Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMCUP 10-07; CA SDG5664 Remax Building; Conditional Use Permit (CUP),------------1 \(~/)' ~ CITY OF CARLSBAD .LAND USE REVIEW APPLICATION P-1 -evelopment Services Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue (760) 602-4610 www.carlsbadca.gov APPLICATIONS APPLIED FOR: (CHECK BOXES) Development Permits 0 Administrative Permit 0 Coastal Development Perm~ (*) OMinor j2g Conditional Use Permit (*) HCl.AJ) i!§. Minor 0 Extension 0 Environmental Impact Assessment 0 Habitat Management Permit 0 Minor 0 Hillside Development Permit (*) 0 Planned Development Permit 0 Residential 0 Non-Residential 0 Planned Industrial Perm~ 0 Planning Commission Determination 0 Site Development Plan 0 Special Use Permit D Tentative Tract Map 0 Variance D Administrative (FOR DEPT. USE ONLY) Legislative Permits t~q_~ ( D General Plan Amendment D Local Coastal Program Amendment (*) D Master Plan D Specific Plan D Zone Change (*) 0Amendment 0Amendment D Zone Code Amendment List other applications not specified D D D *) = eligible for 25% discount (FOR DEPT. USE ONLY) NOTE: A PROPOSED PROJECT REQUIRING MULTIPLE APPLICATIONS BE FILED, MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO 3:30P.M. A PROPOSED PROJECT REQUIRING ONLY ONE APPLICA110N BE FILED MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO 4:00P.M. 5f,Q ASSESSORPARCELNO(S).: ~-\'~Q-2_)·-QQ PROJECT NAME: -S (J;J (o ~~~~~~~J_~~~~~~~~~~-------------- LOCATION OF PROJECT: 1.2CD 5 ON THE: Sot-tTl-\ (NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, WEST) BETWEEN ~to Ptco 1)g_\vt: (NAME OF STREET) P-1 STREET ADDRESS SIDE OF CAR LS B A p v 11.--LA-6 £ 06<. (NAME OF STREET) AND (NAME OF STREET) j)e.N'03 os 0 PaQe 1 of5 Revised 01110 • I CERTIFY THAT I AM THE LEGAL OWNER AND THAT ALL THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. CITY, STATE, ZIP: TELEPHONE: EMAIL ADDRESS: I CERTIFY THAT I AM THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE OWNER AND THAT ALL THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO "fHF: BEST OF ,MY Kt!I.OJIVItEDGE. """DA:-:T::=E------( !!rfuJATURE" :'jee LOA SIGNATURE . . .... .. ;___.........L_ DATE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE (Print): C. . MArLING ADDREss: P. C). Bo')( 55 crTY, sTATE, zrP: f>owo..1 1 ca q.:>.t>:p± TELEPHONE: ( (/) lq) S's.2 -4-41+ EMAIL ADDRESS: o ( ~ Y>'U~. Y1 a) ltV\, 1"1\ -fe. I CERTIFY THAT I AM THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPLICANT AND THAT ALL THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND C RECT TOT B 0 Y KNOWLEDGE. IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING THIS APPLICATION IT MAY BE NECESSARY FOR MEMBERS OF CITY STAFF, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS OR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TO INSPECT AND ENTER THE PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPLICATION. INVE CONSENT TO ENTRY FOR THIS PURPOSE. NOTICE OF RESTRICTION: PROPERTY OWNER ACKNOWLEDGES AND CONSENTS TO A NOTICE OF RESTRICTION BEING RECORDED ON THE TITLE TO HIS PROPERTY IF CONDITIONED FOR THE APPLICANT. NOTICE OF RESTRICTIONS RUN WITH THE LAND AND BIND ANY SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST. ,See LOA. PROPERTY OWNER SIGNATURE FOR CITY USE ONLY P-1 Page 2of5 ~1 IVJ:.U CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNiNG DEPT DATE STAMP APPLICATION RECEIVED RECEIVED BY: Revised 01110 ' • OPER"-TJNG AGREEMENT FOR • CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE INVESTORS, LLC A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY RECEIVED JUN 0 3 2010 CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPT This Operating Agreement (this "Agreement") is made as of January 2, 2003, by and among'¥Ml!l~ JfiJtfnd County Title Holding Corp. (collectively referred to as the "Members" or individua ly as a "Member"), with reference to the following facts: A. Articles of Organization (the "Articles") for Carlsbad Village Drive Investors, LLC (the "Company"f, a limited liability company under the laws of the State of California, have been filed with the California Secretary of State on or about December 31, 2002. B. The Members desire to adopt and approve an operating agreement for the Company under the Beverly-Killea Limited Liability Company Act (the "Act"). NOW, THEREFORE, the Members by this Agreement set forth the operating agreement for the Company upon the terms and subject to the conditions of this Agreement. ARTICLE I ORGANIZATIONAL 1\IA TTERS 1.1 Name. The name of the Company shall be "Carlsbad Village Drive Investors,_ LLC." The Company may conduct business under that name or any other name approved by the Members. 