compete in a fair and balanced legal and regulatory environment.” Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order, WT Docket No. 17-79, WC Docket No. 17-84, 33 FCC Rcd. 9088 at ¶ 37 (2018) (Small Cell Order). In addition, local aesthetic requirements may be prohibitory unless they are reasonable and published in advance. Small Cell Order at ¶ 40, rev’d in part, City of Portland v. United States, 969 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2020). • 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. • Failure to approve or deny applications may result in automatic approvals and court orders. Under California Government Code 65964.1, an application for a wireless facility may be “deemed approved” if a city or county fails to act within the presumptively reasonable timeframes established by the FCC. This provision contains some exceptions but generally applies to new facilities and very large modifications to existing facilities both on private property and in the public rights-of-way. The FCC’s regulations contain a similar “deemed granted” remedy for less- than substantial collocations and modifications to existing facilities. In addition, the Small Cell Order establishes that a permitting agency’s failure to act within the referenced timeframes will amount to a presumptive prohibition on the provision of personal wireless services, the remedy for which may be a court injunction. • 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 (Section 6409(a) non-substantial modifications). 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. §§ 1.6100 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. • 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. Dec. 14, 2021 Item #16 Page 13 of 252Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 31 of 138 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 routine e compliance demonstrations under FCC guidelines, however, because their low power generation or height above ground level is highly unlikely to cause exposures that exceed the guidelines in areas accessible by people. PERMIT PROCESS: Wireless communication facilities (WCFs) are defined in Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.04.379. Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.42.140(B)(165) allows WCFs in all zones with the approval of a minor conditional use permit (MCUP) or a conditional use permit (CUP) and subject to this policy. New WCFs are allowed in the public right-of-way of roads (ROW) subject to the requirements of this policy and the processing requirements of Table A below. Small wireless facilities (SWFs) are WCFs that also meet the definition in FCC regulations at 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.6002(l). For WCFs and SWFs to be located in the public right-of-way of roads, which generally is not zoned, a right-of-way permit pursuant to Title 11 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code may be used as outlined in Table A – WCF and SWF Processing Requirements. Dec. 14, 2021 Item #16 Page 14 of 252Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 32 of 138 Table A – WCF and SWF Processing Requirements Category Code reference/ definition Application Review Process Coastal Zone and Coastal Development Permit (CDP) requirements Applicable Policy 64 Guidelines New WCFs on public or private property Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) Section 21.04.379 CUP or Minor CUP 1 CDP or Minor CDP required per CMC Chap. 21.201 unless specifically exempted A, B, D, and E New WCFs in the public right-of-way of roads CMC Section 21.04.379 ROW permit2, Minor CUP3 or CUP4 Exempt per CMC Section 21.201.B.115 A, B, D and E Existing WCF – Section 6409(a) eligible facilities request CMC Section 21.04.379 and 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a) Section 6409(a) worksheets Exempt per CMC Section 21.201.B.115 N/A – Policy 64 does not apply Existing WCF – Emergency Generators CMC Section 21.04.379 and Government Code Section 65850.75 Building Permit Exempt per CMC Section 21.201.B.115 N/A – Policy 64 does not apply Small Wireless Facilities (SWF) CMC Section 21.04.379 and the definition in FCC regulations at 47 C.F.R. § 1.6002(l) Within the public right- of-way of roads: Right-of- way Permit Exempt per CMC Section 21.201.B.115 C, D, and E Outside the public right- of-way of roads: MCUP Minor CDP required per CMC Chap. 21.201 unless specifically exempted5 B, C, D, and E Notes: 1. These guidelines apply in the review of CUPs or Minor CUPs for new WCFs. 2. 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 3. 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 4. 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 5. When located within the city’s jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone. Dec. 14, 2021 Item #16 Page 15 of 252Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 33 of 138 REVIEW AND APPROVAL GUIDELINES A. Location Guidelines for Placement of WCFs (excluding SWFs) 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 that alternatives in more-preferred locations are not technically feasible or potentially available as required by Application and Review Guideline E.3. 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. Dec. 14, 2021 Item #16 Page 16 of 252Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 34 of 138 5. Monopoles – No new ground-mounted WCF 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.4. B. Design Guidelines for WCFs and SWFs Outside the Public Right-Of-Way of Roads 1. Stealth Design – All aspects of WCFs and SWFs, 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, textures and materials), elements replicating natural features (e.g., trees and rocks), landscaping, and other creative means to hide or disguise the facilities. 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 or extensions to existing structures 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, design and placement should promote and enable collocation. 4. Height – facilities should adhere to the existing height limitations of the zone in which they are located. When installed on an existing structure, new facilities and collocations should not exceed the height of the existing/replacement structure on which they are being installed. 5. Setbacks – WCFs and SWFs, 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, a setback should be maintained 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, a setback should be maintained 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 decision-maker for WCFs 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 and SWFs – 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. Dec. 14, 2021 Item #16 Page 17 of 252Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 35 of 138 c. If permitted, WCFs and SWFs 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. 7. Ground-mounted Monopole WCFs – 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. Pole mounted SWFs shall comply with the Design Guidelines in section C.2 of this policy as applicable, including height limits. 9. Lattice Towers – New lattice towers should not be permitted in the city. On existing lattice towers: a. All antennas should be mounted as close as possible to the tower so they are less noticeable, and should match the color of the tower. b. Wiring must be concealed in conduit that is flush-mounted to the tower. The conduit and mounting hardware shall match the color of the tower. c. Non-antenna equipment mounted on the tower should be placed behind the antennas to conceal them from view, and should be enclosed in a cabinet that matches the color and finish of the structures on which they are mounted. Ground mounted equipment shall comply with B.2 above. 10. Undergrounding – All utilities should be placed underground. 11. Regulatory Compliance – WCFs should comply with all FCC, FAA (Federal Aviation Administration), CPUC (California Public Utilities Commission) and local zoning and building code requirements. C. Design Guidelines for WCFs and SWFs in the Public Right-of-Way of Roads The general intent of these design and development standards is to preserve the character of the city’s neighborhoods and corridors by requiring WCFs and SWFs to utilize the least intrusive design available with regard to appearance, size, and location, and to blend into the existing streetscape as much as possible. They also seek to prevent conflict with existing and planned roadway, utility, and storm drain improvements. 1. Support pole installation preferences for the right-of-way of roads Dec. 14, 2021 Item #16 Page 18 of 252Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 36 of 138 a. The city prefers WCFs and SWFs to be installed on support poles in the public rights-of- way of roads, ordered from most preferred to least preferred, as follows: (1) Existing or replacement streetlight poles. (2) Existing or replacement wood utility poles. (3) Existing or replacement traffic signal poles. (4) New, non-replacement streetlight poles. (5) New, non-replacement poles (not wood). b. The city prohibits WCFs and SWFs facilities to be installed on the following support poles or structures: (1) Signs. (2) Any utility pole scheduled for removal or relocation within 12 months from the time the approval authority acts on the small wireless facility application. (3) New, non-replacement wood poles. (4) Pieces of public art, structures placed in the in the right-of-way through charitable donations, commemorative memorial structures or archways over roads and pedestrian walkways, or other similar structures as determined by the engineering manager. c. The engineering manager shall determine whether an application for a WCF or SWF utilizes the least intrusive design available or if there is a more preferred support pole type within 500 feet of the proposed location. For purposes of these guidelines, least intrusive design available means the most preferred design or development standard as provided in these Guidelines that is technically feasible. For individual antennas, shrouds/radomes, accessory equipment, mounting brackets/attachments and any other physical aspect of a facility, the city strongly prefers the smallest such item that is technically feasible. If the application does not propose the least intrusive design, or if there is a more preferred support pole within 500 feet, the application shall provide written evidence of the following: (1) A clearly defined technical service objective (2) A technical analysis that includes the factual reasons why the least intrusive design or a more preferred support pole type within 500 feet of the proposed location is not technically feasible. 2. Requirements applicable to all WCFs and SWFs in the public right-of-way of roads a. Overall height. WCFs and SWFs mounted to existing poles shall not exceed the height of a support pole by more than five feet measured from the top of the pole, except as necessary to comply with CPUC General Order 95 relating to utility poles. Replacement poles and new non-replacement poles shall not exceed the city height standards for streetlight poles or traffic signal poles, as applicable, by more than ten percent, plus five feet for the antenna. Replacement utility poles shall not exceed ten percent of the height of the existing utility pole, plus five feet for the antenna. b. Antenna stealth/concealment. The antenna(s) associated with the installation shall be stealth to the maximum extent feasible and concealed with a radome(s), shroud(s) or other cover(s) that also conceals the cable connections, antenna mount, and other hardware. The radome, shroud or other cover must be a flat, non-reflective color to match the underlying support structure. Dec. 14, 2021 Item #16 Page 19 of 252Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 37 of 138 c. Antenna size. (1) Each antenna shall not exceed 3 cubic feet in volume. (2) Top-mount antennas (including the shroud) shall be no more than 16 inches wide when placed on light poles, and shall not exceed the width of any wooden utility pole on which they are mounted. (3) Any top-mounted antennas which are wider than the light pole on which they are mounted shall be tapered to match the width of the pole at the point of attachment to the pole. d. Equipment location. Accessory equipment may be both pole mounted and non- pole mounted. Pole mounted limits are described in Section C.2.e , the balance located according to the following preference: (1) underground, (2) above ground and screened consistent with Section C.2.f. The city’s preferences is for non-pole mounted equipment to be placed underground to the extent possible, unless the applicant demonstrates that it is technically infeasible or there are conflicts with other utilities, obstructions or it is otherwise not feasible, as determined by the engineering manager. If undergrounding is not feasible, the city prefers the equipment to be pole-mounted. e. Pole mounted equipment. (1) Design and stealth/concealment. Accessory equipment must be stealth to the maximum extent feasible and/or concealed within a cabinet or shroud, and should be flush mounted and centered on the pole, except to the extent necessary to comply with CPUC General Order 95 for wood utility poles. The installation should be designed to minimize the overall visual profile, and installations that are partially or completely wrapped around the pole are encouraged. All equipment cabinets or shrouds shall be painted to match the color of the surface of the pole on which they are attached to reduce their visibility. Equipment may be installed behind street, traffic or other signs (between the pole and sign) to the extent that the installation complies with applicable regulations. All cables and conduits associated with the equipment shall be concealed from view within the same shroud or other cover and routed directly through the pole when feasible. Microwave or other wireless backhaul shall not have a separate and unconcealed antenna. (2) Size limits. All non-antenna equipment mounted to the pole is included in the equipment volume limit. Electric meters and disconnect switches that are mounted on the pole are not included in the equipment volume limit. All pole mounted non-antenna equipment, including cabinets, shall not exceed: (a). A width of 24 inches; and (b). Nine (9) cubic feet in volume if installed within or adjacent to a residential district or within 500 feet from any structure approved for a residential use; or (c). Seventeen (17) cubic feet in volume if installed within or adjacent to a non-residential district. f. Ground mounted equipment. If underground equipment is not feasible because there are conflicts with other utilities, obstructions or it is otherwise not technically feasible, as determined by the engineering manager per section (d) above, then all above ground equipment shall be: (1) placed in a ground-mounted Dec. 14, 2021 Item #16 Page 20 of 252Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 38 of 138 equipment shroud or cabinet that contains all equipment associated with the small wireless facility 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. All ground mounted equipment shall be stealth and/or screened completely, unless it is disguised to the satisfaction of the engineering manager. Volume limits for ground-mounted equipment shall be the same as applicable to pole-mounted equipment. The engineering manager may elect to waive volumetric limits for equipment that is installed or placed underground. g. All equipment associated with the WCF or SWF shall be located so as to avoid impacts to pedestrian access and vehicular site distance and safety. Pole mounted equipment should be mounted a minimum of eight feet above grade. h. To reduce clutter and deter vandalism, excess fiber optic or coaxial cables shall not be spooled, coiled, or otherwise stored on the pole unless concealed within a cabinet. i. If the proposed WCF or SWF would damage or displace any street trees or trees on public property, the applicant shall comply with CMC Chapter 11.12 and City Council Policy No. 4 and will be responsible for planting replacement trees to the satisfaction of the Parks & Recreation Director or designee. j. If an applicant proposes to replace a streetlight pole, the replacement pole should be substantially similar to the existing pole and comply with city standards and specifications for streetlight poles. 3. Supplemental requirements for WCFs and SWFs on New Poles for the right-of-way of roads a. All WCFs on new poles require a CUP by Process 2. b. 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: i. A minimum of 50-feet from the extension of the curb of the intersecting street at intersections. Distances of less than 50-feet may be allowed through approval of the engineering manager and the city traffic engineer; ii. Six feet from any driveway cut or alley entrance or exit; iii. 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 café enclosures. c. 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. d. The city may require the applicant to install a stealth pole, which may include without limitation 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. Dec. 14, 2021 Item #16 Page 21 of 252Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 39 of 138 e. The city will consider new pole designs proposed by an applicant if they meet the intent of this policy for stealth and attractive designs that adequately conceal equipment, as determined by the engineering manager. If a new pole without a streetlight is proposed, antennas and all equipment not installed underground must be concealed and integrated into the overall design of the pole, no exterior equipment boxes or shrouds attached to the pole will be permitted. 4. Areas with decorative streetlight poles. a. Replacement poles and new non-replacement poles installed within the following areas shall be substantially similar in color, style and design to the existing decorative streetlights, as determined by the engineering manager in consultation with the city planner. Poles in each area shall use a single consistent design theme to maintain the existing character established by existing streetlights: (1) Carlsbad Village (2) Villages of La Costa Master Plan (3) Bressi Ranch Master Plan (4) La Costa Master Plan (MP 149) (5) Various roads including El Camino Real and Aviara Parkway that utilize the mission bell streetlight design (6) Any other areas as determined by the city planner or engineering manager 5. Supplemental requirements for WCFs and SWFs on existing wood utility poles. a. All antennas must be installed within a radome, shroud or other cover mounted to the pole at the top, side, or on a stand-off bracket or extension arm that is attached to the pole. The city’s preference is for side-mounted antennas located in the communications space below the electric lines.2 b. All cables, wires and other connectors must be concealed within the antenna shroud, stand-off bracket/extension arm and conduit that is flush-mounted to the pole to the maximum extent feasible and of the smallest diameter and shortest length necessary to serve the facility. No loose, exposed, or dangling wiring or cables shall be allowed. c. All shrouds, conduit or other items stealth/concealing antennas, equipment and wires shall be painted to match the color of the pole. 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 2 Strand-mount antennas are also considered a preferred installation type. Dec. 14, 2021 Item #16 Page 22 of 252Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 40 of 138 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 laws and FCC RF Exposure Guidelines – The permittee shall maintain compliance at all times with all federal, state and local statutes, regulations, orders or other rules that carry the force of law (“laws”) applicable to the permittee, the subject property, the WCR, SWF or other infrastructure deployment or any use or activities in connection with the use authorized by a required permit, which includes without limitation any laws applicable to human exposure to RF emissions and any standards, specifications or other requirements identified by the city planner or engineering manager (such as, without limitation, those requirements affixed to a required permit). If the city planner or engineering manager finds good cause to believe that the facility is not in compliance with any laws applicable to human exposure to RF emissions, the city planner or engineering manager may require the permittee to submit a written report certified by a qualified radio frequency engineer familiar with the facility that certifies that the facility is in compliance with all such laws. The city planner or engineering manager may order the facility to be powered down if, based on objective evidence, the city planner or engineering manager finds that the facility is in fact not in compliance with any laws applicable to human exposure to RF emissions until such time that the permittee demonstrates actual compliance with such laws. The permittee expressly acknowledges and agrees that this obligation is intended to be broadly construed and that no other specific requirements in these conditions are intended to reduce, relieve or otherwise lessen the permittee’s obligations to maintain compliance with all laws. No failure or omission by the City to timely notice, prompt or enforce compliance with any applicable provision in the Carlsbad Municipal Code, this Policy, any permit, any permit condition or any applicable law or regulation, shall be deemed to relieve, waive or lessen the permittee’s obligation to comply in all respects with all applicable provisions in the Carlsbad Municipal Code, this Policy, any permit, any permit condition or any applicable law or regulation. . 