1.2 Term. The Company's existence commenced as of the date of the filing of the Articles and shall continue until dissolved pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement . . 1.3 Office and Agent. The Company shall continuously maintain an office and registered agent in the State of California as required by the Act. The principal office of the Company shall be at such location as the Members may determine. The registered agent shall be as stated in the Articles or as otherwise determined by the Members. 1.4 Business oft he Company. Notwithstanding the Company's purpose described in the Articles, the Company shall not engage in any business other than the following without the consent of all of the Members: a. The acquisition of certain real property known as 1265 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California ("Company Real Property") for the price of$558,000 upon which shall be constructed an office building as determined by the Company in accordance with all . I - ----------~------------ • • 3.1 Admission of Additional Members. Additional Members mav be admitted with the approval of all Members. Additional Members will participate i~ the Company's management, Net Profits, Net Losses, and distributions on such terms as the Members determine. The Members shall amend Exhibit A on the admission of an additional Member to set forth such Member's name and capital contribution. "Net Profits" and "Net Losses" shall mean the income, gain, loss, deductions, and credits of the Company in the aggregate or separately stated, as appropriate, determined in accordance with the method of accounting at the close of each fiscal year employed on the Company's information tax return filed for federal income tax purposes. 3.2 Withdrawals or Resignations. No Member may withdraw, retire or resign from the Company. 3.3 Pavments to Members. Except as specified in this Agreement or pursuant to a tJ·ansaction permitted by Section 4.6, no Member or person or entity controlled by, controlling or under common control with the Member (each such person or entity is defined as an "Affiliate"), is entitled to remuneration for services rendered or goods provided to the Company. However, the Company shall reimburse the Members and their Affiliates for organizational expenses (including, without limitation, legal and accounting fees and costs) incurred to form the Company, prepare the Articles and this Agreement and, as approved by the Members, for such other costs and expenses. ARTICLE IV MANAGEMENT 4.1 Management and Powers. Subject to the provisions of the Articles and this Agreement relating to actions required to be approved by the Members, the business, property and affairs of the Company shall be managed and all powers ofthe Company shall be exercised by or under the direction of two Managers ("Managers") the designation of which, from time to time, shall be by written resolution of the Members .. The Managers shall act jointly and not severally and neither one shall have the ability to bind or obligate the Company without the written joinder of the other. The Managers shall not be obligated to devote all of their time or business efforts to the affairs of the Company. The Managers shall devote whatever time, effort, and skill they deem appropriate for the. operation of the Company. The Managers shall hold the respective offices of President and Secretary as shall be designated by written resolution of the Members. 4.2 Manger Meetings. Meetings of the Managers may be called by any Manager or by any Member. All meetings shall be held upon four ( 4) days notice by mail or forty-eight (48) hours notice (or upon such shorter notice period if necessary under the circumstances) delivered personally or by telephone, telegraph or facsimile. A notice need not specify the purpose of any meeting. Notice of a meeting need not be given to any Manager who signs a -3- """' •, ,.., (.V>J't 1 f..