6. Abandonment of antennas and equipment- Any WCF or SWF 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 facility owner must remove the facility and restore the site, as much as is reasonable and practical, to its prior condition. If such facility is not removed within the 90 days, the facility 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 Dec. 14, 2021 Item #16 Page 23 of 252Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 41 of 138 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. Application requirements for WCFs. In addition to the typical submittal requirements for a CUP or Minor CUP (see Planning Division Form P-2), right-of-way permit or building permit (including plans, landscape details, and color and material samples, as appropriate), all WCF applications shall include the following items: a. A description of the site selection process undertaken for the WCF proposed. Technical service 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. The applicant shall submit an RF exposure compliance report that certifies that the proposed facility, both individually and cumulatively as applicable under 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(b)(5), will comply with applicable federal RF exposure standards and exposure limits. 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 or engineering manager may waive the requirement to provide the exhibits if he/she determines they are unnecessary. f. Provide confirmation that an environmental assessment, or other application determination, has been completed by or on behalf of the FCC for any facility proposed in a location identified in 47 C.F.R. 1.307 (including a floodplain) or as otherwise required by National Environmental Policy Act or the National Historic Preservation Act. 2. Application requirements for SWFs. In addition to the typical submittal requirements for a right-of-way permit or building permit (including plans, landscape details, and color and material samples, as appropriate), all SWF applications shall include the following items: a. A description of the wireless system proposed (e.g., cellular, PCS, etc.) and its consumer features (e.g., voice, video, and data transmissions). b. For new poles that are least preferred, a description of the site selection process undertaken for the proposed SWF. A technical service objective and the reasons for selecting the proposed site and rejecting other sites should be provided. c. Verification that the proposed SWF 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). The applicant shall submit an RF exposure compliance report that certifies that the proposed facility, both individually and cumulatively as Dec. 14, 2021 Item #16 Page 24 of 252Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 42 of 138 applicable under 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(b)(5), will comply with applicable federal RF exposure standards and exposure limits. d. 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 or engineering manager may waive the requirement to provide the exhibits if he/she determines they are unnecessary. e. Environmental impact assessment form to determine whether the proposed project is categorically exempt under Article 19 of the CEQA Guidelines, or whether the proposed project will require a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report. In addition, provide confirmation that an environmental assessment, or other application determination, has been completed by or on behalf of the FCC for any facility proposed in a location identified in 47 C.F.R. 1.307 (including a floodplain) or as otherwise required by National Environmental Policy Act or the National Historic Preservation Act. 3. For WCFs proposed in a zone or area that is a discouraged WCF location as listed in Location Guideline A.2., the applicant shall provide evidence that no location in a preferred zone or area as listed in Location Guideline A.1. is technically feasible or potentially available to 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. 4. For proposed new ground-mounted monopole WCFs, the applicant shall 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. 5. In approving a WCF or SWF, the decision-maker (Planning Commission, city planner or engineering manager) shall make the findings in Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.42.020 if applicable, and shall give consideration to 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. Dec. 14, 2021 Item #16 Page 25 of 252Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 43 of 138 h. Availability of other facilities and buildings for collocation. 6. Conditional Use Permits (CUPs)/Minor CUPs 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 or Minor CUP, the WCF will 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 will review the appropriateness of the existing facility’s design, and that the applicant documented 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. 7. Collocation for WCFs. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65850.6, qualifying collocation facilities for WCFs shall not be approved with a conditional use permit or conditional use permit amendment. This section does not apply to SWFs. a. For the purposes of collocation, the following definitions apply: (1) “Collocation facility” means the placement or installation of WCFs, including antennas, and related equipment, on or immediately adjacent to, a wireless telecommunications collocation facility. (2) “Wireless telecommunications facility” means equipment and network emergency power systems that are integral to providing wireless telecommunications services. (3) “Wireless telecommunications collocation facility” or “WTCF” means a wireless telecommunications facility that includes Collocation facilities. b. A building permit shall be required for a proposed WCF Collocation facility which will be placed on a previously approved WTCF provided that: (1) The new WCF Collocation facility is consistent with requirements for the existing WTCF installation; and (2) The modification of an existing wireless tower or base station does not physically change the dimensions of such tower or base station. c. 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. d. 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. 8. Applications from a single provider of wireless communication services for up to 10 SWF permits may be batched and processed together. A single provider may not submit more than one batch of applications at one time. Batched applications will only be accepted prior to 4:00pm Monday through Thursday. Dec. 14, 2021 Item #16 Page 26 of 252Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 44 of 138 9. Applications must be submitted in-person and with an appointment. Application materials delivered by U.S. mail or other delivery service will not be processed and do not constitute a submitted and duly filed application. An application is not considered duly filed and submitted unless it is provided in-person to a representative of the Community Development Department and assigned a case number or permit number as appropriate. 10. SWFs that propose to use an existing pole, replacement pole or other existing structure shall be required to provide authorization from the pole or structure owner. Authorization may include signatures, letters, agreements or other similar methods acceptable to the city planner or engineering manager. Authorization from the owner in connection with joint utility poles may be evidenced by documentation that shows that authorization has been granted in accordance with the joint pole committee’s rules, which may include authorization deemed granted by lapse of time. 11. Exceptions to this policy. The city may grant an exception to the requirements of this policy but only to the extent necessary to avoid conflict with applicable federal or state law. When the applicant requests an exception, the approval authority shall consider the findings in subsection (a) of this section. Each exception is specific to the facts and circumstances in connection with each application. An exception granted in one instance shall not be deemed to create a presumption or expectation that an exception will be granted in any other instance. a. The decision maker may grant an exception to any provision or requirement in this policy only if the decision maker finds that: (1) A denial based on the application’s noncompliance with a specific provision or requirement would violate federal law, state law or both; or (2) A provision in this policy, as applied to the applicant, would violate any rights or privileges conferred on the applicant by federal or state law. b. If the decision maker finds that an exception should be granted, the exception shall be narrowly tailored so that the exception deviates from this policy to least extent necessary for compliance with federal or state law. c. The applicant shall have the burden to prove to the decision maker that an exception should be granted pursuant to this section. The standard of evidence shall be the same as required by applicable federal or state law for the issue raised in the applicant’s request for an exception. 12. Pre-Application Meetings. Federal laws and policies establish time limitations (referred to as a “shot clock”) related to processing of all types of WCFs and SWFs permits. The city is required to act on a WCF or SWF permit within the established shot clock timeframes. Pre-application meetings are strongly encouraged in order to ensure that proposed facilities comply with the requirements of these Guidelines and that application materials include adequate and accurate information. A pre-application meeting is voluntary and is intended to streamline the review process through informal discussion between the potential applicant and staff that includes, without limitation, the appropriate project classification and review process; any latent issues in connection with the proposed project, including compliance with generally applicable rules for public health and safety; potential concealment issues or concerns (if applicable); coordination with other city Dec. 14, 2021 Item #16 Page 27 of 252Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 45 of 138 departments responsible for application review; and any foreseen application completeness issues. 13. Pre-approved designs. To expedite the review process, encourage collaborative designs among applicants and the city, and ensure cohesive and high-quality designs for new or replacement poles in areas such as those with decorative streetlights, the engineering manager in consultation with the city planner, may designate one or more pre-approved designs for small wireless facilities and other infrastructure deployments. a. Any applicant may propose a design for consideration as a pre-approved design. The city may, in its discretion, establish a pre-approved design when the proposed pre-approved design exceeds the design guidelines in this policy. b. The city may modify or repeal any pre-approved design by written notice to any applicants who have used the pre-approved design, and by posting the notice at the Land Use Engineering counter. The modification or repeal shall be effective immediately. c. Any applicant may propose to use any pre-approved design whether the applicant initially requested that the city adopt such pre-approved design or not. The city’s decision to adopt a preapproved design expresses no preference or requirement that applicants use the specific vendor or manufacturer that fabricated the design depicted in the pre-approved plans. Any other vendor or manufacturer that fabricates a facility to the standards and specifications in the pre-approved design with like materials, finishes and overall quality shall be acceptable as a pre-approved design. 14. A master license agreement or other authorization is required prior to permit submittals for WCF or SWF installations that will locate on city-owned property or facilities. 15. At the time of filing the application, the applicant shall pay all applicable fees contained in the most recent fee schedule adopted by the city council. 16. An applicant may voluntarily elect to defer submittal of any permit or agreement which is otherwise required as part of a whole application. The voluntary deferral of any such permit or agreement shall toll the shot clock on that item. Once the voluntarily deferred item is received, the city will provide comments on any deferred submittal in the same manner as if it was a new application. The city will continue to process all other permits and agreements that are not deferred. SEVERABILITY: If any sections, subsections, sentence, clause, or phrase of the policy is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision or legislation of any court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of preemptive legislation, such decision or legislation shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the policy. The City Council declares that it would have approved this policy, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more of the sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases thereof is declared invalid or unconstitutional. These Guidelines have been adopted, and may be amended, by resolution of the City Council. Revisions to address clerical errors may be made administratively by the Director of Community Development. Dec. 14, 2021 Item #16 Page 28 of 252Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 46 of 138 10590 WEST OCEAN AIR DRIVE / SUITE 300 / SAN DIEGO, CA 92130 May 1, 2023 To: From: City of Carlsbad Harold Thomas Jr, MD7,LLC Planning Development Services obo. AT&T Wireless Department 10590 W. Ocean Air Drive, Suite 250 1635 Faraday Ave., San Diego, CA 92130 Carlsbad, CA 92008 (858) 750- 1798 hthomasjr@md7.com Alterna�ve Site Analysis Report Development Approval for a New Wireless Telecommunica�on Facility Project Descrip�on: AT&T is seeking Development Approval to allow for the construc�on of a new Telecommunica�ons facility to be located at 6600 Hidden Valley Rd., Carlsbad, CA 92011. The APN for the address is 214-140-13-00 and within an OS zone in the Hidden Valley Road Community. The proposed facility will be a 78-foot-tall light pole that will replace the (e) light pole C3. AT&T aims to establish compliance by insta�ng en�tlements for this facility following the guidelines outlined by the city. This proposed facility will also meet all guidelines and regula�ons that the FCC has outlined for telecommunica�ons facili�es. AT&T has also looked for viable alterna�ves in both design and loca�on to ensure that the facility best supports the community. We will be installing the 78-foot-tall tower along with an 8- foot-high CMU wall equipment enclosure. As well as the installa�on of: (2) panel antennas per sector for a total of (6), (9) Remote Radio Units, (3) surge protectors at the antenna area, (2) surge protectors in equipment enclosure area, (1) VERTIV DC Power Cabinet, (2) Purcell Cabinets, (1) GPS Antenna, (1) Generator, (2) Fiber Cable Trunks and (9) DC power cable trunks. Along with the installa�on of a Telco / Fiber Service, and a 200A Electrical Power Service. Candidate #1 - Industrial When evalua�ng poten�al candidates to build a cell tower, AT&T sought to establish a tower within one of the City of Carlsbad’s preferred zones. Beginning with an industrial zone, as the primary target. However, as we were researching thorough the city’s, city map, we were unable to locate an industrial zone where our tower would be suitable. This is largely because, loca�ons in industrial zones had dependable coverage. As a result, we were unable to proceed further with the establishment of a cell site. Exhibit 6 Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 47 of 138 10590 WEST OCEAN AIR DRIVE / SUITE 300 / SAN DIEGO, CA 92130 Candidate #2 - Commercial AT&T had considered a site located at 901 Palomar Airport Road. With the site being in a C-T-Q zone, AT&T would be within one of the ci�es preferred zones for wireless telecommunica�on facili�es. The proximity of the freeway along with the local businesses were appealing, as the facility would be able to provide them with dependable coverage. However, upon further review of the site the loca�on of the project was no longer feasible. There was no feasible loca�on as to where we could have placed our facility due to there being no room on the site. A roo�op facility was also proposed as an op�on for the site, however the property owner ul�mately declined. In addi�on, when comparing differences in eleva�on, this site would have been lower than the proposed site by 73 feet. This would compromise and strain the coverage even further. A�er much discussion, AT&T withdrew interest in proceeding forward with the site. Candidate #3 - Other non-residential zones, except open space AT&T had also considered, when establishing a cell site would have been at the Carlsbad Car Rental Center at 6030 Avenida Encinas Suite E. As we looked at this site, it looked promising as it was s�ll within the top sites that the city would prefer for a cell site to be located. During our outreach we proposed our ini�al idea to the property owner. However, despite nego�a�ons they property owner was not interested in having a cell site on their property. In addi�on to the coverage report maps, produced by our RF engineer, establishing a site at this loca�on would not have been the best use of resources. As this loca�on had a fair amount of exis�ng coverage. Thereby adding a site here would have, done litle to improve an already fair amount of coverage. In turn, having a cell site established for the sake of having a site. Candidate #4 – Public right-of-way of roads adjacent to industrial and commercial zones The next site that AT&T was considering was located at parcel number 214-010-95-00. With the site being located within a P.U. (public u�lity) zone, AT&T would be within one of the ci�es preferred zones for wireless telecommunica�ons facili�es. Similar to the previous site this loca�on, this site would have been located near the San Diego Freeway. Unlike the previous candidate, this loca�on provided various places to where we would be able to construct our standalone structure. As a result, we brought our proposal to the property owner. However, we were unable to proceed with the candidate. The property owner declined our proposal as they were uninterested in having a cell tower at their site. Candidate #5 – Public Property (i.e City Facilities) not in residential areas AT&T had also considered placing a facility at Aviara Community Park as a poten�al candidate for the cell tower. Like the loca�on that we are proposing, this park is a city owned property. While this site garnered some interest, we were unable to pursue this site as a viable candidate. Upon review of our coverage maps as provided by the RF engineer, this area was already doing fairly well in coverage. Therefore, if we were to proceed to establish a site here it would not be mee�ng any objec�ve in assis�ng the community. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 48 of 138 Candidate #6 - Major power transmission towers in non-resident AT&T had also sought to collocate onto an exis�ng facility located at 5800 The Crossings Dr. The site would have been located within a preferred zone and would have been a city owned property as well. However, like the previous sites, the site would have been in a site that was doing well in coverage. This site would have been located outside of the Target Area that AT&T had established when determining viable candidate op�ons. As a result we were unable to proceed with this site as a viable op�on. Candidate #7 – Public and private utility installations (not publicly accessible) in residential and open spaces (i.e water tanks, reservoirs, or the existing communication towers near Maerkle River AT&T had also sought opportuni�es to locate onto a private u�lity installa�on located at 705 Palomar Airport Rd. Similar to candidate 4 this site would have been located near the I-5 Freeway. The site was located towards the edges of the desired Target search area; however, it was a viable candidate for a cell tower. However, upon further review of the site, we were unable to proceed with the site as a viable candidate. Given how close the site would have been to the shoreline, there would have been an eleva�onal disadvantage than the proposed site loca�on. Where Poinse�a Park has an eleva�on of 175 feet, this loca�on has an eleva�on of roughly 63-feet. With a significant eleva�onal disadvantage of a litle over half, we were unable to proceed with this site as a viable candidate. Alternate Site #8 – Public right-of-way of roads adjacent to residential zones AT&T had also sought opportuni�es to locate onto a public right-of-way road, along Paseo El Norte. This loca�on would have closer within the target area. However, this site would not have been a viable op�on as the loca�on also presented eleva�onal disadvantage. The proposed site has an elevation of 168 compared to the 63-foot elevation that we would have if we moved to the roadway along Paseo El Norte. Leading to a 105 foot disadvantage. Therefore we were unable to proceed with this location. Conclusion AT&T chose the site at 6600 Hidden Valley Road for numerous factors. The proposed site was located within an open space zone. This site also provided the possibility of a stealth design; an aspect that was not easily available with the previous sites. With every proposed site AT&T wanted to ensure that any structure they produced, would serve to its maximum poten�al. That whatever height was proposed, it would be to a height that would integrate to the exis�ng landscape to avoid distrac�on and serve to its poten�al, and not for greed. As we evaluated the area, we no�ced the exis�ng light poles and sought a design that would integrate with the exis�ng features in the area. Before we decided to proceed with this candidate, we contacted City of Carlsbad to present our proposal. As we presented our proposal, and how it would be beneficial to the community. In addi�on, the tower would implement a stealth design. The Na�onal Ins�tute of Health’s Wireless Subs�tu�on Report for the second half of 2020 es�mates that 65.3% of adults and 75.5% of children live in wireless- only homes (htps://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/wireless202108-508.pdf), and it is es�mated that in many areas of the US, 80% or more of 911 calls are made from a wireless device (htps://www.nena.org/page/911Sta�s�cs). Enhanced wireless also allows businesses to flourish, from being able to have a media presence to person-to-person sales and banking apps that are common on smartphones. While AT&T prides itself on providing dependable 