· J Jf !Vl • No. 0784 P. 2/4 F"EB.14. 2[)03 .;: 02PI·1 P ;· ·~ COKSEJ\'T OF SPOUSE The undersigned spouse of the party to the foregoing Agreement, Frank Violi, acknowledges on her own behalf that: I have read the fongoi.llg Agreement and I know iu contents. I am aware that by {ts provision my spouse grants the Company and/or the other Members an option to purchase aJl of his or her Membership Interest, iucluding my community interest (if any) ia it I bereby eon.sen.t to tbesaJe, approve of the pr~ons of the Agreement, and agree that such Membership Interest and my interest in it are subject to the pro"~<isions of the Agreement and that I will take no action at any time to hinder operation of "'' ., .. ...,, ~ ""' --·· "'"""" my .......... ": • tU ~u ;!-1'1~3 -16. • Nc. 0784 P 3/4 UN.ANIMOUS WRITTEN RESOLUTIONS OF THE MEMBERS OF CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE INVESTORS, LLC The undersigned constituting all of the Members of Carlsbad Village Drive Investors, LLC (the "Company")do hereby make the following resolutions effective as of the date hereof. RESOLVED, that IG!rla Howard and Frank Violi be and they each hereby are appointed as Managers of the Company to serve in such capacity effective as of the date hereof and continuing until his or her successor is appointed and in accordance with the provisions of the Company's Operating Agreement and the mutual written directions of the Company's Members given from time to time hereafter; FUR TilER RESOLVED, that Frank Violi shall be the President and Karla Howard shall be the Secretary of the Company, serving in such capacities for a term conterminous with his or her term as a Manager of the Company. Dated: /-3o-2003 MEMBER: COUNTY TITLE HOLDING CORP. By: D~ld, Praideat MEMBER: /~,L~ FRANKVIOLI • UNANIMOUS WRITIEN RESOLUTIONS OF THE MEMBERS OF • CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE INVESTORS, LLC The undersigned const~uting all the Members of Carlsbad Village Drive Investors, LLC (the "Company") do hereby make the following resolutions effective as of the date hereof. RESOLVED, that David Cronenbold and Frank Violi be and they each hereby are appointed as Managers of the Company to serve in such capacity effective ass of the date hereof and continuing until his successor is appointed and in accordance with the provisions of the Company's Operating Agreement and the mutual written directions of the Company's Members given from time to time hereafter: FURTHER RESOLVED, that Frank Violi shall be the President and David Cronenbold shall be the Secretary of the-Company, serving in such capacities for a tenm conterminous with his tenm as a Manager of the Company. Dated: July 28, 2004 MEMBER: By: __ ~D-~-v~id~~ro=~~e-:'~bo--71d~---------- Frank Violi • UNANIMUS WRITTEN RESOLUTION OF TiiE MEMBERS OF • CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE INVESTORS, LLC The undersigned constituting all the Members of Carlsbad Village Drive Investors, LLC (the "Company") do hereby make the following resolutions effective as of the date hereof. RESOLVED, that with the resignation and buy out of David Cronenbold, Frank Violi is the sole owner and managing partner of Carlsbad Village Drive Investors, LLC And will conduct all business for and on behalf of the LLC; FURTHER RESOVLED, that Frank Violi shall be the President and Secretary and Treasurer of the Company; serving in such capacities for a tenn conterminous with his term as a Manager of the Company. Dated December 30, 2004 MEMBER: By: ~bold MEMBER: zee-• IOO/Ioo·d £61-1 MO~~S3 1 31111 CNY1HLnOS-MO~> WdSe:zo SOOZ-01-NVf • UNANIMOUS WRITTEN RESOLUTION OF THE MEMBERS OF CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE INVESTORS, LLC • The undersigned constituting all the Members of Carlsbad Village Drive Investors, LLC (the "Company") do hereby make the following resolution effective as of the date hereof. RESOLVED, that the Company elect Bonnie G. Violi, wife of member, Frank Violi, as a member of this Company. Further, that she become a signatory on the California Bank & Trust Company checking account #257-001-2291 with the following individual: Frank Violi. One signature of these authorized individuals will be required to disburse on the account. Dated: November 2, 2009 -. --...... '"'"-r' num ~ r."Lra-r.or p.3 310-284-2025 LAW OFFICES MWS&D 055 Plill FEll 13 '03 12,41 SECRETARY OF STATE I, BDL JONES,· Secretary of State of the State of California, hereby certify: That the attached transcript of _j__ page(s) has been compared with the record on file in this office, of which it purports to be a copy, and that it is full, true and correct. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I execute this certificate and affix the Great SeaJ of the State of California this day of <.JAN 0 S ZGq3 Secretary of State --.. - v• v~ £L-~Cp Haml~tratOr 311!-284-2025 LAW OFFICES MWS&D ·State of California Bill Jones Secretary of State UMITED UABIUTY COMPANY ARTICLES OF ORGANIZAnoN A S7U0fl"'fM --.-yt!Wionft. IMPORTANT---.lona .......,_....,pi Ungtlllo:lonft. 818-591~07 p.2 055 P02 FEB 13 '03 12:41 030 021001 ENDORSED· FILED llle or.Aof N Secrei!JIYaf Slate of IIIII s.re of Cllfoirlll OE.C 31 200Z ..;.Mc.::iCHAEL;.;.;;.;;=-:G.::.:;;DAc;,;liE;;;;... ___________________ wllll:h 1a !XI .,lndilli<luel'*-.,in ~ Pl<x•ecllo ilom4. 10. II£Tl.IRH10: ---CiTT.IaTATE "DPCilOE ---tiled• IMJCHAEI. G. DAVE MARCUS. WATANA8E, SNYDER & DAVE. U.P 1901 AVENUE OF THE STARS. SUITE 300 LO$ ANGE\.ES, CA ~ I. _j • State of California Secretary of State • I, DEBRA BOWEN, Secretary of State of the State of California, hereby certify: That the attached transcript of \ page(s) is a full, true and correct copy of the original record in the custody of this office. Sec/Stale Form CE-109 (REV 01/2009) IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I execute this certificate and affix the Great Seal of the State of California this day of DEC 2 8 2009 }~~~ DEBRA BOWEC'I Secretary of State ~ OSf' 09 W364'i'> State of California Secretary of State STATEMENT OF INFORMATION (Limited Liability Company) 1. LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY NAME (Please do not alter If name is prepnnted.) CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE INVESTORS, LLC DUE DATE: • ENDORSED • FILED In lhe oftlce of the Saael8ly of $1818 of lhe State of Calfomla NOV 1 2 2009 This Space For Filing Use Onty 3 STATE OR I'LACE OF ORGAN\ZATlON ZIP CODE 1265 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR# 100 CARLSBAD,CA 92008 5. CALIFORNIA OFFICE WHERE RECORDS ARE MAINTAINED (DOMESTIC ONLY) CITY STA'E ZIP CODE 1265 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR# 100 CARLSBAD 92008 ZIP CODE BEEN ELECTED, ZIP CODE FRANK VIOL! 2408 LA PLANCHA CARLSBAD, CA 92009 8 NAME ADDRESS CITY AND STATE ZIP CODE BONNIE G. VIOLI 2408 LA PLANCI<IA CARLSBAD,CA 92009 9 NAME ADDRESS CITY AND STATE ZIP CODE AGENT FOR OF PROCESS (If the agent is an individual. the agen1 must reside in California and Item 11 must be completed with a li address. If the agent is a corporatiOn, the agent must have on file with the California Secretary of State a certificate pursuant to Corporations Code sectmn 1505 and Item 11 must be left · 10 NAME OF AGENT FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS FRANK VIOLI 11 ADDRESS OF AGENT FOR SCRVICE OF PROCESS IN CALIFORNIA, IF AN INDIVIDUAL CITY STATE ZIP CODE 2408 LA PLANCHA 92009 12 DESCRIBE THE TYPE OF BUSINESS OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY. COMPANY REAL ESTATE 13. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS TRUE AND CORRECT Manager 10115109 SIGNATURE TITLE I (It Lawyers Title ''"':@"' n' INSURANCE CORPORAl ION M & M Telecom Nicole Meyers 6886 Mimosa Drive Carlsbad, CA 92011 Your Reference No: CA-SDG5664 • Lawyers Title 4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 120 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 724-3170 Our File No: 11824992-10 Title Officer: Chris Maziar e-mail: unitlO@Itic.com Phone: (949) 724-3170 Fax: (949) 258-5740 Property Address: 1265 Carlsbad Village Drive, City Of Carlsbad, California PRELIMINARY REPORT Dated as of January 5, 2010 at 7:30a.m. In response to the above referenced application for a policy of title insurance, Lawyers Title Company hereby reports that it is prepared to issue, or cause to be issued, as of the date hereof, a Policy or Policies of Title Insurance describing the land