10590 WEST OCEAN AIR DRIVE / SUITE 300 / SAN DIEGO, CA 92130 Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 49 of 138 10590 WEST OCEAN AIR DRIVE / SUITE 300 / SAN DIEGO, CA 92130 connec�vity, in a manner that respects the landscape and is beneficial for residents. Our site will be able to best serve: the neighboring residences, Poinse�a Kinder Care and Pacific Rim Elementary School, Carlsbad Fire Sta�on 4, and nearby local businesses. Our site will allow people to work remotely from home because it can enhance connec�vity through phone hotspots if service is dependable. This is less �me on the road, greater flexibility, and a consistent connec�ve source. When we created our coverage map, our priority was to ensure that the height and loca�on we chose, will be following the exis�ng standards governing health safety, and welfare. The facility will be engineered and constructed in accordance the standards in effect at the �me of building permit applica�on, including current building, fire, energy, mechanical and structural codes. The city will have the opportunity to review plans and verify the correct standards are applied. Candidate(s) Loca�on Site Map Coverage Map Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 50 of 138 10590 WEST OCEAN AIR DRIVE / SUITE 300 / SAN DIEGO, CA 92130 Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 51 of 138 10590 WEST OCEAN AIR DRIVE / SUITE 300 / SAN DIEGO, CA 92130 Please let me know if you have any ques�ons or concerns. Best, Harold Thomas Jr Land Use-I hthomasjr@md7.com (858) 750-1798 Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 52 of 138 Solutions Done Right MANAGEMENT GROUP TELECOM Solutions Done Right MANAGEMENT GROUP TELECOM6600 "A" HIDDEN VALLEY RD., CARLSBAD, CA 92011 CAL01850 POINSETTIA PARK SITESITE LOCATION Hi d d e n v a l l e y R d VIEW 1 VIEW 4 VIEW 2 VIEW 3 Beacon Bay Dr Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 53 of 138 SOUTHEAST VIEW LOOKING NORTHWEST (E) ±78'-0" HIGH LIGHT POLE TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED (E) LIGHTING FIXTURES TO BE RELOCATED (E) TRASH ENCLOSURE TO BE REMOVED Solutions Done Right MANAGEMENT GROUP TELECOM Solutions Done Right MANAGEMENT GROUP TELECOM6600 "A" HIDDEN VALLEY RD., CARLSBAD, CA 92011 CAL01850 POINSETTIA PARK VIEW 1 EXISTING PROPOSED (N) AT&T PANEL ANTENNAS WITHIN THE (N) 4'-0"Ø CYLINDRICAL SHROUD, MOUNTED TO THE (N) POLE RELOCATED (E) LIGHTING FIXTURES (N) ±78'-0" HIGH LIGHT POLE (N) AT&T 8'-0" HIGH CMU WALL ENCLOSURE, COLOR AND TEXTURE MATCHING THE ADJACENT (E) MAINTENANCE BUILDING Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 54 of 138 SOUTH VIEW LOOKING NORTH Solutions Done Right MANAGEMENT GROUP TELECOM Solutions Done Right MANAGEMENT GROUP TELECOM6600 "A" HIDDEN VALLEY RD., CARLSBAD, CA 92011 CAL01850 POINSETTIA PARK VIEW 2 EXISTING PROPOSED (E) LIGHTING FIXTURES TO BE RELOCATED RELOCATED (E) LIGHTING FIXTURES (N) ±78'-0" HIGH LIGHT POLE (N) AT&T 8'-0" HIGH CMU WALL ENCLOSURE, COLOR AND TEXTURE MATCHING THE ADJACENT (E) MAINTENANCE BUILDING (N) AT&T PANEL ANTENNAS WITHIN THE (N) 4'-0"Ø CYLINDRICAL SHROUD, MOUNTED TO THE (N) POLE (E) ±78'-0" HIGH LIGHT POLE TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED (E) TRASH ENCLOSURE TO BE REMOVED Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 55 of 138 WEST VIEW LOOKING EAST Solutions Done Right MANAGEMENT GROUP TELECOM Solutions Done Right MANAGEMENT GROUP TELECOM6600 "A" HIDDEN VALLEY RD., CARLSBAD, CA 92011 CAL01850 POINSETTIA PARK VIEW 3 EXISTING PROPOSED (E) LIGHTING FIXTURES TO BE RELOCATED RELOCATED (E) LIGHTING FIXTURES (N) ±78'-0" HIGH LIGHT POLE (N) AT&T PANEL ANTENNAS WITHIN THE (N) 4'-0"Ø CYLINDRICAL SHROUD, MOUNTED TO THE (N) POLE (E) ±78'-0" HIGH LIGHT POLE TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 56 of 138 EAST VIEW LOOKING WEST Solutions Done Right MANAGEMENT GROUP TELECOM Solutions Done Right MANAGEMENT GROUP TELECOM6600 "A" HIDDEN VALLEY RD., CARLSBAD, CA 92011 CAL01850 POINSETTIA PARK VIEW 4 EXISTING PROPOSED (E) LIGHTING FIXTURES TO BE RELOCATED RELOCATED (E) LIGHTING FIXTURES (N) ±78'-0" HIGH LIGHT POLE (N) AT&T 8'-0" HIGH CMU WALL ENCLOSURE, COLOR AND TEXTURE MATCHING THE ADJACENT (E) MAINTENANCE BUILDING (N) AT&T PANEL ANTENNAS WITHIN THE (N) 4'-0"Ø CYLINDRICAL SHROUD, MOUNTED TO THE (N) POLE (E) ±78'-0" HIGH LIGHT POLE TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED (E) TRASH ENCLOSURE TO BE REMOVED Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 57 of 138 Radio Frequency – Electromagnetic Energy (RF-EME) Jurisdictional Report Site Name: FA#: USID: Site ID: Address: Latitude: Longitude: Structure Type: RFDS ID: RFDS Technology: EBI Project Number: Report Date: Pace Job: Poinsettia Park 14292179 321857 CAL01850 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Road Carlsbad, California 92011 San Diego County 33.11390200 NAD83 -117.30756700 NAD83 Light Pole 5662803 eNode B 6222005431 October 25, 2023 MRSDL022412, MRSDL028406, MRSDL028395, MRSDL022409, MRSDL018605, MRSDL040392, MRSDL040393 The proposed AT&T installation will be in compliance with FCC regulations upon proper installation of recommended signage. Prepared for: AT&T Mobility, LLC c/o MD7, LLC 10590 West Ocean Air Drive, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92130 Prepared by: Exhibit 8 Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 58 of 138 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 321857 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 i TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.0 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (FCC) REQUIREMENTS ................................... 3 2.0 AT&T RF EXPOSURE POLICY REQUIREMENTS .................................................................... 5 3.0 WORST-CASE PREDICTIVE MODELING ................................................................................. 5 4.0 RECOMMENDED SIGNAGE/COMPLIANCE PLAN .................................................................... 7 5.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................. 8 6.0 LIMITATIONS ......................................................................................................................... 8 APPENDICES Appendix A Personnel Certifications Appendix B Compliance/Signage Plan Appendix C Antenna Inventory Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 59 of 138 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 321857 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Purpose of Report EnviroBusiness Inc. (dba EBI Consulting) has been contracted by AT&T Mobility, LLC to conduct radio frequency electromagnetic (RF-EME) modeling for AT&T Site CAL01850 located at 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Road in Carlsbad, California to determine RF-EME exposure levels from proposed AT&T wireless communications equipment at this site. As described in greater detail in Section 1.0 of this report, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has developed Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) Limits for general public exposures and occupational exposures. This report summarizes the results of RF-EME modeling in relation to relevant FCC RF-EME compliance standards for limiting human exposure to RF-EME fields. This report contains the RF EME analysis for the site, including the following: ▪ Site Plan with antenna locations ▪ Graphical representation of theoretical MPE fields based on modeling ▪ Graphical representation of recommended signage and/or barriers This document addresses the compliance of AT&T’s transmitting facilities independently and in relation to all collocated facilities at the site. Statement of Compliance A site is considered out of compliance with FCC regulations if there are areas that exceed the FCC exposure limits and there are no RF hazard mitigation measures in place. Any carrier which has an installation that contributes more than 5% of the applicable MPE must participate in mitigating these RF hazards. As presented in the sections below, based on worst-case predictive modeling, there are no modeled exposures on any accessible light fixture level and ground walking/working surface related to ATT’s proposed antennas that exceed the FCC’s occupational and/or general public exposure limits at this site. As such, the proposed AT&T installation is in compliance with FCC regulations upon proper installation of recommended signage and/or barriers. AT&T Recommended Signage/Compliance Plan AT&T’s RF Exposure: Responsibilities, Procedures & Guidelines document, dated October 28, 2014, requires that: 1. All sites must be analyzed for RF exposure compliance; 2. All sites must have that analysis documented; and 3. All sites must have any necessary signage and barriers installed. Site compliance recommendations have been developed based upon protocols presented in AT&T’s RF Exposure: Responsibilities, Procedures & Guidelines document, dated October 28, 2014, additional guidance provided by AT&T, EBI’s understanding of FCC and OSHA requirements, and common industry practice. Barrier locations have been identified (when required) based on guidance presented in AT&T’s RF Exposure: Responsibilities, Procedures & Guidelines document, dated October 28, 2014. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 60 of 138 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 321857 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 2 The following signage is recommended at this site: ▪ Yellow 7 by 7 inch CAUTION signs on opposite sides of the light pole, 6 feet below the bottom of the antennas. Signs should denote a stay-back distance of 44 feet from the face of the antennas. The signage proposed for installation at this site complies with AT&T’s RF Exposure: Responsibilities, Procedures & Guidelines document and therefore complies with FCC and OSHA requirements. Barriers are not recommended on this site. To reduce the risk of exposure and/or injury, EBI recommends that access to the light pole or areas associated with the active antenna installation be restricted and secured where possible. More detailed information concerning site compliance recommendations is presented in Section 4.0 and Appendix B of this report. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 61 of 138 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 321857 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 3 1.0 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (FCC) REQUIREMENTS The FCC has established Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) limits for human exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic (RF-EME) energy fields, based on exposure limits recommended by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) and, over a wide range of frequencies, the exposure limits developed by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) and adopted by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) to replace the 1982 ANSI guidelines. Limits for localized absorption are based on recommendations of both ANSI/IEEE and NCRP. The FCC guidelines incorporate two separate tiers of exposure limits that are based upon occupational/controlled exposure limits (for workers) and general public/uncontrolled exposure limits for members of the general public. Occupational/controlled exposure limits apply to situations in which persons are exposed as a consequence of their employment and in which those persons who are exposed have been made fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over their exposure. Occupational/ controlled exposure limits also apply where exposure is of a transient nature as a result of incidental passage through a location where exposure levels may be above general public/uncontrolled limits (see below), as long as the exposed person has been made fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over his or her exposure by leaving the area or by some other appropriate means. General public/uncontrolled exposure limits apply to situations in which the general public may be exposed or in which persons who are exposed as a consequence of their employment may not be made fully aware of the potential for exposure or cannot exercise control over their exposure. Therefore, members of the general public would always be considered under this category when exposure is not employment-related, for example, in the case of a telecommunications tower that exposes persons in a nearby residential area. Table 1 and Figure 1 (below), which are included within the FCC’s OET Bulletin 65, summarize the MPE limits for RF emissions. These limits are designed to provide a substantial margin of safety. They vary by frequency to take into account the different types of equipment that may be in operation at a particular facility and are “time-averaged” limits to reflect different durations resulting from controlled and uncontrolled exposures. The FCC’s MPEs are measured in terms of power (mW) over a unit surface area (cm2). Known as the power density, the FCC has established an occupational MPE of 5 milliwatts per square centimeter (mW/cm2) and an uncontrolled MPE of 1 mW/cm2 for equipment operating in the 1900 MHz frequency range. For the AT&T equipment operating at 850 MHz, the FCC’s occupational MPE is 2.83 mW/cm2 and an uncontrolled MPE of 0.57 mW/cm2. For the AT&T equipment operating at 700 MHz, the FCC’s occupational MPE is 2.33 mW/cm2 and an uncontrolled MPE of 0.47 mW/cm2. These limits are considered protective of these populations. Table 1: Limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) (A) Limits for Occupational/Controlled Exposure Frequency Range (MHz) Electric Field Strength (E) (V/m) Magnetic Field Strength (H) (A/m) Power Density (S) (mW/cm2) Averaging Time [E]2, [H]2, or S (minutes) 0.3-3.0 614 1.63 (100)* 6 3.0-30 1842/f 4.89/f (900/f2)* 6 30-300 61.4 0.163 1.0 6 300-I,500 -- -- f/300 6 1,500-100,000 -- -- 5 6 Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 62 of 138 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 321857 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 4 (B) Limits for General Public/Uncontrolled Exposure Frequency Range (MHz) Electric Field Strength (E) (V/m) Magnetic Field Strength (H) (A/m) Power Density (S) (mW/cm2) Averaging Time [E]2, [H]2, or S (minutes) 0.3-1.34 614 1.63 (100)* 30 1.34-30 824/f 2.19/f (180/f2)* 30 30-300 27.5 0.073 0.2 30 300-I,500 -- -- f/1,500 30 1,500-100,000 -- -- 1.0 30 f = Frequency in (MHz) * Plane-wave equivalent power density Based on the above, the most restrictive thresholds for exposures of unlimited duration to RF energy for several personal wireless services are summarized below: Personal Wireless Service Approximate Frequency Occupational MPE Public MPE Microwave (Point-to-Point) 5,000 - 80,000 MHz 5.00 mW/cm2 1.00 mW/cm2 Broadband Radio (BRS) 2,600 MHz 5.00 mW/cm2 1.00 mW/cm2 Wireless Communication (WCS) 2,300 MHz 5.00 mW/cm2 1.00 mW/cm2 Advanced Wireless (AWS) 2,100 MHz 5.00 mW/cm2 1.00 mW/cm2 Personal Communication (PCS) 1,950 MHz 5.00 mW/cm2 1.00 mW/cm2 Cellular Telephone 870 MHz 2.90 mW/cm2 0.58 mW/cm2 Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) 855 MHz 2.85 mW/cm2 0.57 mW/cm2 Long Term Evolution (LTE) 700 MHz 2.33 mW/cm2 0.47 mW/cm2 Most Restrictive Frequency Range 30-300 MHz 1.00 mW/cm2 0.20 mW/cm2 MPE limits are designed to provide a substantial margin of safety. These limits apply for continuous exposures and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. Po w e r D e n s i t y ( m W / c m 2) Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 63 of 138 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 321857 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 5 Personal Communication (PCS) facilities used by AT&T in this area operate within a frequency range of 700-1900 MHz. Facilities typically consist of: 1) electronic transceivers (the radios or cabinets) connected to wired telephone lines; and 2) antennas that send the wireless signals created by the transceivers to be received by individual subscriber units (PCS telephones). Transceivers are typically connected to antennas by coaxial cables. Because of the short wavelength of PCS services, the antennas require line-of-site paths for good propagation, and are typically installed above ground level. Antennas are constructed to concentrate energy towards the horizon, with as little energy as possible scattered towards the ground or the sky. This design, combined with the low power of PCS facilities, generally results in no possibility for exposure to approach Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) levels, with the exception of areas directly in front of the antennas. 2.0 AT&T RF EXPOSURE POLICY REQUIREMENTS AT&T’s RF Exposure: Responsibilities, Procedures & Guidelines document, dated October 28, 2014, requires that: 1. All sites must be analyzed for RF exposure compliance; 2. All sites must have that analysis documented; and 3. All sites must have any necessary signage and barriers installed. Pursuant to this guidance, worst-case predictive modeling was performed for the site. This modeling is described below in Section 3.0. Lastly, based on the modeling and survey data, EBI has produced a Compliance Plan for this site that outlines the recommended signage and barriers. The recommended Compliance Plan for this site is described in Section 4.0. 3.0 WORST-CASE PREDICTIVE MODELING In accordance with AT&T’s RF Exposure policy, EBI performed theoretical modeling using RoofMaster™ software to estimate the worst-case power density at the site light fixture level and ground-level and/or nearby rooftops resulting from operation of the antennas. RoofMaster™ is a widely-used predictive modeling program that has been developed to predict RF power density values for rooftop and tower telecommunications sites produced by vertical collinear antennas that are typically used in the cellular, PCS, paging and other communications services. Using the computational methods set forth in Federal Communications (FCC) Office of Engineering & Technology (OET) Bulletin 65, “Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields” (OET-65), RoofMaster™ calculates predicted power density in a scalable grid based on the contributions of all RF sources characterized in the study scenario. At each grid location, the cumulative power density is expressed as a percentage of the FCC limits. Manufacturer antenna pattern data is utilized in these calculations. RoofMaster™ models consist of the Far Field model as specified in OET-65 and an implementation of the OET-65 Cylindrical Model (Sula9). The models utilize several operational specifications for different types of antennas to produce a plot of spatially-averaged power densities that can be expressed as a percentage of the applicable exposure limit. A statistical power factor may be applied to the antenna system based on guidance from the carrier and system manufacturers. For this report, EBI utilized antenna and power data provided by AT&T and compared the resultant worst-case MPE levels to the FCC’s occupational/controlled exposure limits outlined in OET Bulletin 65. The assumptions used in the modeling are based upon information provided by AT&T and information gathered from other sources. There are no other wireless carriers with equipment installed at this site. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 64 of 138 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 321857 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 6 Based on worst-case predictive modeling, there are no modeled exposures on any accessible light fixture level and ground walking/working surface related to ATT’s proposed antennas that exceed the FCC’s occupational and/or general public exposure limits at this site. Modeling indicates that the worst-case emitted power density may exceed the FCC’s general public limit within approximately 44 feet of the antenna face and the occupational limit within approximately 19 feet of the antenna face. Modeling also indicates that the worst-case emitted power density may exceed the FCC’s general population limit within approximately 6 feet below the bottom of the AT&T antennas and the occupational limit within approximately 5 feet below the bottom of the AT&T antennas. At the nearest walking/working surfaces to the AT&T antennas on the light fixture level, the maximum power density generated by the AT&T antennas is approximately 51.62 percent of the FCC’s general public limit (10.32 percent of the FCC’s occupational limit). The composite exposure level from all carriers on this site is approximately 51.62 percent of the FCC’s general public limit (10.32 percent of the FCC’s occupational limit) at the nearest walking/working surface to each antenna. It should be noted that percentage of MPE is based on spatially-averaged power densities over a height of six feet, with the height of the light fixture being centered within that spatial range. Based on worst-case predictive modeling, there are no areas at ground/street level related to the proposed AT&T antennas that exceed the FCC’s occupational or general public exposure limits at this site. At ground/street level, the maximum power density generated by the antennas is approximately 4.04 percent of the FCC’s general public limit (0.808 percent of the FCC’s occupational limit). A graphical representation of the RoofMaster™ modeling results is presented in Appendix B. Microwave dish antennas are designed for point-to-point operations at the elevations of the installed equipment rather than ground-level coverage. Based on AT&T’s RF Exposure: Responsibilities, Procedures & Guidelines document, dated October 28, 2014, microwave antennas are considered compliant if they are higher than 20 feet above any accessible walking/working surface. There are no microwaves installed at this site. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 65 of 138 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 321857 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 7 4.0 RECOMMENDED SIGNAGE/COMPLIANCE PLAN Signs are the primary means for control of access to areas where RF exposure levels may potentially exceed the MPE. As presented in the AT&T guidance document, the signs must: ▪ Be posted at a conspicuous point; ▪ Be posted at the appropriate locations; ▪ Be readily visible; and ▪ Make the reader aware of the potential risks prior to entering the affected area. The table below presents the signs that may be used for AT&T installations. CRAN / HETNET Small Cell Decals / Signs Alerting Signs NOTICE DECAL TRILINGUAL NOTICE NOTICE 2 NOTICE SIGN CAUTION 2 – ROOFTOP CAUTION 2A CAUTION DECAL CAUTION 2B - TOWER CAUTION 2C - PARAPETS CAUTION SIGN WARNING 1B WARNING 2A Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 66 of 138 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 321857 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 8 Based upon protocols presented in AT&T’s RF Exposure: Responsibilities, Procedures & Guidelines document, dated October 28, 2014, and additional guidance provided by AT&T, the following signage is recommended on the site: ▪ Yellow 7 by 7 inch CAUTION signs on opposite sides of the light pole, 6 feet below the bottom of the antennas. Signs should denote a stay-back distance of 44 feet from the face of the antennas. No barriers are required for this site. The signage is graphically represented in the Signage Plan presented in Appendix B. 5.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS EBI has prepared this Radiofrequency Emissions Compliance Report for the proposed AT&T telecommunications equipment at the site located at 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Road in Carlsbad, California. EBI has conducted theoretical modeling to estimate the worst-case power density from AT&T antennas to document potential MPE levels at this location and ensure that site control measures are adequate to meet FCC and OSHA requirements, as well as AT&T’s corporate RF safety policies. As presented in the preceding sections, based on worst-case predictive modeling, there are no modeled exposures on any accessible light fixture level and ground walking/working surface related to ATT’s proposed antennas that exceed the FCC’s occupational and/or general public exposure limits at this site. To reduce the risk of exposure and/or injury, EBI recommends that access to the light pole or areas associated with the active antenna installation be restricted and secured where possible. Signage is recommended at the site as presented in Section 4.0 and Appendix B. Posting of the signage brings the site into compliance with FCC rules and regulations and AT&T’s corporate RF safety policies. 6.0 LIMITATIONS This report was prepared for the use of AT&T Mobility, LLC to meet requirements outlined in AT&T’s corporate RF safety guidelines. It was performed in accordance with generally accepted practices of other consultants undertaking similar studies at the same time and in the same locale under like circumstances. The conclusions provided by EBI and its partners are based solely on information supplied by AT&T, including modeling instructions, inputs, parameters and methods. Calculations, data, and modeling methodologies for C Band equipment Include a statistical factor reducing the power to 32% of maximum theoretical power to account for spatial distribution of users, network utilization, time division duplexing, and scheduling time. AT&T recommends the use of this factor based on a combination of guidance from its antenna system manufacturers, supporting international industry standards, industry publications, and its extensive experience. The observations in this report are valid on the date of the investigation. Any additional information that becomes available concerning the site should be provided to EBI so that our conclusions may be revised and modified, if necessary. This report has been prepared in accordance with Standard Conditions for Engagement and authorized proposal, both of which are integral parts of this report. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 67 of 138 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 321857 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 9 Appendix A Personnel Certifications Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 68 of 138 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 321857 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 10 Preparer Certification I, Lindsey Dutton, state that: ▪ I am an employee of EnviroBusiness Inc. (d/b/a EBI Consulting), which provides RF-EME safety and compliance services to the wireless communications industry. ▪ I have successfully completed RF-EME safety training, and I am aware of the potential hazards from RF-EME and would be classified “occupational” under the FCC regulations. ▪ I am fully aware of and familiar with the Rules and Regulations of both the Federal Communications Commissions (FCC) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) with regard to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Radiation. ▪ I have been trained in on the procedures outlined in AT&T’s RF Exposure: Responsibilities, Procedures & Guidelines document (dated October 28, 2014) and on RF-EME modeling using RoofMaster™ modeling software. ▪ I have reviewed the data provided by the client and incorporated it into this Site Compliance Report such that the information contained in this report is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 69 of 138 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 321857 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 11 Appendix B Compliance/Signage Plan Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 70 of 138 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 321857 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 12 Elevation Simulation Existing Sign Proposed Sign Installed Sign Yellow 7 by 7 inch CAUTION signs on opposite sides of the light pole, 6 feet below the bottom of the antennas. Signs should denote a stay-back distance of 44 feet from the face of the antennas. 44’ 6’ Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 71 of 138 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 321857 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 13 Light Fixture Level Simulation Existing Sign Proposed Sign Installed Sign Yellow 7 by 7 inch CAUTION signs on opposite sides of the light pole, 6 feet below the bottom of the antennas. Signs should denote a stay-back distance of 44 feet from the face of the antennas. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 72 of 138 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 321857 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 14 Maintenance Building Level Simulation Existing Sign Proposed Sign Installed Sign Yellow 7 by 7 inch CAUTION signs on opposite sides of the light pole, 6 feet below the bottom of the antennas. Signs should denote a stay-back distance of 44 feet from the face of the antennas. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 73 of 138 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 321857 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 15 Appendix C Antenna Inventory Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 74 of 138 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 321857 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 16 Antenna # Operator Frequency (MHz) Azimuth (Degrees) Power Input (Watts) Transmitter Count Total ERP (Watts) Total EIRP (Watts) 1 ATT 700 50 40 4 2239.34 3672.52 1 ATT 850 50 40 4 2323.38 3810.34 1 ATT 1900 50 40 4 4910.44 8053.11 1 ATT 3500 50 30 4 9530.59 15630.17 2 ATT 700 50 40 4 2239.34 3672.52 2 ATT 2100 50 40 4 5560.58 9119.35 2 ATT 3700 50 30 8 23886.36 39173.63 3 ATT 700 170 40 4 2239.34 3672.52 3 ATT 850 170 40 4 2323.38 3810.34 3 ATT 1900 170 40 4 4910.44 8053.11 3 ATT 3500 170 30 4 9530.59 15630.17 4 ATT 700 170 40 4 2239.34 3672.52 4 ATT 2100 170 40 4 5560.58 9119.35 4 ATT 3700 170 30 8 23886.36 39173.63 5 ATT 700 280 40 4 2239.34 3672.52 5 ATT 850 280 40 4 2323.38 3810.34 5 ATT 1900 280 40 4 4910.44 8053.11 5 ATT 3500 280 30 4 9530.59 15630.17 6 ATT 700 280 40 4 2239.34 3672.52 6 ATT 2100 280 40 4 5560.58 9119.35 6 ATT 3700 280 30 8 23886.36 39173.63 • Note there are 2 AT&T panel antennas per sector at this site. For clarity, the different frequencies for each antenna are entered on separate lines. • A 75% duty cycle was applied to NR technologies. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 75 of 138 Generator Noise Assessment Letter for AT&T Site Number: CAL01850 Site Name: Poinsetta Park Address: 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Rd. Carlsbad, California October 28, 2022 1.Site Description: Site CAL01850 includes a proposed Wireless Facility monopole located in Carlsbad, California. This project involves the installation of one emergency back-up generator inside a ground level equipment compound, located at 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Rd. in Carlsbad, California. 2.Purpose: This letter provides calculated sound pressure levels from the proposed emergency back-up generator when measured at identified receiving property lines. Calculations were performed using site drawings dated September 6, 2022, information provided by MD7, and data from the equipment manufacturer, per the calculation methodology shown in Appendix A. Subsequent changes to the site design may yield changes in the projected post construction noise levels or compliance with applicable regulations and guidelines. 3.Regulatory Setting The City of Carlsbad limits noise in residential use areas to 60 dBA CNEL (Community Noise Exposure Limit). The CNEL applies penalty factors to noise occurring during certain times of the evening and/or nighttime. A 5 dB penalty is added to noise occurring during the evening (7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and a 10 dB penalty is added for noise occurring during nighttime hours between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Table 1 – Carlsbad Exterior Noise Limits* Receiving Land Use Category Exterior Noise Standard Residential 60 dBA CNEL *Adapted from the Carlsbad Noise Guidelines Manual, July 2013. Exhibit 9 Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 76 of 138 Generator Noise Assessment Letter Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222006408 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Rd., Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 4. Relevant Proposed Equipment The proposed site design includes installation of one (1) emergency back-up generator. Calculations were performed to project the noise contribution of the generator when operating at full load at the nearest receiving property line identified through review of the site drawings and aerial photographs. Noise properties of the proposed generator are described in Table 2. Receiving property line locations and calculated generator noise levels are described in Table 3. The following generator is proposed for installation at this site: Table 2 – Proposed Equipment Quantity Description Manufacturer Model Number Sound Pressure Level (dBA) Distance (feet) 1 20 kW Diesel Emergency Back-up Generator Generac SDC020 2.2L 65 21 *Manufacturer acoustic data specifies an average sound pressure level per each unit when measured at a distance of seven (7) meters. See Appendix B. Available specifications and product information were reviewed for the equipment listed in Table 2. Any other equipment that may be proposed such as equipment cabinets, air conditioners, RRUs, antennas, coaxial cables and battery cabinets, are excluded from this study. Other exclusions include ambient noise, existing equipment, fencing, walls, landscaping, topography and property line setbacks. The proposed generator will only run for routine cycling/testing for a duration of no more than fifteen (15) minutes one (1) time per week during daytime hours, or in the event of a loss of power. For the purposes of this study, the generator was assumed to be running at full-load 24-hours per day in order to simulate a worst-case scenario. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 77 of 138 Generator Noise Assessment Letter Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222006408 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Rd., Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 5.Calculated Sound Levels. Sound level propagation calculations were performed to determine the sound pressure level of the proposed generator when measured at the distances referenced below. The source and receiver were assumed to be at the same reference height in order to account for balconies, open windows and changes in elevation at adjacent properties. All calculations shown in Table 3 assume a free-field environment with no ground absorption, reflecting surfaces, barriers, or other obstructions. Actual results may vary due to field and environmental conditions. Table 3 – Calculated Sound Pressure Levels Generac SDC020 2.2L / 20 kW Diesel Emergency Back-up Generator Receiving Land Use Category Property Line Direction from Proposed Generator Estimated Distance to Proposed Generator (feet) Calculated Generator Contribution at Property Line (dBA CNEL) Lowest Applicable Noise Limit (dBA CNEL) Residential* South 180 53.8 60 *All other property lines receivers are located considerably farther away from the proposed generator. 6.Statement of Compliance Based on the results of this analysis, and as presented in Table 3, EBI concludes that the noise produced from operation of the proposed emergency back-up generator will comply with the Carlsbad Exterior Noise Limits at all receiving property line locations. 7.Limitations This report was prepared for the use of MD7 and AT&T. It was performed in accordance with generally accepted practices of other consultants undertaking similar studies at the same time and in the same locale under like circumstances. The conclusions provided by EBI are based solely on the information provided by the client. The observations in this report are valid on the date of the investigation. Calculations contained in this report should be considered accurate to within one decibel. Any additional information that becomes available concerning the site should be provided to EBI so that our conclusions may be revised and modified, if necessary. This report has been prepared in accordance with Standard Conditions for Engagement and authorized proposal, both of which are integral parts of this report. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 78 of 138 Generator Noise Assessment Letter Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222006408 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Rd., Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 Appendix A Calculation Methodology Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 79 of 138 Generator Noise Assessment Letter Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222006408 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Rd., Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 NOISE CALCULATION METHODOLOGY All sounds originate from a source. The sound energy, produced by a source, creates variations in air pressure which travel in all directions much like a wave ripples across the water. The “loudness” or intensity of a sound is a function of the sound pressure level, defined as the ratio of two pressures: the measured sound pressure from the source divided by a reference pressure (i.e. threshold of human hearing). Sound level measurements are most commonly expressed using the decibel (dB) scale. The decibel scale is logarithmic to accommodate the wide range of sound intensities to which the human ear is capable of responding. On this scale, the threshold of human hearing is equal to 0 dB, while levels above 140 dB can cause immediate hearing damage. One property of the decibel scale is that the combined sound pressure level of separate sound sources is not simply the sum of the contributing sources. For example, if the sound of one source of 70 dB is added to another source of 70 dB, the total is only 73 dB, not a doubling to 140 dB. In terms of human perception of sound, a 3 dB difference is the minimum perceptible change for broadband sounds (i.e. sounds that include all frequencies). A difference of 10 dB represents a perceived halving or doubling of loudness. Environmental sound is commonly expressed in terms of the A-weighted sound level (dBA). The A- weighting is a standard filter to make measured sound levels more nearly approximate the frequency response of the human ear. Table 1 and Figure 1 show the adjustments made at each octave band frequency to contour un-weighted sound levels (dB) to A-weighted sound levels (dBA). This frequency response is defined in the American National Standards Institute Standard No. 5.1 and most other relevant standards related to measurement of noise levels. Table 1 A-Weighted Octave Band Adjustment (+/- dB) Octave Band Center Frequency (Hz) 32 64 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 16000 A-weighting Adjustment (±dB) -39.4 -26.2 -16.1 -8.6 -3.6 0.0 +1.2 +1.0 -1.1 -6.6 Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 80 of 138 Generator Noise Assessment Letter Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222006408 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Rd., Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 FIGURE 1 - WEIGHTED OCTAVE BAND ADJUSTMENTS (±dB) Environmental sound varies depending on environmental conditions. Some sounds are sharp impulses lasting for short periods, while others rise and fall over longer periods. There are various measures (metrics) of sound pressure designed for different purposes. The Leq, or equivalent sound level, is the steady-state sound level over a period of time that has the same acoustic energy as the fluctuating sound that was measured over the same period. The Leq is commonly referred to as the average sound level and is calculated automatically by the sound level meter using methods defined in ANSI S1.4-19831. Manufacturer-provided data for noise-generating equipment typically includes a measured sound pressure level (Lp), expressed in A-weighted decibels, taken at a specific distance from the equipment, known as a reference distance. For the purposes of this report, L1 refers to the measured sound level, and r1 refers to the reference distance from the source. Sound varies inversely as the square of the distance from the source increases. This property of sound propagation is used to determine the sound levels at various distances from the source when L1 and r1 have been provided. In an unobstructed free-field environment, without any barriers or reflecting surfaces, sounds pressure drops by 6 dBA with each doubling of distance. This relationship is expressed in the following equation: 𝐿𝐿2 =𝐿𝐿1 −|20 ∗log �𝑟𝑟1𝑟𝑟2�| Where r2 refers to the distance at distance 2 and L2 refers to the sound level in dBA at distance 2. When multiple sound sources are combined, the LP values for each source must first be converted to sound power (LW). 𝐿𝐿𝑊𝑊=𝐿𝐿𝑃𝑃+ |10 ∗log �𝑄𝑄4𝜋𝜋 ∗ 𝑟𝑟2�| In this report, EBI has assumed Q (directionality) is equal to 1 to represent full-sphere propagation. The resultant LW values are then added together, using logarithmic decibel addition, where 𝐿𝐿∑refers to the total level, and L1, L2, etc. refer to the sound power of different individual sources. 𝐿𝐿∑=10 ∗ 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙10 �10𝐿𝐿110 +10𝐿𝐿210 +⋯10𝐿𝐿𝑛𝑛10�𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 1 American National Standards Institute, ANSI S1-4-1983, American National Standard Specification for Sound Level Meters, 1983 Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 81 of 138 Generator Noise Assessment Letter Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222006408 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Rd., Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 Appendix B Equipment Specifications Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 82 of 138 Part No. A0001352186 Rev. A 2/17/21 SOUND ATTENUATED ENCLOSURE D2.2, Generac SDC020 SO U N D D A T A 1 of 1 Generac Power Systems, Inc. | P.O. Box 8 | Waukesha, WI 53187 P: (262) 544-4811 © 2021 Generac Power Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. All specifications are subject to change without notice. NO-LOAD, dB(A)DISTANCE: 7 METERS MICROPHONE LOCATION OCTAVE BAND CENTER FREQUENCY (Hz) 31.5 63 125 250 500 1,000 2,000 4,000 8,000 dB(A) FRONT 20 40 53 50 50 50 46 44 35 56 2 19 43 50 50 55 51 48 44 38 57 RIGHT 18 50 47 51 56 50 48 46 37 58 4 21 56 49 50 53 53 50 46 38 59 REAR 21 56 51 51 50 50 46 44 35 58 6 20 56 49 50 54 54 48 43 35 60 LEFT 18 53 47 52 59 53 50 47 39 61 8 19 43 54 52 55 54 48 44 38 59 AVERAGE 20 50 50 51 54 52 48 45 37 59 FULL-LOAD, dB(A)DISTANCE: 7 METERS MICROPHONE LOCATION OCTAVE BAND CENTER FREQUENCY (Hz) 31.5 63 125 250 500 1,000 2,000 4,000 8,000 dB(A) FRONT 21 57 65 52 55 53 50 50 40 66 2 19 59 61 52 57 55 51 51 43 65 RIGHT 19 59 59 54 57 54 52 52 44 64 4 21 60 58 54 55 54 52 51 42 64 REAR 23 58 59 52 53 52 49 49 38 62 6 21 60 55 53 57 55 52 49 39 64 LEFT 19 62 58 55 60 55 53 51 43 66 8 19 60 64 55 57 56 52 51 44 67 AVERAGE 20 59 60 53 57 54 51 51 42 65 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 FRONT 2 RIGHT 4 REAR 6 LEFT 8 dB ( A ) • All positions at 23 feet (7 meters) from side faces of generator set. • Test conducted on a 100 foot diameter asphalt surface. • Sound pressure levels are subject to instrumentation, installation and testing conditions. • Sound levels are ±2 dB(A). FRONT REAR RIGHT LEFT 2 4 6 8 Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 83 of 138 DRIVING DIRECTIONS FROM AT&T OFFICE VICINITY MAP GENERAL NOTES DRAWING INDEX APPROVALSCAL01850 POINSETTIA PARK NEW SITE BUILD FA NUMBER: 14292179 6600 "A" HIDDEN VALLEY RD., CARLSBAD, CA 92011 Sheet No: Drawn by: Sh e e t T i t l e : Checked by: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION So l u t i o n s D o n e R i g h t MA N A G E M E N T G R O U P TE L E C O M DescriptionRev.Date: 90% ZD0 08-05-22 100% ZD1 09-06-22 100% ZD2 10-31-22RF CHANGES 100% ZD3 12-15-22CITY COMMENTS 100% ZD4 03-21-23CITY COMMENTS 58 5 5 C O P L E Y D R . S T E 1 0 0 , SA N D I E G O , C A 9 2 1 1 1 07-31-235100% ZD CITY COMMENTS 10-16-236100% ZD ENCL. TRELLIS www.cbyd.com SI5& SITE INFORMATION PROJECT TEAM PROJECT DESCRIPTION CODE COMPLIANCE · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · TI T L E S H E E T T1 CUP 2022-0023/CDP 2022-0070 Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 84 of 138 Sheet No: Drawn by: Sh e e t T i t l e : Checked by: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION So l u t i o n s D o n e R i g h t MA N A G E M E N T G R O U P TE L E C O M DescriptionRev.Date: 90% ZD0 08-05-22 100% ZD1 09-06-22 100% ZD2 10-31-22RF CHANGES 100% ZD3 12-15-22CITY COMMENTS 100% ZD4 03-21-23CITY COMMENTS 58 5 5 C O P L E Y D R . S T E 1 0 0 , SA N D I E G O , C A 9 2 1 1 1 07-31-235100% ZD CITY COMMENTS 10-16-236100% ZD ENCL. TRELLIS 1" = 70'-0"SITE PLAN 1 SI T E P L A N Z1 KETCH WY. WHITESAIL ST. PLUM TREE RD. LEGEND MONUMENTS SEE ENLARGED SITE PLAN ON SHEET Z2 A.P.N.