and the estate or interest therein hereinafter set forth, insuring against losS which may be sustained by reason of any defect lien or encumbrance not shown or referred to as an Exception below or not excluded from coverage pursuant to the printed Schedules, Conditions and Stipulations of said policy forms. The printed Exceptions and Exclusions from the coverage and Limitations on Covered Risks of said Policy or Policies are set forth in Exhibit B attached. The policy to be issued may contain an arbitration clause. When the Amount of Insurance is less than that set forth in the arbitration clause, all arbitrable matters shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the Insured as the exclusive remedy of the parties. Limitations on Covered Risks applicable to the CLTA and ALTA Homeowner's Policies of Title Insurance which establish a Deductible Amount and a Maximum Dollar Limit of Liability for certain coverages are also set forth in Exhibit B. Copies of the Policy forms should be read. They are available from the office which issued this report. Please read the exceptions shown or referred to below and the exceptions and exclusions set forth in Exhibit B of this report carefully. The exceptions and exclusions are meant to provide you with notice of matters which are not covered under the terms of the title insurance policy and should be carefully considered. It is important to note that this preliminary report is not a written representation as to the condition of title and may not list a// liens, defects, and encumbrances affecting title to the land. This report (and any supplements or amendments hereto) is issued solely for the purpose of facilitating the issuance of a policy of title insurance and no liability is assumed hereby. If it is desired that liability be assumed prior to the issuance of a policy of title insurance, a Binder or Commitment should be requested. CLTA Preliminary Report (Revised 11-17-06) Page 1 • I File No: 11824992 SCHEDULE A The form of policy of title insurance contemplated by this report is: A Preliminary Report Only The estate or interest in the land hereinafter described or referred to covered by .this report is: A FEE Title to said estate or interest at the date hereof is vested in: Carlsbad Village Drive Investors, LLC, a California limited liability company The land referred to herein is situated in the County of San Diego, State of California, and is described as fo llows: SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF Page 2 • • File No: 11824992 EXHIBIT "A" All that certain real property situated in the County of San Diego, State of California, described as follows : That portion of Fractional Block 88 of the Town of Carlsbad, in the County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 535, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County May 2, 1888, and of Ninth Street adjoining said Block 88, as closed February 15, 1893, by Order of the Board of Supervisors of San Diego County, and of Tract 119 of Carlsbad Lands, in San Diego County, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 1661, described as a whole as follows: Beginning at the point of intersection of the Southeasterly line of Elm Avenue within the Easterly line of the Town of Carlsbad, running Thence South 55° 27' West along said Southeasterly line of Elm Avenue 66.79 feet to the True Point of Beginning; Thence continuing South 55° 27' West 100 feet to a point; Thence South 34° 33' East, a distance of 200 feet to a point; Thence North 55 ° 27' East 100 feet to a point; Thence North 34° 33' West 200 feet to the True Point of Beginning. Excepting therefrom that portion thereof described in a deed recorded June 14, 1967 at Recorder's File/Page No. 84982 of said Official Records. Assessor's Parcel Number: 156-180-21 Page 3 • I File No: 11824992 SCHEDULE B-Section A The following exceptions will appear in policies when providing standard coverage as outlined below: 1. (a) Taxes or assessments that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the Public Records; (b) proceedings by a public agency that may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the Public Records. 