# 214-140-13-00 BEACON BAY DR. ℄ HI D D E N V A L L E Y R D . ℄ (P) AT&T U/G TELCO FIBER CONDUIT FROM (E) MANHOLE NEAR PARK ENTRANCE TO AT&T EQUIP. ENCLOSURE LOCATION. APPROX. LENGTH ± 1,600 FT (P) AT&T JOINT UTILITY TRENCH WITH U/G ELECTRICAL POWER CONDUIT & CONDUCTORS (APPROX. LENGTH ± 240 FT) JOINED WITH U/G TELCO FIBER CONDUIT. (P) AT&T NON-EXCLUSIVE ACCESS ROUTE (E) TRASH ENCLOSURE TO BE REMOVED (P) AT&T ANTENNAS & RRUS ON (P) 78'-0" TALL LIGHT POLE, SEE PLAN ON SHEET Z4 (P) LIGHT POLE WITH CYLINDRICAL SHROUD "RADOME" Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 85 of 138 Sheet No: Drawn by: Sh e e t T i t l e : Checked by: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION So l u t i o n s D o n e R i g h t MA N A G E M E N T G R O U P TE L E C O M DescriptionRev.Date: 90% ZD0 08-05-22 100% ZD1 09-06-22 100% ZD2 10-31-22RF CHANGES 100% ZD3 12-15-22CITY COMMENTS 100% ZD4 03-21-23CITY COMMENTS 58 5 5 C O P L E Y D R . S T E 1 0 0 , SA N D I E G O , C A 9 2 1 1 1 07-31-235100% ZD CITY COMMENTS 10-16-236100% ZD ENCL. TRELLIS 1" = 20'-0"ENLARGED SITE PLAN 1 EN L A R G E D SI T E P L A N Z2 (E) TRASH ENCLOSURE TO BE REMOVED (E) POLE C3, ±78' HIGH STADIUM LIGHT POLE TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED LEGEND (P) AT&T CMU WALL ENCLOSURE, SEE EQUIPMENT PLAN ON SHEET Z3 (P) AT&T ANTENNAS & RRUS ON (P) 78'-0" TALL LIGHT POLE, SEE PLAN ON SHEET Z4 (P) FIBER/DC POWER TRENCH (APPROX. 45'-0") SEC T O R ' A ' AZIM U T H 5 0 ° SE C T O R ' B ' A Z I M U T H 1 7 0 ° SECTOR ' C ' AZIMUTH 2 8 0 ° (E) GROUND ELEVATION AT THE (P) POLE LOCATION = AMSL (151.60') (P) AT&T U/G TELCO FIBER CONDUIT FROM (E) MANHOLE NEAR PARK ENTRANCE TO AT&T EQUIP. ENCLOSURE LOCATION. APPROX. LENGTH ± 1,600 FT. SEE FULL ROUTE ON SHEET Z1 (P) AT&T JOINT UTILITY TRENCH WITH U/G ELECTRICAL POWER CONDUIT & CONDUCTORS (APPROX. LENGTH ± 240 FT) JOINED WITH U/G TELCO FIBER CONDUIT. (P) AT&T METER PEDESTAL, 200A, 120/208V, 1Φ, 3 WIRE, 5 CLIP, ON CONCRETE PAD (P) U/G ELECTRICAL CONDUIT & CONDUCTORS FROM (E) TRANSFORMER TO (P) AT&T METER PEDESTAL, APPROX. LENGTH 10 FT. PROVIDE (2) BOLLARDS IN FRONT OF METER PEDESTAL FOR PROTECTION Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 86 of 138 Sheet No: Drawn by: Sh e e t T i t l e : Checked by: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION So l u t i o n s D o n e R i g h t MA N A G E M E N T G R O U P TE L E C O M DescriptionRev.Date: 90% ZD0 08-05-22 100% ZD1 09-06-22 100% ZD2 10-31-22RF CHANGES 100% ZD3 12-15-22CITY COMMENTS 100% ZD4 03-21-23CITY COMMENTS 58 5 5 C O P L E Y D R . S T E 1 0 0 , SA N D I E G O , C A 9 2 1 1 1 07-31-235100% ZD CITY COMMENTS 10-16-236100% ZD ENCL. TRELLIS 1/2" = 1'-0"EQUIPMENT PLAN 1 EQ U I P M E N T P L A N Z3 (P) VERTIV DC POWER PLANT CABINET (P) STACKED PURCELL CABINET, TOTAL OF (2) (P) 4"Ø STUB-UP, TYP. (P) TELCO CABINET (P) CIENA (P) DISCONNECT SWITCH (P) AC MAIN PANEL W/ GENERATOR RECEPTACLE (P) GPS ANTENNA (P) 8'-0" TALL CMU WALL ENCLOSURE, COLOR AND TEXTURE TO MATCH (E) MAINTENANCE BUILDING (P) 4"Ø BOLLARD, TYP. OF (5) (P) CURB TO MATCH EXISTING (P) DC-12 SURGE PROTECTOR, STACKED, TOTAL OF (2) (P) 20 kW GENERATOR WORK SPACE DEPTH, 5'-0" WORK SPACE DEPTH, 5'-0" WORK SPACE DEPTH, 5'-0"WO R K SP A C E , 1 6 " (P) 6'-0" WIDE DOUBLE LEAF ACCESS GATE CEC REQ'D WORK SPACE DEPTH, 3'-0" (P) H-FRAME (P) AT&T ENCLOSURE CONCRETE SLAB-ON-GRADE WITH FINISH SURFACE ±6" ABOVE (E) ROAD LEVEL (OR LEVEL TO THE (E) CURB'S TOP FINISH SURFACE). NOTE: THE (E) CONCRETE AND ASPHALT ROAD PAVEMENT WITHIN THE (P) AT&T ENCLOSURE TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH THE NEW CONCRETE SLAB-ON-GRADE (P) H-FRAME (P) METAL TRELLIS, PAINTED GREEN MATCHING THE ROOF COLOR OF THE ADJACENT (E) BUILDING STRUCTURE Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 87 of 138 Sheet No: Drawn by: Sh e e t T i t l e : Checked by: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION So l u t i o n s D o n e R i g h t MA N A G E M E N T G R O U P TE L E C O M DescriptionRev.Date: 90% ZD0 08-05-22 100% ZD1 09-06-22 100% ZD2 10-31-22RF CHANGES 100% ZD3 12-15-22CITY COMMENTS 100% ZD4 03-21-23CITY COMMENTS 58 5 5 C O P L E Y D R . S T E 1 0 0 , SA N D I E G O , C A 9 2 1 1 1 07-31-235100% ZD CITY COMMENTS 10-16-236100% ZD ENCL. TRELLIS 1" = 1'-0"ANTENNA PLAN / SCHEDULE 1 AN T E N N A / R R U P L A N AN D S C H E D U L E Z4 NOTES: 1. CONTRACTOR TO CONFIRM AND VERIFY THE REQUIRED RRUS, EQUIPMENT MODELS, COAX SIZE, RF WIRING CONNECTION AND DETAILS WITH THE FINAL RFDS FROM SAQ MANAGER OR AT&T RF ENGR 2. EXISTING LIGHT FIXTURE NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY. PROPOSED ANTENNA / RRU SCHEDULE SECTOR ANTENNA MODEL AZ TIP HEIGHT RAD CENTER TECHNOLOGY RRU's / QTY.TMA / MULTIPLEXER / FILTER TRANSMISSION TYPE / LENGTH Al p h a A1 NHHS4-65B-R3B 50° 67'-11" 64'-11" LTE 700/1900/AWS 5G 850/1900/AWS 4449 B5/B12 (1) | 8843 B2/B66A (1)-FIBER / ± 100' A2 NHHS4-65B-R3B 50° 59'-11" 56'-11" FIRSTNET 4449 B5/B12 (1)-FIBER / ± 100' A3 -------- A4 -------- Be t a B1 NHHS4-65B-R3B 170° 67'-11" 64'-11" LTE 700/1900/AWS 5G 850/1900/AWS 4449 B5/B12 (1) | 8843 B2/B66A (1)-FIBER / ± 100' B2 NHHS4-65B-R3B 170° 59'-11" 56'-11" FIRSTNET 4478 B14 (1)-FIBER / ± 100' B3 -------- B4 -------- Ga m m a C1 NHHS4-65B-R3B 280° 67'-11" 64'-11" LTE 700/1900/AWS 5G 850/1900/AWS 4449 B5/B12 (1) | 8843 B2/B66A (1)-FIBER / ± 100' C2 NHHS4-65B-R3B 280° 59'-11" 56'-11"FIRSTNET 4478 B14 (1)-FIBER / ± 100' C3 -------- C4 -------- SECTOR ' C ' AZIMUTH 2 8 0 ° ANTENNA / RRU ELEVATION WITHIN (P) CYLINDRICAL SHROUD ("RADOME") SEC T O R ' A ' AZIM U T H 5 0 ° SE C T O R ' B ' A Z I M U T H 1 7 0 ° 1ST LEVEL ANTENNA PLAN 2ND LEVEL ANTENNA PLAN (P) AT&T NHHS4-65B-R3B, (1) PER SECTOR, (3) TOTAL (P) (3) 8843 RRUs MOUNTED ON STEEL PLATE (P) 4'-0"Ø x 18'-0" H FRP SHROUD (P) ±78'-0" TALL LIGHT POLE LOWER LEVEL RRU PLAN UPPER LEVEL RRU PLAN (P) 4'-0"Ø x 12'-0" H PERFORATED METAL SHROUD (P) ±78'-0" TALL LIGHT POLE (±8" DIA. PER STRUCTURAL) (P) 2"Ø STD. STEEL PIPE @ ELEV. 67'-3" TOP OF (P) RADOME OPEN ON TOP WITH BIRD SCREEN (P) 4'-0"Ø x 18'-0" H FRP SHROUD (P) AT&T NHHS4-65B-R3B, (1) PER SECTOR, (3) TOTAL (P) ANTENNA MOUNTING BRACKET (SITEPRO1 WITH PART# UTSM-L), TYP. TOP OF (P) ANTENNAS @ ELEV. 66'-11" (P) AT&T NHHS4-65B-R3B, (1) PER SECTOR, (3) TOTAL (P) STACKED RRUs AND SURGE PROTECTOR, (3) 4449, (3) 4478 AND (3) SURGE PROTECTORS (P) 4'-0"Ø x 12'-0" H PERFORATED METAL SHROUD (P) AT&T NHHS4-65B-R3B, (1) PER SECTOR, (3) TOTAL (P) 4'-0"Ø x 18'-0" H FRP SHROUD (P) ±78'-0" TALL LIGHT POLE @ ELEV. 37'-3" BOTTOM OF (P) RADOME (P) 4'-0"Ø x 12'-0" H PERFORATED METAL SHROUD (STAGGERED 40% OPEN) 1/2" = 1'-0"SCALE 1" = 1'-0"SCALE 1" = 1'-0"SCALE 1" = 1'-0"SCALE 1" = 1'-0"SCALE (P) ±78'-0" TALL LIGHT POLE (P) ±78'-0" TALL LIGHT POLE (P) 1/4" STEEL PLATE WITH PRE HOLES FOR RRU MOUNTING (P) 2"Ø X 8'H STD. STEEL PIPE (P) ±78'-0" TALL LIGHT POLE (±8" DIA. PER STRUCTURAL) (P) RRU MOUNTING BRACKET (SITEPRO1 WITH PART# UTSM-L), TYP. (3) 4449 RRU (3) 8843 RRU (3) 4478 RRU (3) DC-9 SURGE PROTECTOR (P) 1/4" STEEL PLATE WITH PRE HOLES FOR RRU MOUNTING (P) DC-9 SURGE PROTECTOR (P) RRUs, TYP. (P) ±78'-0" TALL LIGHT POLE (±8" DIA. PER STRUCTURAL) RRU MOUNTING BRACKET, TYP. RRU MOUNTING SECTION 3/4" = 1'-0"SCALE Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 88 of 138 Sheet No: Drawn by: Sh e e t T i t l e : Checked by: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION So l u t i o n s D o n e R i g h t MA N A G E M E N T G R O U P TE L E C O M DescriptionRev.Date: 90% ZD0 08-05-22 100% ZD1 09-06-22 100% ZD2 10-31-22RF CHANGES 100% ZD3 12-15-22CITY COMMENTS 100% ZD4 03-21-23CITY COMMENTS 58 5 5 C O P L E Y D R . S T E 1 0 0 , SA N D I E G O , C A 9 2 1 1 1 07-31-235100% ZD CITY COMMENTS 10-16-236100% ZD ENCL. TRELLIS 1/8" = 1'-0"(P) NORTH ELEVATION 2 SI T E E L E V A T I O N S Z5 (E) GROUND LEVEL @ ELEV. -0'-10" (151.60' AMSL) (P) DC-9 SURGE PROTECTOR, TOTAL OF (3) TOP OF (E) LIGHT FIXTURES @ ELEV. ±77'-0" (229.41' AMSL) BOTTOM OF (E) LIGHT FIXTURES @ ELEV. ±73'-3" (225.66' AMSL) REFERENCE LINE @ ELEV. 0'-0" (152.41' AMSL) 1/8" = 1'-0"(E) NORTH ELEVATION 1 TOP OF (E) LIGHT POLE @ ELEV. ±78'-0" (230.28' AMSL) (E) GROUND LEVEL @ ELEV. -0'-10" (151.60' AMSL) (P) AT&T 8'-0" TALL CMU WALL ENCLOSURE, COLOR AND TEXTURE TO MATCH (E) MAINTENANCE BUILDING (P) GPS ANTENNA TOP OF (E) LIGHT FIXTURES @ ELEV. ±77'-0" (229.41' AMSL) BOTTOM OF (E) LIGHT FIXTURES @ ELEV. ±73'-3" (225.66' AMSL) REFERENCE LINE @ ELEV. 0'-0" (152.41' AMSL) TOP OF FOUNDATION / TOP OF (P) LIGHT POLE @ ELEV. ±78'-0" (230.28' AMSL) TOP OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 67'-11" RAD CENTER OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 64'-11" TOP OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 59'-11" RAD CENTER OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 56'-11" BOTTOM OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 53'-11" (E) POLE C3, ±78' HIGH STADIUM LIGHT POLE TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED (P) AT&T NHHS4-65B-R3B, (1) PER SECTOR, (3) TOTAL (P) STACKED RRUs, (3) PER SECTOR, TOTAL OF (9) (P) 4'-0"Ø x 30'-0" H CYLINDRICAL SHROUD (P) ±78'-0" HIGH STADIUM LIGHT POLE (E) TRASH ENCLOSURE TO BE REMOVED BOTTOM OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 61'-11" (P) AT&T NHHS4-65B-R3B, (1) PER SECTOR, (3) TOTAL BOTTOM OF (P) SHROUD @ ELEV. 38'-3" (P) METAL TRELLIS, PAINTED GREEN MATCHING THE ROOF COLOR OF THE ADJACENT (E) MAINTENANCE BUILDING Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 89 of 138 Sheet No: Drawn by: Sh e e t T i t l e : Checked by: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION So l u t i o n s D o n e R i g h t MA N A G E M E N T G R O U P TE L E C O M DescriptionRev.Date: 90% ZD0 08-05-22 100% ZD1 09-06-22 100% ZD2 10-31-22RF CHANGES 100% ZD3 12-15-22CITY COMMENTS 100% ZD4 03-21-23CITY COMMENTS 58 5 5 C O P L E Y D R . S T E 1 0 0 , SA N D I E G O , C A 9 2 1 1 1 07-31-235100% ZD CITY COMMENTS 10-16-236100% ZD ENCL. TRELLIS SI T E E L E V A T I O N S Z6 1/8" = 1'-0"(P) EAST ELEVATION 2 (E) GROUND LEVEL @ ELEV. -0'-10" (151.60' AMSL) TOP OF (E) LIGHT FIXTURES @ ELEV. ±77'-0" (229.41' AMSL) BOTTOM OF (E) LIGHT FIXTURES @ ELEV. ±73'-3" (225.66' AMSL) REFERENCE LINE @ ELEV. 0'-0" (152.41' AMSL) 1/8" = 1'-0"(E) EAST ELEVATION 1 TOP OF (E) LIGHT POLE @ ELEV. ±78'-0" (230.28' AMSL) (E) GROUND LEVEL @ ELEV. -0'-10" (151.60' AMSL) REFERENCE LINE @ ELEV. 0'-0" (152.41' AMSL) TOP OF FOUNDATION / (E) POLE C3, ±78' HIGH STADIUM LIGHT POLE TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED (P) AT&T 8'-0" TALL CMU WALL ENCLOSURE, COLOR AND TEXTURE TO MATCH (E) MAINTENANCE BUILDING (P) GPS ANTENNA (P) 4"Ø BOLLARD, TYP. OF (5) (E) TRASH ENCLOSURE TO BE REMOVED (E) BOLLARD TO BE REMOVED (P) DC-9 SURGE PROTECTOR, TOTAL OF (3) TOP OF (E) LIGHT FIXTURES @ ELEV. ±77'-0" (229.41' AMSL) BOTTOM OF (E) LIGHT FIXTURES @ ELEV. ±73'-3" (225.66' AMSL) TOP OF (P) LIGHT POLE @ ELEV. ±78'-0" (230.28' AMSL) (P) AT&T NHHS4-65B-R3B, (1) PER SECTOR, (3) TOTAL (P) STACKED RRUs, (3) PER SECTOR, TOTAL OF (9) (P) 4'-0"Ø x 30'-0" H CYLINDRICAL SHROUD (P) ±78'-0" HIGH STADIUM LIGHT POLE (P) AT&T NHHS4-65B-R3B, (1) PER SECTOR, (3) TOTAL TOP OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 67'-11" RAD CENTER OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 64'-11" TOP OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 59'-11" RAD CENTER OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 56'-11" BOTTOM OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 53'-11" BOTTOM OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 61'-11" BOTTOM OF (P) SHROUD @ ELEV. 38'-3" (P) METAL TRELLIS, PAINTED GREEN MATCHING THE ROOF COLOR OF THE ADJACENT (E) MAINTENANCE BUILDING Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 90 of 138 AT&T operates telecommunications antennas at this location. Remain atleast 3 feet away from any antenna and obey all posted signs.Contact the owner(s) of the antenna(s) before working closer than 3 feetfrom the antenna.Contact AT&T at ______________ prior to performing anymaintenance or repHEXs near AT&T antennas. This isSite#____________Contact the management office if this door/hatch/gate is found unlocked. En esta propiedad se ubican antenas de telecomunicationes operadas por AT&T.Favor mantener una distancia de no menos de 3 pies y obedecer todos los avisos.Comuniquese con el propictario o los propicatarios de las antenas antes detrabajar o caminar a una distancia de menos de 3 pies de la antena.Comuniquese con AT&T _______antes de realizar cualquier mantenimiento oreparaciones cerca de la antenas de AT&T.Esta es la estacion base numero_______Favor comunicarse con la oficina de la administracion del edificio si esta puerta ocompuerta se encuentra sin candado. INFORMATION INFORMACION 02 3W Sheet No: Drawn by: Sh e e t T i t l e : Checked by: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION So l u t i o n s D o n e R i g h t MA N A G E M E N T G R O U P TE L E C O M DescriptionRev.Date: 90% ZD0 08-05-22 100% ZD1 09-06-22 100% ZD2 10-31-22RF CHANGES 100% ZD3 12-15-22CITY COMMENTS 100% ZD4 03-21-23CITY COMMENTS 58 5 5 C O P L E Y D R . S T E 1 0 0 , SA N D I E G O , C A 9 2 1 1 1 07-31-235100% ZD CITY COMMENTS 10-16-236100% ZD ENCL. TRELLIS SI T E E L E V A T I O N S Z7 1/8" = 1'-0"(P) SOUTH ELEVATION 2 (E) GROUND LEVEL @ ELEV. -0'-10" (151.60' AMSL) TOP OF (E) LIGHT FIXTURES @ ELEV. ±77'-0" (229.41' AMSL) BOTTOM OF (E) LIGHT FIXTURES @ ELEV. ±73'-3" (225.66' AMSL) REFERENCE LINE @ ELEV. 0'-0" (152.41' AMSL) 1/8" = 1'-0"(E) SOUTH ELEVATION 1 TOP OF (E) LIGHT POLE @ ELEV. ±78'-0" (230.28' AMSL) (E) GROUND LEVEL @ ELEV. -0'-10" (151.60' AMSL) REFERENCE LINE @ ELEV. 0'-0" (152.41' AMSL) TOP OF FOUNDATION / (E) POLE C3, ±78' HIGH STADIUM LIGHT POLE TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED (P) AT&T 8'-0" TALL CMU WALL ENCLOSURE, COLOR AND TEXTURE TO MATCH (E) MAINTENANCE BUILDING (P) 6'-0" WIDE DOUBLE LEAF ACCESS GATE (P) GPS ANTENNA (P) 4"Ø BOLLARD, TYP. OF (5) (E) TRASH ENCLOSURE TO BE REMOVED (E) BOLLARDS TO BE REMOVED (P) DC-9 SURGE PROTECTOR, TOTAL OF (3) TOP OF (E) LIGHT FIXTURES @ ELEV. ±77'-0" (229.41' AMSL) BOTTOM OF (E) LIGHT FIXTURES @ ELEV. ±73'-3" (225.66' AMSL) TOP OF (P) LIGHT POLE @ ELEV. ±78'-0" (230.28' AMSL) (P) STACKED RRUs, (3) PER SECTOR, TOTAL OF (9) (P) ±78'-0" HIGH STADIUM LIGHT POLE TOP OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 67'-11" RAD CENTER OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 64'-11" TOP OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 59'-11" RAD CENTER OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 56'-11" BOTTOM OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 53'-11" (P) AT&T NHHS4-65B-R3B, (1) PER SECTOR, (3) TOTAL (P) 4'-0"Ø x 30'-0" H CYLINDRICAL SHROUD BOTTOM OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 61'-11" (P) AT&T NHHS4-65B-R3B, (1) PER SECTOR, (3) TOTAL BOTTOM OF (P) SHROUD @ ELEV. 38'-3" (P) METAL TRELLIS, PAINTED GREEN MATCHING THE ROOF COLOR OF THE ADJACENT (E) MAINTENANCE BUILDING Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 91 of 138 Sheet No: Drawn by: Sh e e t T i t l e : Checked by: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION So l u t i o n s D o n e R i g h t MA N A G E M E N T G R O U P TE L E C O M DescriptionRev.Date: 90% ZD0 08-05-22 100% ZD1 09-06-22 100% ZD2 10-31-22RF CHANGES 100% ZD3 12-15-22CITY COMMENTS 100% ZD4 03-21-23CITY COMMENTS 58 5 5 C O P L E Y D R . S T E 1 0 0 , SA N D I E G O , C A 9 2 1 1 1 07-31-235100% ZD CITY COMMENTS 10-16-236100% ZD ENCL. TRELLIS SI T E E L E V A T I O N S Z8 1/8" = 1'-0"(P) WEST ELEVATION 2 (E) GROUND LEVEL @ ELEV. -0'-10" (151.60' AMSL) TOP OF (E) LIGHT FIXTURES @ ELEV. ±77'-0" (229.41' AMSL) BOTTOM OF (E) LIGHT FIXTURES @ ELEV. ±73'-3" (225.66' AMSL) REFERENCE LINE @ ELEV. 0'-0" (152.41' AMSL) 1/8" = 1'-0"(E) WEST ELEVATION 1 TOP OF (E) LIGHT POLE @ ELEV. ±78'-0" (230.28' AMSL) (E) GROUND LEVEL @ ELEV. -0'-10" (151.60' AMSL) REFERENCE LINE @ ELEV. 0'-0" (152.41' AMSL) TOP OF FOUNDATION / (P) AT&T 8'-0" TALL CMU WALL ENCLOSURE, COLOR AND TEXTURE TO MATCH (E) MAINTENANCE BUILDING (P) 4"Ø BOLLARD, TYP. OF (5) (E) POLE C3, ±78' HIGH STADIUM LIGHT POLE TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED (E) TRASH ENCLOSURE TO BE REMOVED (E) BOLLARDS TO BE REMOVED (P) DC-9 SURGE PROTECTOR, TOTAL OF (3) TOP OF (E) LIGHT FIXTURES @ ELEV. ±77'-0" (229.41' AMSL) BOTTOM OF (E) LIGHT FIXTURES @ ELEV. ±73'-3" (225.66' AMSL) TOP OF (P) LIGHT POLE @ ELEV. ±78'-0" (230.28' AMSL) (P) STACKED RRUs, (3) PER SECTOR, TOTAL OF (9) (P) ±78'-0" HIGH STADIUM LIGHT POLE TOP OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 67'-11" RAD CENTER OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 64'-11" TOP OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 59'-11" RAD CENTER OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 56'-11" BOTTOM OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 53'-11" (P) AT&T NHHS4-65B-R3B, (1) PER SECTOR, (3) TOTAL (P) 4'-0"Ø x 30'-0" H CYLINDRICAL SHROUD BOTTOM OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 61'-11" (P) AT&T NHHS4-65B-R3B, (1) PER SECTOR, (3) TOTAL BOTTOM OF (P) SHROUD @ ELEV. 38'-3" (P) METAL TRELLIS, PAINTED GREEN MATCHING THE ROOF COLOR OF THE ADJACENT (E) MAINTENANCE BUILDING Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 92 of 138 Sheet No: Drawn by: Sh e e t T i t l e : Checked by: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION So l u t i o n s D o n e R i g h t MA N A G E M E N T G R O U P TE L E C O M DescriptionRev.Date: 90% ZD0 08-05-22 100% ZD1 09-06-22 100% ZD2 10-31-22RF CHANGES 100% ZD3 12-15-22CITY COMMENTS 100% ZD4 03-21-23CITY COMMENTS 58 5 5 C O P L E Y D R . S T E 1 0 0 , SA N D I E G O , C A 9 2 1 1 1 07-31-235100% ZD CITY COMMENTS 10-16-236100% ZD ENCL. TRELLIS SI T E D E T A I L S D1 COMMSCOPE NHHS4-65B-R3B NTSNOT USED 2NTSNOT USED 1 NTS(P) SURGE PROTECTOR SPECIFICATIONS 6NTS(P) ANTENNA SPECIFICATIONS 3 NTS(P) RRU SPECIFICATIONS 5 ERI C S S O N ERICSSON 4478 ERICSSON 4449 ERICSSON 8843 m m RAYCAP DC9-48-60-8C-EV NTS(P) GPS ANTENNA 8 NTSNOT USED 9 NTSNOT USED 10NTSNOT USED 4 RAYCAP DC12-48-60-0-25E NTS(P) SURGE PROTECTOR SPECIFICATIONS 7 COMMSCOPE: BSAMNT-3 Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 93 of 138 Sheet No: Drawn by: Sh e e t T i t l e : Checked by: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION So l u t i o n s D o n e R i g h t MA N A G E M E N T G R O U P TE L E C O M DescriptionRev.Date: 90% ZD0 08-05-22 100% ZD1 09-06-22 100% ZD2 10-31-22RF CHANGES 100% ZD3 12-15-22CITY COMMENTS 100% ZD4 03-21-23CITY COMMENTS 58 5 5 C O P L E Y D R . S T E 1 0 0 , SA N D I E G O , C A 9 2 1 1 1 07-31-235100% ZD CITY COMMENTS 10-16-236100% ZD ENCL. TRELLIS SI T E D E T A I L S D2 NTS(P) DC POWER CABINET SPECIFICATIONS 1 Outdoor NetSure 512 DC Power System ™ FLX21-2520 FlexSure® WS OUTDOOR ENCLOSURE NTS(P) PURCELL CABINET SPECIFICATIONS 2 NTSNOT USED 8 NTSNOT USED 7 NTSNOT USED 9NTS(P) GENERATOR SPECIFICATIONS 3 SDC020 | 2.2L | 20 kW NTS(P) MAIN AC PANEL SPECIFICATIONS 4 CIENA 3931 NTS(P) CIENA SPECIFICATIONS 5 NTSNOT USED 6 Intersect™, Inc. PTLC-ATS-3S-12200-CL-ATT Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 94 of 138 CEQA DETERMINATION OF EXEMPTION Subject: This California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Determination of Exemption is in compliance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 19.04.060. An appeal to this determination must be filed in writing with the required fee within ten (10) calendar days of the City Planner's decision consistent with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.54.140. Project Number and Title: CUP 2022-0023/CDP 2022-0070 (DEV2022-0206) -POINSETTIA PARK WCF AT&T Project Location -Specific: 6600 Hidden Valley Road (APN: 214-140-13-00) Project Location -City: �Ca=r�ls=b=ad�-----Project Location -County: =Sa=n"'-=--D·=1e....._go-=------ Description of Project: Minor Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit to install a new wireless communication facility (WCF). The project includes the demolition of an existing trash enclosure and removal of an existing, 78-foot tall. baseball field light pole, and the installation of a 78-foot light pole with six (6) wireless antennas and nine (9) remote radio units placed around the pole with a four-foot diameter cylindrical screening shroud and ground-level equipment enclosure. Name of Public Agency Approving Project: -=c.C=ity.L...=..of'-C=a=r=ls=b=ad"'---------------- Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: �Ci=ty'-"-of'--C=a"-'-r=ls=b=ad"'-------------- Name of Applicant: Harold Thomas Jr .• MD7 (obo AT&T Wireless) Applicant's Address: 7337 Trade Street, Suite 250, San Diego, CA 92121 Applicant's Telephone Number: _8 _58_-_7 _50_-_1 _7 _89 ___________________ _ Name of Applicant/Identity of person undertaking the project (if different from the applicant above): NA Exempt Status: (Check One) D Ministerial (Section 21080(b)(1); 15268); D Declared Emergency (Section 21080(b)(3); 15269(a)); D Emergency Project (Section 21080(b)(4); 15269 (b)(c)); � Categorical Exemption -State type and section number: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures -Section 15303 D Statutory Exemptions -State code number:. ___________________ _ D Common Sense Exemption (Section 15061(b)(3)) Reasons why project is exempt: Section 15303 exempts construction and location of small facilities or structures. and the installation of small equipment and facilities in small structures. Lead Agency Contact Person: Kyle Van Leeuwen Telephone: 442-339-2611 ERIC LARDY, City Planner Date Exhibit 11 Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 95 of 138 LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Exhibit 12 This is a list of acronyms and abbreviations (in alphabetical order) that are commonly used in staff reports. Acronym Description Acronym Description APA American Planning Association LCPA Local Coastal Program Amendment APN Assessor Parcel Number LOS Level of Service AQMD Air Quality Management District MND Mitigated Negative Declaration BMP Best Management Practice NCTD North County Transit District CALTRANS California Department of Transportation ND Negative Declaration CC City Council PC Planning Commission CCR Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions PDP Planned Development Permit CEQA California Environmental Quality Act PEIR Program Environmental Impact Report CFD Community Facilities District PUD Planned Unit Development CIP Capital Improvement Program ROW Right of Way COA Conditions of Approval RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board CofO Certificate of Occupancy SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments CT Tentative Parcel Map SDP Site Development Permit CUP Conditional Use Permit SP Specific Plan DIF Development Impact Fee SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program DISTRICT City Council Member District Number TM Tentative Map EIR Environmental Impact Report ZC Zone Change EIS Environmental Impact Statement (federal) EPA Environmental Protection Agency FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency GP General Plan GPA General Plan Amendment GIS Geographic Information Systems HCA Housing Crisis Act 2019 IS Initial Study Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 96 of 138 Exhibits “A” – “K” dated Dec.6, 2023 (on file in the office of the City Clerk) Exhibit 13 Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 97 of 138 1 Kyle Van Leeuwen From:Michelle Backus <michwilsoncali@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, February 4, 2023 8:06 AM To:Lauren Yzaguirre Subject:90' Cellular Pole Replacing 78' Light Pole @ Poinsettia Park Hi Lauren, I have two young children and we live very close to this cellular pole. I completely disagree with replacing the 78’ light pole with a 90’ pole as it’s unsafe. Here are the reasons why I am against this project: Project Details: CUP 2022-0023 (Conditional Use Permit) > 90' cellular/light pole to replace existing 78' light pole > 12 more feet is TOO HIGH > Exposed antennas will be hung near top of pole IMPAIRED LINE OF SIGHT > In parking lot next to the bathrooms by the field where Jazz in the Park is held TOO CLOSE TO PEOPLE > First cellular structure at Poinsettia Park NOT NEEDED > RF Radiation Dangers .. near where people live and children playing at the park DANGEROUS TO HEALTH This cannot happen! Please let me know what I need to do to prevent this from happening! Thanks, Michelle Backus 321-278-1044 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Exhibit 14 Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 98 of 138 Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 99 of 138 Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 100 of 138 1 Kyle Van Leeuwen From:rich breyer <rpbreyer@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, February 26, 2023 1:13 PM To:Lauren Yzaguirre Subject:Relocate the cellular pole at Poinsettia Park Hello Ms Yzaguirre, I am writing this to requesting that they RELOCATE the proposed cellular antenna pole AWAY FROM NEARBY RESIDENTIAL HOMES AND CHILDREN/YOUTH AT THE PARK AND PAC RIM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL . I am sure they can find a suitable location in another area. There are know health risks with cell towers and I hope the city can stand up for our citizens. Thanks Richard Breyer 760-473-2489 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 101 of 138 1 Kyle Van Leeuwen From:Katherine <kc_lord@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, February 5, 2023 2:04 PM To:Lauren Yzaguirre Subject:Project : CUP 2022-0023 (City of Carlsbad Conditional Use Permit) > 90' cellular/light pole A 90 feet high cellular pole with exposed antennas hanging near the very top of the pole in the middle of the Poinsettia park? Not only it is an eyesore to blemish the beautiful skyline and the park, the RF radiation danger will impact everyone who lives, works, plays or visits the area. It is also too close to Pac Rim elementary school for comfort. Please do NOT issue such permit or our city may take on all the unknown liabilities. Thank you, Katherine Chang 6733 Tea Tree St. CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 102 of 138 1 Kyle Van Leeuwen From:Silvia Chang <kandmmom@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, February 6, 2023 3:00 PM To:Lauren Yzaguirre Subject:Proposed cell tower for Poinsettia Park Dear Ms. Ysaguirre, I am very concerned about putting a cell tower in Poinsettia Park. I live in the Greystone Cove which is one of the neighborhoods adjacent to the park. I specifically bought this house 21 years ago because it was in an area that was away from the power lines that are pervasive in the Aviara/Poinsettia region of Carlsbad. Now you are proposing to put up a cell tower that could pose significant health hazards to the residents in the area. This area is densely populated, there is a school nearby, and numerous people go to the park for recreation. Why would you put something that could emit dangerous radiation so close to so many people. We already have to contend with the lights from the park lighting up our neighborhood until late at night, the increased traffic and parking in our neighborhood (also increased pollution as a result), planes flying overhead or taking off over our houses because there is no enforcement of the rules at the airport. This is another slap in the face to the people in this part of Carlsbad. Please consider rejecting this proposal and putting it somewhere where there are not so many children and other people. Thank you, Silvia Chang Silvia Chang 760-310-2570 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 103 of 138 1 Kyle Van Leeuwen From:Mary Crotty <marycrotty4@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, February 1, 2023 9:34 PM To:Lauren Yzaguirre Subject:Fwd: 90' Cellular Pole Replacing 78' Light Pole @ Poinsettia Park I wholeheartedly second all the reasons in this forwarded message to deny this application. Mary Crotty 6713 Camphor Place Carlsbad, CA 92011 Begin forwarded message: From: "AT&T Inc." <cheryllinzey@sbcglobal.net> Subject: Fw: 90' Cellular Pole Replacing 78' Light Pole @ Poinsettia Park Date: February 1, 2023 at 9:12:43 PM PST To: Mary Crotty <marycrotty4@gmail.com>, Dave Steffy <dsteffy@sbcglobal.net> Please send your objection to Lauren Aguirre at the City of Carlsbad before it's too late! ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: AT&T Inc. <cheryllinzey@sbcglobal.net> To: lauren.yzaguirre@carlsbadca.gov <lauren.yzaguirre@carlsbadca.gov> Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2023 at 09:08:57 PM PST Subject: 90' Cellular Pole Replacing 78' Light Pole @ Poinsettia Park The application for CUP2022-0023 should be denied on the basis of the following; 1. The height of the pole and tower will ad to a negative view impact for all surrounding homes. We don't want anymore than what is already excessive man made view pollution in our area. The Cellular towers are not pleasant to look at and are a negative impact on home values. 2. RF Radiation Dangers are near residents and will cause children and anyone playing in the park exposer to Dangerous health hazards. The City of Carlsbad and it's elected officials must understand the above and protect the citizens of Carlsbad from the possible and these negative impacts. I realize that the City is looking for revenue flow from AT&T but should not be at the cost of making our area worst for it. David and Cheryl Linzey 6705 Camphor Place Carlsbad CA, 92011 Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 104 of 138 1 Kyle Van Leeuwen From:Scott Chadwick Sent:Thursday, March 23, 2023 8:21 AM To:Eric Lardy; Jeff Murphy Cc:Geoff Patnoe; Gary Barberio Subject:FW: Thank you for infrastructure improvements in Carlsbad Good morning- Forwarding the below input related to referenced project on poinsettia. Scott Chadwick City Manager City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 www.carlsbadca.gov Facebook | Twitter | You Tube | Pinterest |Enews From: Dan <dan@dan.pm> Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2023 12:01 AM To: Scott Chadwick <Scott.Chadwick@carlsbadca.gov>; Priya Bhat-Patel <Priya.Bhat-Patel@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: Thank you for infrastructure improvements in Carlsbad Hello Scott and Priya, Frank likes to send out mass messages where he BCCs everyone so that nobody can reply and disagree with him. Don't get me started on his opposition to *any* improvements at the airport, which would be a boon to Carlsbad residents and businesses. Frank says "my neighbors" "are totally against" the project at the park. Well, I'm one of his neighbors and as far as I know, I don't know anyone else who is against this AT&T/Verizon equipment. That area is notoriously poor for good service and in 2023, people rely on connectivity more than ever. I know you know this, but the science tells us pretty clearly that a) there's no health risk known at this time and b) there are a lot more risks associated with standing in the sun at the park or getting an x- ray from that park-related sports injury. Comparing non-ionizing radiation vs. ionizing radiation is like comparing drinking non-alcoholic beer to drinking Samuel Adams Utopias craft beer (28%) beer. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 105 of 138 2 "Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) are invisible areas of energy caused by electromagnetic radiation being emitted. There are ionizing and nonionizing EMFs. The latter describes low-level radiation, or emission of energy through space and objects. Sources that transmit these waves include phones, computers, Bluetooth devices, power lines and even microwaves. Meanwhile, ionizing EMFs have much higher radiation, with sources including sunlight and x-rays. The difference between the two matters greatly in terms of health and safety, notes Collins. “In human tissues, ionizing radiation at high enough doses is associated with an increase in cancer, most often skin cancer from the ultraviolet energy in sunlight.” 5G operates on two frequencies, the highest of which ranges from 24.25 GHz to 52.6 GHz notes Frontiers in Public Health[1]. “It is at those frequencies that the big gains in speed of data transfer are really expected,” says Collins. But he adds that the frequency in which electromagnetic radiation starts to ionize and becomes dangerous is about 3 million GHz, nowhere close to 5G. While ionizing radiation at high doses may be linked to cancer, both experts say nonionizing radiation has currently not been proven to do the same. Additionally, the Food and Drug Administration’s team of medical doctors, scientists and researchers who study radiofrequency reports “the current limit on radiofrequency energy set by the [FCC] remains acceptable for protecting public health.” And research published in the Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology found “no confirmed evidence that low-level RF fields above 6GHz such as those used by the 5G network are hazardous to human health[2].” " Dan ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Frank Sung <franksung01@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 10:14 PM Subject: Why Would City Put HOT SPOTS In City Parks? To: Scott Chadwick <scott.chadwick@carlsbadca.gov> Cc: Priya Bhat-Patel <Priya.Bhat-Patel@carlsbadca.gov> Hi Scott - My neighbors and I are totally against the City putting cellular transmission equipment in Poinsettia Park .. near where people live and children play. We have been working with the Planning Department once we were alerted to the AT&T WCF CUP submission .. only to find out that there's also a Verizon WCF CUP submission in the queue. (see attached picture CUP 2022-0023 & CUP 2021-0002) .. near to each other .. near homes and the children's playground and baseball fields. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 106 of 138 3 This is insane! Why would the City put HOT SPOTS in our beautiful parks near where people live and children play? This is not consistent with the spirit and intent of the City's guidelines on cellular equipment placement (Policy #64). The City does have some leeway in this matter. See what Encinitas just passed > https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/communities/north-county/story/2019-10-31/encinitas-to-ban-5g-wireless-antennas-near- schools-daycares-residences Would you please look into how the residents' desires can be blended with the cellular companies goals? What exists today at Calavera Park (4 WCFs clustered) is NOT good planning and is disgraceful. You should take a drive up to the Community Center and see what happened. Please let me know your thoughts. Thx Frank Sung Mariners Point HOA Board Member (m) 760-213-9036 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 107 of 138 1 Kyle Van Leeuwen From:Kimberly <kdhuston2003@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, February 1, 2023 7:23 PM To:Lauren Yzaguirre Subject:Cell tower planned for Poinsettia Park Hi Lauren, I am reaching out today in regards to a notice received from MD7 for installation of a 90 ft cell tower at Poinsettia Park by AT&T. I do not support this at all. I live one street over from where they want to put that tower and I feel there are other parts of carlsbad they can find that is not as intrusive to the people who live near our park. Here are my reasons: 1. They really don't know what the health risks are. Depends on where you get your information. We are talking about a park with close proximity to a grade school. Just not OK. What are you thinking by considering this? 2. Property Values. Statistics will show that people are less likely to buy a home near power lines. Cell towers are no different. I prefer to not have to worry about that. 3. A 90 ft pool is an eye sore. We want to preserve our beautiful place. People who live on the hill whose homes have views of the ocean and sunsets I'm pretty sure don't want to look through cell towers. Nor do I wish for people who visit from all over the world come and see how we mucked up one of the most beautiful places in the world with towers of antennas. Have some control here. Why do we have to be that kind of city? Find a different spot less conspicuous please. 4. AT&T would just be the start of it. Once they put their up the others follow. It's a given. What are we thinking here? What monster are we really creating. Find a different spot less conspicuous please. 5. Cell towers will be obsolete in the near future. Why do we feel the park is a good place to be a temporary housing place for late technology. AT&T wants to make it easy for them to access our power and resources for energy. That's not OK. Find a different spot less conspicuous please. I don't feel this is a good plan for our community and the city needs to come up with a different location other than our parks and near our schools. I will recommend to my HOA board to prepare a letter on behalf of our community that this is not a good place to install a cell tower for reasons above. Thank you so much. I appreciate your time and consideration. Kimberly Desmarais PRIVACY NOTICE - The information contained in this email is confidential. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are NOT the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 108 of 138 2 prohibited. If you have received this email in error, do NOT read the content transmitted and please notify me immediately by email and delete the communication. CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 109 of 138 1 Kyle Van Leeuwen From:Kimberly <kdhuston2003@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, February 24, 2023 10:42 PM To:Lauren Yzaguirre; Frank Sung Cc:ed jago; AT&T Inc.; Michelle Backus; Richard Heimlich; Susan LeClair; Robert Hampton; sharilynschultz1111@gmail.com; Mary Crotty; Christa Ritchie; Kevin Fritz; Tom Rhatigan; Ben Martin; Katherine; Vilas Koinkar; The Hoa; Silvia Chang; Mark Frushone; Aileen Heimlich; dsteffy@sbcglobal.net Subject:Re: Poinsettia Park Wireless Communication Facility (WCF) Hello, Agreed. I want to also point out that cell towers this close to residential homes, the park, and school will affect the property values and deter people from buying near a cell tower by as much as 20%. https://www.nationalbusinesspost.com/cell-towers-impact-home-values/ https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20140703005726/en/Survey-by-the-National-Institute-for-Science- Law-Public-Policy-Indicates-Cell-Towers-and-Antennas-Negatively-Impact-Interest-in-Real-Estate-Properties My suggestion is to find another location in a less densely populated area. Thank you. Kimberly Desmarais PRIVACY NOTICE - The information contained in this email is confidential. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are NOT the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, do NOT read the content transmitted and please notify me immediately by email and delete the communication. On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 04:11:44 PM PST, Frank Sung <franksung01@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Lauren - Thank you for beginning to set some boundaries (height and design) on what cellular facilities are to be permitted in the City of Carlsbad. My neighbors and I OBJECT TO THE LOCATION of this proposed facility at Poinsettia Park. Carlsbad Council Policy #64 (see below) clearly says that locations of new cellular facilities are to be away from residential areas. This is NOT the case for this proposed facility. Our parks are a treasure to the community. Children play and people congregate at our parks. Residential neighborhoods are adjacent to our parks. Please have the project applicant identify locations away from our parks .. ie away from where people live and play. Thank you! Frank Sung (m) 760-213-9036 Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 110 of 138 2 A. Location Guidelines for Placement of WCFs (excluding SWFs) 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 that alternatives in more-preferred locations are not technically feasible or potentially available as required by Application and Review Guideline E.3. 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. Dec. 14, 2021Item #16 Page 16 of 252 5. Monopoles – No new ground-mounted WCF 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.4. On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 2:22 PM Lauren Yzaguirre <Lauren.Yzaguirre@carlsbadca.gov> wrote: Good Afternoon, Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 111 of 138 1 Kyle Van Leeuwen From:Kevin Fritz <kf99@nethere.net> Sent:Monday, February 6, 2023 1:24 PM To:Lauren Yzaguirre Subject:Poinsettia Park proposed cell tower / No vote Dear Lauren, I am strongly opposed to installing a new cell tower at Poinsettia Park for the following reasons. 1. RF transmissions create a health hazard to my family and neighbors living in close proximity. 2. No one wants to live next to a large tower. This will negatively affect the surrounding property values. Better cell coverage does not increase property value. 3. The proposed design is a very large commercial cell site. This size is too big to just improve service to the immediate neighborhoods. This is a large revenue source for ATT and the city but the surrounding neighbors receive nothing of benefit. 4. Extending the light standard and adding dozens of antennas creates an eyesore. ATT proposed no mitigation to otherwise disguise the structure. 5. The extra tall pole height will probably have a bright beacon light at night due to its close proximity to the airport. This will be a nuisance to surrounding neighbors. 6. The extra tall pole is in the landing path of Lifeflight or REACH emergency helicopter when they land on the soccer field. This creates a much more dangerous landing approach for this necessary service, especially at night. 7. There is an Osprey nest less than 150' from the proposed tower. Is it fair to expose this wildlife to same RF radiation too? Who speaks for that nesting pair? 8. We were promised by city officials that when this latest park improvements ( dog park, pickleball, new playground, new bathrooms ) that the park was, "built out" and no further construction would occur. Thank you for collecting our feedback. Kevin and Ellen Fritz 1002 Beacon Bay Dr. CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 112 of 138 1 Kyle Van Leeuwen From:Mark Frushone <mjfrushone@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, February 5, 2023 7:25 AM To:Lauren Yzaguirre Subject:Proposed cell tower, Poinsettia Park Good morning As a father of two younger children, who oŌen play sports at poinseƫa park. I am not in favor of placing a cell tower so close to there a developing brains. One of the beneﬁts of living in Carlsbad is our wonderful public services. In my opinion, the long term affects of RV and UV have not fully been realized. I oppose puƫng the new cell tower in poinseƫa park. Mark CAUTION: Do not open aƩachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 113 of 138 1 Kyle Van Leeuwen From:Nora George <norageorge7@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 21, 2023 7:20 PM To:Lauren Yzaguirre Subject:Re: Proposed cell tower at Poinsettia Park Hello Lauren, Wow, I am very surprised the city has no power to prevent this from being installed in a highly populated area. Can the city request the proposed location to be moved to an area further away from homes, thus, minimizing RF exposure to nearby residents? As you can see, it is VERY close to our property line. In fact, all the properties on Beacon Bay Drive share a green easement with the park - THAT is how close we are. Even to the geographical center of the park would be better. Would it be possible for you to send me a copy of the RF Electromagnetic Energy Jurisdictional Report showing the applicant as compliant? It is good to hear the applicant is willing to work with the public; however, a shorter tower would bring the radiation closer to people. Safety should always take precedence over aesthetics. Thanks for all your information. Kind regards, Nora J George Arts Commissioner City of Carlsbad California (760)930-0065 (619)252-5136 text On Feb 21, 2023, at 11:27 AM, Lauren Yzaguirre <Lauren.Yzaguirre@carlsbadca.gov> wrote: Hi Ms. George, Thank you for providing your comments. I am taking over this project until Kyle returns. The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) regulated radio frequency (RF) emissions. By federal law, the city is prohibited from regulating the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency (RF) emissions, if the facilities comply with the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) regulations concerning RF emissions. The applicant has submitted a Radio Frequency - Electromagnetic Energy Jurisdictional Report to show compliance with FCC regulations. The initial application included a total of 15 antennas (5 per sector, 3 sectors). The city has received a number of concerns from the community regarding the initial design and height of the tower. As result, the city has encouraged the applicant to redesign the project. The applicant is currently working on a new design, so the number of antennas and the RF Electromagnetic Energy Jurisdictional Report may change with a new design. Please see the blue marker in the aerial below for the approximate location of the proposed wireless site. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 114 of 138 1 Kyle Van Leeuwen From:Nora George <norageorge7@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 20, 2023 5:50 PM To:Kyle Van Leeuwen Cc:Priya Bhat-Patel Subject:Proposed cell tower at Poinsettia Park Hello Kyle, Our neighborhood has received correspondence on a proposed cellphone tower at Poinsettia Park and we are extremely concerned about the health issues and drop in housing values that come with such towers. In short, this is a HUGE danger to our youth, their parents and the many residents that regularly use this park. I’m sure you are familiar with the basic and minimal safety requirements for such towers and the homes on Beacon Bay Drive, nor the many ball courts at Poinsettia Park, are NOT at the standard and minimal distance of a quarter mile. Please provide me with specific information on the unit that is being proposed and of the radio frequency and EMFs that it will emit. You know the health and economic dangers of this project so I will not bother at this point to list them. Fortunately, we live in a neighborhood full of engineers, scientists, medical doctors and teachers that each have valid and serious concerns in their respective fields and we are prepared to prevent this project from coming to fruition. I am confident in staff’s ability to find alternative sites for this cell tower, such as the golf course or water tower (both on higher ground), away from so many vulnerable residents and park users. Thank you much for your assistance. Kind regards, Nora J George Arts Commissioner City of Carlsbad California (760)930-0065 (619)252-5136 text CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 115 of 138 1 Kyle Van Leeuwen From:Nora George <norageorge7@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, March 3, 2023 1:26 PM To:Eric Lardy Cc:Priya Bhat-Patel; Lauren Yzaguirre; Kyle Lancaster; Kyle Van Leeuwen Subject:Proposed cell tower at Poinsettia Park Dear Eric, I live adjacent to Poinsettia Park so I share the plethora of concerns over the proposed cell phone tower at Poinsettia Park with my community ranging from potential health concerns to devaluation of property values. I urge you and your staff to find an alternative location for such tower that is not so close to housing and not in the middle of our busiest active park. My biggest (of many) three concerns are as follow: 1. City officials have gone through the trouble of creating and adopting City Council Policy 64 yet staff is not adhering to the policy’s “preferred” and “discouraged” locations for such towers. Under “preferred”, section A1(h), parks and residential zones are ranked as the penultimate choice. Under “discouraged”, section A2(b), parks and residential zones are ranked as the second most discouraged. Clearly, there is a disparity. 2. The RF Electromagnetic Energy Jurisdictional Report, page 8, states that the “report was prepared for the use of AT&T Mobility, LLC to meet requirements outlined in AT&T’s corporate RF safety guidelines”. It further states that the modeling methodology including inputs and parameters were dictated by AT&T; moreover, a statistical reduction of “the power to 32% of maximum theoretical power” was used to achieve favorable results. I also question if the modeling took in consideration the amount of metals surrounding the proposed location - smack in the middle of multiple ball fields with lots of fencing. I realize that there are certain industry accepted standards and factors when it comes to modeling but for AT&T to dictate their own criteria seems self-serving and dangerous. It would behoove the city to exercise some due diligence. 3. I understand that the consultant is attempting to appease community concerns with a “stealth” design similar to what is present at Calaveras Park; however, that design involves using a shorter pole which brings the radiation closer to the ground. This design is counterintuitive to addressing community concerns which, essentially, revolve around the unknown long term affects of RFs which manifest as social concerns vis-à-vis visual reminders of potential health concerns leading to decreased property values. Ms. Yzaguirre has done an excellent job of fielding community concerns and providing us with information. I am confident that you, Eric, and your staff will find an alternative location that is not so close to residents, park users, and schools that will prove satisfactory with AT&T as well as the community you serve. Many thanks! Kind regards, Nora J George Arts Commissioner City of Carlsbad California (760)930-0065 (619)252-5136 text CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 116 of 138 1 Kyle Van Leeuwen From:Robert Hampton <thesouthhamptons@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 7, 2023 8:17 PM To:Lauren Yzaguirre Subject:Cell Tower at Poinsettia Park Dear Lauren, I live behind Poinsettia Park and feel very concerned about the proposed cell tower. This seems way to close to schools, playgrounds, sports fields and houses to be safe. From what I read, there is not definitive research on the long term exposure from RF waves. There can’t be, since this technology is so new. So why would we want to risk having this tower installed some place where so many children spend so much time? I know that when my kids were playing sports our entire family spent hours at their practices/events every week. Multiply that by 3 kids and over 15 years of sports, that is a lot of exposure. Not to mention the houses, and school and pre school that are near by. There must be a better location with more open space around it. Thankfully, Carlsbad has so much open space. It seems an odd choice to put this right in the middle of a park. I used to work for a chemical production company in the computer chip industry. We regularly had safety trainings and had to read MSDS sheets. One piece of safety advice I always remember was that we never want to get close to the recommended exposure limits. Because anytime the exposure limits changed, it was always because the existing limits were too high. I look forward to hearing that a safer location has been found for this tower. Sincerely, Anne Hampton CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 117 of 138 1 Kyle Van Leeuwen From:Aileen Heimlich <treasuresfound1995@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 22, 2023 1:50 PM To:Eric Lardy; Kyle Van Leeuwen; Curtis Jackson; Cliff Jones; Shared Building; Scott Chadwick; Kyle Lancaster Cc:Priya Bhat-Patel Subject:Poinsettia Park AT&T and Verizon Wireless Cell Facility (WCF) Tower CUPs Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Greetings Staff: As there are now two WCF proposals awaiting approval, we are concerned that they may be approved without intentional consideration of Policy 64 with THE purpose "to GUIDE the public, applicants, boards and commissions and staff in reviewing the placement, construction, and modifications of WCFs." We are concerned, as well, that other WCF applicants may propose installation at this park. Poinsettia Park serves as a major recreational feature of the city with many children and adults recreating there on a daily basis. There are several neighborhoods as well as Pacific Rim Elementary School with a large playfield in close proximity to the park. Additionally, there is an osprey nest on a light post within 150 feet of the two proposed locations which has been utilized two years in a row, having produced two chicks that matured last year, and the return of the ospreys to reinforce their nest and utilize it again this year. The osprey had built a nest three years ago in the same location but it was removed. Two of the goals of Policy 64 are to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public as well as to encourage location of such facilities away from residential and other sensitive areas. In conjunction with the goals, The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 preserves a city's ability to regulate the placement of wireless communication facilities as there is to be no gap in coverage and states that no entity can prevent the completion of a network. We appreciate that the City tightened up Policy 64 after the construction of four WCFs at Calavera Park in close proximity to homes and within a well-utilized park. We have several questions for which we would appreciate responses that shed some light as to why a park location is more preferential to the applicants contrary to Policy 64's purpose and goals? Where is the City's guidance in this regard other than to ask for analysis(es) of other more preferred locations? The permit process in Policy 64 clearly states that "new WCFs are allowed in the public right-of-way- of roads (ROW) subject to the requirements" of said Policy. Additionally, Policy 64 lists 7 more preferred locations than one adjacent to residences/sensitive areas. Have the applicants analyzed and demonstrated that alternatives in more-preferred locations have been proven not technically feasible or available? What is the documentation AT&T has provided that the locations for CUP 2021-002 and CDP 2021-001 are not feasible? We request a copy of said documentation. As the FCC requires environmental review for a selected site and ospreys return to the same nest year after year, how and when is the applicant held responsible to the guidelines set forth by the FCC? We now wonder if future applicants should be required to submit such an analysis as part of the application process so as not to simply pick the easiest potential location. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 118 of 138 2 It is our understanding that "(FCC) rules impose enforceable duties on licensees/applicants in order to meet NEPA obligations." As the nearby environment is residential and riparian with federally threatened California Coastal Gnatcatchers and (Audubon endangered species) ospreys returning regularly to a previously utilized nest, has an analysis taken place as to potential effects on the environment and the wildlife living there? IF not, when will this analysis take place? Have total RF emissions from the Hidden Valley Road 5G facility as well as both proposed locations at Poinsettia Park been taken into consideration in conjunction with other (possible) nearby existing locations? Thank you for the opportunity to be involved in the decision-making process of this matter, for our community as well as for other Carlsbad communities. Respectfully, Aileen and Richard Heimlich CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 119 of 138 1 Kyle Van Leeuwen From:Richard Heimlich <rheimlich@icloud.com> Sent:Wednesday, February 8, 2023 10:49 AM To:Lauren Yzaguirre Cc:Eric Lardy Subject:AT&T cell tower at Poinsettia Park Hi Lauren and Eric - as a resident of Mariner’s Point I am opposed to this tower in Poinsettia park near my house. It should be put in business zone along Paseo Del Norte to the northwest. Higher elevation there better for cell coverage. Doesn’t belong where kids play and adults gather every day with RF dangers. It is proposed next to baseball field where we host Jazz in the Park, TGIF series. Also proposed to go 90 feet because location is in a valley. Taller than existing playing field light towers. Visual pollution as well is an issue for us whose view looks to the park. Thanks for your consideration, Richard Heimlich 6729 Tea Tree St Carlsbad, Ca 92011 619-301-2433 Sent from my iPhone CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 120 of 138 1 Kyle Van Leeuwen From:Vilas Koinkar <vkoinkar@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, February 5, 2023 8:50 AM To:Lauren Yzaguirre Cc:The Hoa Subject:Proposed Cell Tower at Poinsettia Park Dear Lauren, We own a home in Poinseƫa Cove, you are posing a serious health risk to our neighborhood and people in park from RF radiaƟons by installing cell towers right in our back yard. We strongly vote against this proposed cell tower project. Best Regards, Vilas Koinkar, Ph. D. Seema Koinkar Sent from my iPhone CAUTION: Do not open aƩachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 121 of 138 1 Kyle Van Leeuwen From:Susan LeClair <sleclair@wccmonitoring.com> Sent:Monday, February 6, 2023 4:35 PM To:Lauren Yzaguirre Subject:ATT Cell Tower at Poinsettia Park Hello Lauren I am emailing to note that I and my husband, residents of mariner’s Point for the last 5 years and prior to that 25 year residents at The Cove are 100 percent opposed to the proposition for a new cell tower at Poinsettia Park. Please advise if there is anyone else I should contact in regards to this matter. Thank you. Regards, Susan E. LeClair CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 122 of 138 1 Kyle Van Leeuwen From:AT&T Inc. <cheryllinzey@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Wednesday, February 1, 2023 9:09 PM To:Lauren Yzaguirre Subject:90' Cellular Pole Replacing 78' Light Pole @ Poinsettia Park The application for CUP2022-0023 should be denied on the basis of the following; 1. The height of the pole and tower will ad to a negative view impact for all surrounding homes. We don't want anymore than what is already excessive man made view pollution in our area. The Cellular towers are not pleasant to look at and are a negative impact on home values. 2. RF Radiation Dangers are near residents and will cause children and anyone playing in the park exposer to Dangerous health hazards. The City of Carlsbad and it's elected officials must understand the above and protect the citizens of Carlsbad from the possible and these negative impacts. I realize that the City is looking for revenue flow from AT&T but should not be at the cost of making our area worst for it. David and Cheryl Linzey 6705 Camphor Place Carlsbad CA, 92011 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 123 of 138 1 Kyle Van Leeuwen From:Ben Martin <benslens1@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 7, 2023 12:09 PM To:Lauren Yzaguirre Subject:Opposition to MD7 cell phone tower proposal Attn: Lauren Yzaguirre Associate Planner Community Development Department 1635 Faraday Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 442-339-2634 direct Hello Lauren, Thank you for listening and being an advocate for the people. I am writing this letter as a concerned resident owning 6713 Whitesail St. . A recent notification letter had been sent out to anyone within a 600 foot radius of a proposed permit by “MD7” - Application number CUP2022–0023 space project name CALO1850 Poinsettia park new site build (no mention of a cell tower) regarding a cell tower to be built on the southern portion of the Poinsettia park property. To keep this brief and clear we are opposed to this proposal. The reasons for opposing would be the fact that it’s near our residence as well as the fact that it would be in a public space that is constantly occupied by hundreds of all ages and animals. Everybody’s proximity to equipment like this has been proven to have negative impacts. Not only is this proposed in a public park, but in one of the most regularly and densely populated areas of the park, right in between two sports fields. Additionally, I do not understand why projects like this are even considered in areas like a large public park when there are streets like Avenida Encinas (specifically where the water treatment plant is located) or golf courses/ country clubs that would have no problem housing projects like this and have minimal impact on any surrounding areas. A resounding and definite opposition would be our voice regarding MD7’s proposal. We trust that you will do what is needed to prevent sneaky non transparent deals like this from taking place. Please keep us updated. Community development not corporate! :) Thank you, Ben Martin & Family CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 124 of 138 1 Kyle Van Leeuwen From:Gianlorenzo Masini <gianlorenzo.masini@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, February 26, 2023 10:10 PM To:Lauren Yzaguirre Subject:concerns about new cell phone tower plan in Poinsettia Park Dear Ms. Yzaguirre, We are residents of the Cove HOA and we are writing to express our strong opposition to the planned installation of a new cell phone tower in the Poinsettia Park, in close proximity to the Pacific Rim Elementary school campus and in a densely developed residential area. First, we believe the chosen location does not match the recommendation clearly expressed in CCC Policy 64, A. 1. which lists “Parks and Community facilities” as the second last preferred place (in a list of 9), and residential areas in general as a “discouraged location”. If indeed this is a last resort choice, the motivation should be abundantly supported by documentation on which more preferable (in the sense of the cited document) alternative sites have been considered and discarded. We have not seen this. In addition, the result of the technical evaluation of the level of exposure in the neighborhood of the antenna shows that at the antenna level, an area of approximately 96’ around the tower is actually potentially passing the limits for general public. This is likely considered safe because of the height of the antenna but it is not clear how the significant difference in ground levels the surrounding developments have been taken into account in this assessment. Also the simulation does not seems to take into account the presence of other metal structures (light poles, metal fences of the baseball fields) in the vicinity of the antenna that could change the radiation shape by reflection and focusing. Moreover the calculation has been performed using a "32% of maximum theoretical power” factor as suggested by AT&T (pag.8). Since AT&T is the customer for this report it would be probably good to double check this de-rating value with a third party for consistency. I know the concerns expressed above are shared by numerous members of our community, and I hope this Administration will help us to convince the interested Company to revisit their choice and found a more appropriate location. With best regards, Gianlorenzo Masini and Gabriella Maiello CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 125 of 138 1 Kyle Van Leeuwen From:Bryan Phillips <bryan.g.phillips@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Saturday, February 25, 2023 4:23 PM To:Lauren Yzaguirre Subject:Poinsettia Park Wireless Communication Facility (WCF) Attachments:cell tower location in Feb2023 notification mail.jpeg Dear Ms. Yzaguirre: This email to to express my objection to the proposed installation location of the Poinsettia Park Wireless Communication Facility (WCF) cellular tower. It is my hope that the City of Carlsbad will take measures to locate this tower elsewhere, away from concentrated, young populations. My concerns extend beyond the three, below, but I will remain brief: 1) The cell tower being installed near a school (Pacific Rim Elementary) and directly in a (highly populated) park. 2) Old map used to notify surrounding residents: The surrounding residents were notified late Jan / early Feb 2023 via USPS mail of the application which contained a 1994 Thomas Bros map for tower location that conveniently did not show the park nor school in the proposed location (attached). In my opinion, the omission of the park and school by using a 29 year old map seems highly suspect. 3) Per CCC Policy 64, A.1., the applicant is resorting to nearly the last preferred location out of 9 (8th, "h. Parks and community facilities"). Thank you for your attention. Your help will be greatly appreciated. Bryan Phillips 1035 Beacon Bay Drive Carlsbad, CA 92011 7605858050 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 126 of 138 1 Kyle Van Leeuwen From:Scott Chadwick Sent:Thursday, March 23, 2023 8:17 AM To:Jeff Murphy; Eric Lardy Cc:Gary Barberio; Geoff Patnoe Subject:FW: Poinsettia Park AT&T and Verizon Wireless Cell Facility (WCF) Tower CUPs Forwarding along the input that was sent to me related to this project. Scott Chadwick City Manager City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 www.carlsbadca.gov Facebook | Twitter | You Tube | Pinterest |Enews From: josette pyper <josettepyper@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 10:14 PM To: Scott Chadwick <Scott.Chadwick@carlsbadca.gov> Cc: Priya Bhat-Patel <Priya.Bhat-Patel@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: Poinsettia Park AT&T and Verizon Wireless Cell Facility (WCF) Tower CUPs Greetings Staff: As there are now two WCF proposals awaiting approval, we are concerned that they may be approved without intentional consideration of Policy 64 with THE purpose "to GUIDE the public, applicants, boards and commissions and staff in reviewing the placement, construction, and modifications of WCFs." We are concerned, as well, that other WCF applicants may propose installation at this park. Poinsettia Park serves as a major recreational feature of the city with many children and adults recreating there on a daily basis. There are several neighborhoods as well as Pacific Rim Elementary School with a large playfield in close proximity to the park. Additionally, there is an osprey nest on a light post within 150 feet of the two proposed locations which has been utilized two years in a row, having produced two chicks that matured last year, and the return of the ospreys to reinforce their nest and utilize it again this year. The osprey had built a nest three years ago in the same location but it was removed. Two of the goals of Policy 64 are to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public as well as to encourage location of such facilities away from residential and other sensitive areas. In conjunction with the goals, The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 preserves a city's ability to regulate the placement of wireless communication facilities as there is to be no gap in coverage and states that no entity can prevent the completion of a network. We appreciate that the City tightened up Policy 64 after the construction of four WCFs at Calavera Park in close proximity to homes and within a well-utilized park. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 127 of 138 2 We have several questions for which we would appreciate responses that shed some light as to why a park location is more preferential to the applicants contrary to Policy 64's purpose and goals? Where is the City's guidance in this regard other than to ask for analysis(es) of other more preferred locations? The permit process in Policy 64 clearly states that "new WCFs are allowed in the public right-of-way- of roads (ROW) subject to the requirements" of said Policy. Additionally, Policy 64 lists 7 more preferred locations than one adjacent to residences/sensitive areas. Have the applicants analyzed and demonstrated that alternatives in more-preferred locations have been proven not technically feasible or available? What is the documentation AT&T has provided that the locations for CUP 2021-002 and CDP 2021-001 are not feasible? We request a copy of said documentation. As the FCC requires environmental review for a selected site and ospreys return to the same nest year after year, how and when is the applicant held responsible to the guidelines set forth by the FCC? We now wonder if future applicants should be required to submit such an analysis as part of the application process so as not to simply pick the easiest potential location. It is our understanding that "(FCC) rules impose enforceable duties on licensees/applicants in order to meet NEPA obligations." As the nearby environment is residential and riparian with federally threatened California Coastal Gnatcatchers and (Audubon endangered species) ospreys returning regularly to a previously utilized nest, has an analysis taken place as to potential effects on the environment and the wildlife living there? IF not, when will this analysis take place? Have total RF emissions from the Hidden Valley Road 5G facility as well as both proposed locations at Poinsettia Park been taken into consideration in conjunction with other (possible) nearby existing locations? Thank you for the opportunity to be involved in the decision-making process of this matter, for our community as well as for other Carlsbad communities. Respectfully, Josette Pyper josettepyper@hotmail.com CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 128 of 138 1 Kyle Van Leeuwen From:Tom Rhatigan <rhatigantom62@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, February 5, 2023 3:29 PM To:Lauren Yzaguirre Subject:Poinsettia Park cell tower Hello, I live on Beacon Bay Drive and want to let you know that my wife and I are in favor of the new cell tower in the park We’ve never had any decent reception on our phones and are hopeful that will improve with the new tower. We have been getting emails and texts from people who do NOT live in our neighborhood to vote down the tower. They obviously have never had cellphone reception problems but still want to have a say in what is happening in OUR neighborhood. Thank you for trying to help our community. I hope this email in the affirmative is more of the majority than the minority. Tom Rhatigan CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 129 of 138 1 Kyle Van Leeuwen From:Christa Ritchie <christamritchie@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, February 5, 2023 9:06 PM To:Lauren Yzaguirre Subject:I oppose the cell tower in Poinsettia Park To whom this may concern, I am a homeowner here in Carlsbad. I live in the Cove neighborhood at 6709 Whitesail St. . I live with my husband and small baby. I strongly oppose the proposed cell tower to our neighboring park, Poinseƫa park. I am extremely uncomfortable knowing something that can harm the health of me and my growing family could be right next to us. We moved here because of the park, elementary school and family lifestyle. Please for the sake of the families in this area, do not build something so horrid to our health. Especially the young who will be most greatly impacted. Please read more studies about the effect these cell towers have on communiƟes. It is not worth it. It will greatly devalue our area. Consider the impact it will have on YOUR community. Health is far greater than money and convenience. Thank you, Christa Ritchie 858-472-4583 CAUTION: Do not open aƩachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 130 of 138 1 Kyle Van Leeuwen From:Christa Ritchie <christamritchie@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, February 26, 2023 7:28 AM To:Lauren Yzaguirre Subject:Relocate the Cell Tower Hi Lauren, My plead was not taken into account when I emailed. It is important for you to listen to the taxpayers who LIVE in the area where this cell tower is proposed to go. As I’m sure you have been made very aware, our children live, play, and attend school in the very area this proposed cell tower would go. Is there no other location? Is the city really “selling out” at the cost of our youth? There are several provisions we, the taxpayers, have been made aware of regarding the placements of these poles. It is very clear this shouldn’t even have been entertained as an option for its proposed location. Now the people are having to fight back in order to protect the youth. The LAST place should NOT be in a residential location. Shame on the city for going against its own provisions. Those provisions were made for a reason. I find it hard to believe that there would be no better place for this pole. I ask that the city do its due diligence and do what’s morally right. I ask that the city relocate the proposed cellular antenna pole away from nearby residential homes and children at the park and pac rim elementary. CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 131 of 138 1 Kyle Van Leeuwen From:Sharilyn Schultz <sharilynschultz1111@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 30, 2023 2:14 PM To:HThomasJr@md7.com; Kyle Van Leeuwen Subject:Proposed cell tower at Poinsettia Park Good afternoon, I am a Carlsbad resident who lives directly across the street from Poinsettia Park, and I am writing you to express my emphatic DISAPPROVAL of the installation of this cell tower. The specific reason for my disapproval is my extreme concern over EMF exposure. As you are aware, these cell towers emit a large amount of EMF radiation, which has direct negative effects on our bodies. I do not want myself, my family, or anyone else exposed to such radiation 24/7. Thank you for taking the health risks into account as you move forward. I am hopeful that you will make the decision that is best for everyone's well being, rather than profit. Sincerely, Sharilyn Schultz CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 132 of 138 1 Kyle Van Leeuwen From:Sharilyn Schultz <sharilynschultz1111@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, February 24, 2023 9:45 PM To:Susan LeClair Cc:AT&T Inc.; Aileen Heimlich; Ben Martin; Christa Ritchie; Frank Sung; Katherine; Kevin Fritz; Kimberly; Lauren Yzaguirre; Mark Frushone; Mary Crotty; Michelle Backus; Richard Heimlich; Robert Hampton; Silvia Chang; The Hoa; Tom Rhatigan; Vilas Koinkar; dsteffy@sbcglobal.net; ed jago Subject:Re: Poinsettia Park Wireless Communication Facility (WCF) I agree as well!! On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 7:38 PM Susan LeClair <sleclair@wccmonitoring.com> wrote: Absolutely agree!!!! Susan LeClair Sent from my iPhone On Feb 24, 2023, at 4:11 PM, Frank Sung <franksung01@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Lauren - Thank you for beginning to set some boundaries (height and design) on what cellular facilities are to be permitted in the City of Carlsbad. My neighbors and I OBJECT TO THE LOCATION of this proposed facility at Poinsettia Park. Carlsbad Council Policy #64 (see below) clearly says that locations of new cellular facilities are to be away from residential areas. This is NOT the case for this proposed facility. Our parks are a treasure to the community. Children play and people congregate at our parks. Residential neighborhoods are adjacent to our parks. Please have the project applicant identify locations away from our parks .. ie away from where people live and play. Thank you! Frank Sung (m) 760-213-9036 A. Location Guidelines for Placement of WCFs (excluding SWFs) 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 Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 133 of 138 2 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 that alternatives in more- preferred locations are not technically feasible or potentially available as required by Application and Review Guideline E.3. 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 s atisfactorily 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 ar e 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 significan tly to the height or width of a facility. Dec. 14, 2021Item #16 Page 16 of 252 5. Monopoles – No new ground-mounted WCF 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.4. On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 2:22 PM Lauren Yzaguirre <Lauren.Yzaguirre@carlsbadca.gov> wrote: Good Afternoon, Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 134 of 138 1 Kyle Van Leeuwen From:Kyle Van Leeuwen Sent:Monday, November 20, 2023 11:23 AM To:Kyle Van Leeuwen Subject:FW: From: Cameron St.Clair <cstclair@rincongrp.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2023 12:36 PM To: Planning <Planning@CarlsbadCA.gov> Subject: Planning Commissioners, With the lack of evidence on 5G cell towers I strongly urge the planning commission to deny the application to allow a 5G cell tower on the New Song Church property. These towers should not be put in our neighborhoods or near schools. It is the responsibility of the commissioners to keep our neighborhoods safe. Thank you, Cameron St.Clair Owner of a property on Adams Street CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 135 of 138 1 Kyle Van Leeuwen From:Frank Sung <franksung01@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, February 24, 2023 4:11 PM To:Lauren Yzaguirre Cc:ed jago; AT&T Inc.; Michelle Backus; Richard Heimlich; Susan LeClair; Robert Hampton; Kimberly; sharilynschultz1111@gmail.com; Mary Crotty; Christa Ritchie; Kevin Fritz; Tom Rhatigan; Ben Martin; Katherine; Vilas Koinkar; The Hoa; Silvia Chang; Mark Frushone; Aileen Heimlich; dsteffy@sbcglobal.net Subject:Re: Poinsettia Park Wireless Communication Facility (WCF) Hi Lauren - Thank you for beginning to set some boundaries (height and design) on what cellular facilities are to be permitted in the City of Carlsbad. My neighbors and I OBJECT TO THE LOCATION of this proposed facility at Poinsettia Park. Carlsbad Council Policy #64 (see below) clearly says that locations of new cellular facilities are to be away from residential areas. This is NOT the case for this proposed facility. Our parks are a treasure to the community. Children play and people congregate at our parks. Residential neighborhoods are adjacent to our parks. Please have the project applicant identify locations away from our parks .. ie away from where people live and play. Thank you! Frank Sung (m) 760-213-9036 A. Location Guidelines for Placement of WCFs (excluding SWFs) 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 that alternatives in more-preferred locations are not technically feasible or potentially available as required by Application and Review Guideline E.3. 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 Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 136 of 138 2 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. Dec. 14, 2021Item #16 Page 16 of 252 5. Monopoles – No new ground-mounted WCF 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.4. On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 2:22 PM Lauren Yzaguirre <Lauren.Yzaguirre@carlsbadca.gov> wrote: Good Afternoon, I am reaching out to you in response to your expressed concerns about the proposed Poinsettia Wireless Communication Facility (CUP2022-0023) located in Poinsettia Park at 6600 Hidden Valley Road. I would like to draw your attention to the attached second review letter for this project. The concerns expressed by the community have been taken into consideration by staff. As a result, the applicant has been presented with the following two options: 1. Withdraw the project and resubmit a new application featuring a redesigned structure that incorporates a stealth design, with the replacement pole being limited in height to that of the existing pole. 2. Proceed with the current application as proposed, providing additional documentation to support the request. The applicant has been advised that although a decision has not been determined, in this scenario the city could recommend denial to the decision-making body (Planning Commission) at the public hearing. Please review the attached documentation and contact me directly should you have any questions or concerns. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 137 of 138 1 Kyle Van Leeuwen From:Laura Leigh Wantz <lauraleighwantz2021@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, February 26, 2023 6:38 PM To:Lauren Yzaguirre Cc:Priya Bhat-Patel Subject:Re: Proposed cell phone tower Dear Ms. Yzaguirre: We want to thank you for telling MD7/AT&T to lower the cell pole height and to add a stealth design at Poinsettia Park. Please have them relocate the proposed cell pole far away from where people live and where our child play and out of the visual line of the upslope neighborhood. It is inappropriate to locate these facilities so close to homes and youth sports fields and our local elementary school. Please keep in mind that, since there has been no new developments in this neighborhood, there is no real need for additional cell service. Thank you. Jim and Laura Wantz 6713 Tea Tree Street Carlsbad Email: LauraLeighWantz2021@gmail.com Cell: 949/322-4673 Landline: 760/448-5243 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 138 of 138 Poinsettia Park WCF (AT&T) Kyle Van Leeuwen, Associate Planner Community Development December 6, 2023 CUP 2022-0023/CDP 2022-0070 22 23 PROJECT LOCATION Proposed Project CUP/CDP: Wireless Communication Facility (WCF) •New 78’ tall light pole (to replace existing 78’ pole) •Placed below lights: •6 panel antennas •9 radio units •3 surge protectors •Equipment to be screened by 4’ radius radome •Equipment Enclosure (to replace trash enclosure) SCOPE OF REVIEW What is subject to review: •Placement (location) - Subject to coverage objectives •Construction (Design) - Guidelines/Requirements: •Must be reasonable (objective) •Applied to all communication infrastructure •Must be published in advance SCOPE OF REVIEW What is NOT subject to review: •Radio Frequency Emissions (RF) •Cannot be denied because of perceived radio frequency health hazards •No carrier can be favored •Cannot prevent completion of a network SCOPE OF REVIEW Policy 64 – Review Guidelines •Lists Preferred Locations (in order of preference) •Identifies Discouraged Locations •Specifies “Stealth” Design Techniques •Location and Screening of Equipment •Appropriate Height and Setbacks 28 Proposed Project 29 Proposed Project 30 Proposed Project 31 Project Changes •Early Public Feedback/Issues •Design (Height, Visual Impact) •RF Exposure •Property Values •Construction Impacts •Response •Project twice redesigned, address aesthetic/stealthing concerns •Reduced height and number of antennas •Reduction of antennas reduced the amount of RF produced Existing 1st Design 2nd Design Proposed City Council Policy 64 Proposed WCF Compliance •Exhibits “stealth” design (light pole & radome) •“Preferred location.” Park sites are preferred locations per City Council Policy 64. No alternative location exists. Applicant analyzed 8 other potential sites. •Radio frequency (RF) exposure well below the levels established as acceptable by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) •Emergency generator compliant with noise exposure limits 33 City Council Policy 64 City Council Policy 64 •The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requires facilities to comply with RF exposure limits and is the regulating authority related to RF exposure. •1996 Telecommunications Act: city cannot evaluate or deny a project based on perceived RF health hazards, so long as the project complies with exposure limits. •A RF Exposure Study demonstrating the facility will be below the FCC’s Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) has been provided. 35 Alternative Sites Analysis •Area Zoned Residential & OS •Nearest non-residential zones are 70-80 feet lower in elevation 36 Alternative Sites Analysis 37 Past Planning Commission Approvals WCF Faux Trees •6/3/2020 –Trailblazer park WCF (Approved 5-1-1) •Two 55’-tall faux eucalyptus trees •Temporary CUP in Open Space Zone (Future site of Robertson Ranch Park) •Pole appx. 280’ from residential property line, 350’ from residences WCF Light Poles •5/16/2016 –Verizon Army & Navy Athletic Facility WCF (Approved 6-0-1) •Stealth design approved as 81’-tall light pole with 6 panels within a 4’-radius radome •Appx. 550 feet from residential uses •3/4/2009 –Verizon Carlsbad High School WCF (unanimous approval) •100’-tall light pole, no additional stealthing –Open Space Zone •Pole appx. 80’ from residential property line, appx. 110’ from residence 38 Past Planning Commission Approvals Trailblazer Park WCF Verizon Army & Navy Athletic Facility WCF Verizon Carlsbad High School WCF Project Consistency •General Plan – Open Space (OS) •Zoning – Open Space (OS) •Minor Conditional Use Permit Regulations •City Council Policy 64 •Coastal Development Regulations •Growth Management •CEQA ITEM: RECOMMENDATION •ADOPT a resolution APPROVING the Minor Conditional Use Permit (CUP2022-0023) and Coastal Development Permit (CDP 2022-0070). 41 Past Planning Commission Approvals WCF Faux Trees •6/3/2020 -Trailblazer park WCF (Approved 5-1-1) •Two 55’-tall faux eucalyptus trees •Temporary CUP in Open Space Zone (Future site of Robertson Ranch Park) •Pole appx. 280’ from residential property line, 350’ from residences •4/5/2017 –Carlsbad Ellery Reservoir WCF (approved 6-0-1) •60’ faux eucalyptus tree in a Residential Zone (R-A-10000) •Pole appx. 16.5’ from residential property line, appx. 60’ from residence WCF Light Poles •5/16/2016 –Verizon Army & Navy Athletic Facility WCF (Approved 6-0-1) •Stealth design approved as 81’-tall light pole with 6 panels within a 4’-radius radome •Appx. 550 feet from residential uses •3/4/2009 –Verizon Carlsbad High School WCF (unanimous approval) •100’-tall light pole, no additional stealthing –Open Space Zone •Pole appx. 80’ from residential property line, appx. 110’ from residence •1/21/2004 –Calaveras Hills Community Park (Unanimous approval) •79.5’ light pole with flush mounted antennas – Open Space Zone •Appx. 225’ form nearest residential property line 42 Alternative Sites Analysis Federal Communications Commission (FCC) – RF Exposure •The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requires facilities to comply with radio frequency (RF) exposure guidelines, and is the regulating authority related to radiofrequency exposure limits generated by wireless communication facilities. •Based on the 1996 Telecommunications Act, a local government city cannot evaluate or deny the project based on perceived health hazards of RF exposure, so long as the project complies with federally set exposure limits. •Exhibit 8 contains a RF Electromagnetic Fields Exposure Study demonstrating that the cumulative exposure levels from this facility will be below the FCC’s Maximum Permissible Exposure 44 Setback •Proposed Setback: appx 177’ to pole (appx 210’ to nearest residence) •Required Setback: 78’ to property line •No specific setback to residential properties/uses is required 45 CUP Required Findings 1. That the requested use is necessary or desirable for the development of the community and is in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the general plan, including, if applicable, the certified local coastal program, specific plan or master plan. 2. That the requested use is not detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is to be located. 3. That the site for the proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, parking, loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping and other development features prescribed in this code and required by the City Planner, planning commission or City Council, in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. 4. That the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic generated by the proposed use. 5. That the proposed WCF is consistent with City Council Policy No. 64. 46 CDP Required Findings 1. That the proposed development is in conformance with the Certified Local Coastal Program and all applicable policies. 2. The proposal is in conformity with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter Three of the Coastal Act. 3. The project is consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone. 47 Photo Simulations 48 Photo Simulations 49 Park – Alternative Site 50 Policy 64 Language-2021 51 Policy 64 Language-2001