2. Any facts, rights, interests or claims that are not shown by the Public Records but that could be ascertained by an inspection of the Land or that may asserted by persons in possession of the Land. 3. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records. 4. Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land and not shown by the Public Records. 5. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b) or (c) are shown by the Public Records. Page 4 I • File No: 11824992 SCHEDULE B -Section B At the date hereof Exceptions to coverage in addition to the printed exceptions and exclusions in said policy form would be as follows: A. Property taxes, including general and special taxes, personal property taxes, if any1 and any ~ssessments collected with taxes, to be levied for the fiscal year 2010 -2011 which are a lien not yet payable. B. Property taxes, including general and special taxes, personal property taxes, if any, and any ~ssessments collected with taxes, for the fiscal year 2009-2010. lst Installment: 2nd Installment: Penalty (including cost): Assessment No.: $!7,797.15 (Paid). $17,797.15 (Open). This amount is valid until April 10, after which penalties apply $1,789.71 Due with installment amount if paid after April 10 156-180-21 C. The lien of any special assessment or tax resulting from the inclusion of the property in a special assessment district or Mello-Roos Community Facilities District, which may exist by Virtue of assessment maps or notices filed and/or recorded by any such district. Assessments, if any, arising from such assessment districts may be collected with the regular real property taxes. D. Supplemental or escaped assessments of property taxes, if any, assessed pursuant to the Revenue and Taxation Code of the State of California. 1. Water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not shown by the public records. 2. A deed of trust to secure an indebtedness in the amount shown below, and any other obligations secured thereby. Amount: Dated: Trustor: Trustee: Beneficiary: Recorded: Loan No.: $450,000.00 February 26, 2003 Carlsbad Village Drive Investors LLC Southland Title Corporation, a California Corporation County Title Holding Corp. March 4, 2003 as Instrument No. 2003-0237406 of Official Records Not Set Out 3. The matters contained in a document entitled "Notice of Restriction on Real Property (Site development Plan No. SDP 03-12)" recorded March 29, 2004 as Instrument No. 2004-0256502 of Official Records. · Reference is made to said document for full particulars. Page 5 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------• I File No: 11824992 4. An easement document Granted to: for the purpose shown below and rights incidental thereto as set forth in a Purpose: Recorded: Affects: The City of Carlsbad, a Municipal Corporation public sidewalk access and utility January 21, 2005 as Instrument No. 2005-0054713 of Official Records said land more particularly described therein. 5. A document subject to all the terms, provisions and conditions therein contai.ned. Entitled: Oated: Executed by: Recorded: Hold Harmless Agreement drainage January 14, 2005 Carlsbad Village Drive Investors, LLC, a California limited liability company April 7, 2005 as Instrument No. 2005-0288025 of Official Records 6. A deed of trust to secure an indebtedness in the amount shown below, and any other obligations secured thereby. Amount: Dated: Trustor: Trustee: Beneficiary: Recorded: Loan No.: $2,200,000.00 January 26, 2006 Carlsbad Village Drive Investors, LLC, a California limited liability company California Community Bank California Community Bank February 1, 2006 as Instrument No. 2006-0073259 of Official Records 0140003237 7. An assignment of all the monies due or to become due as rental, as additional security for the obligations secured by deed of trust Recorded: February 1, 2006 as Instrument No. 2006-0073259 of Official Records Assigned to: By Assignment Recorded: California Community Bank February 1, 2006 as Instrument No. 2006-0073260 of Official Records 8. A document subject to all the terms, provisions and conditions therein contained. Entitled: Dated: By and between: Recorded: Hazardous Substances Certificate and Indemnity Agreement January 26, 2006 Carlsbad Village Drive Investors, LLC, Frank Violi and California Community Bank February 1, 2006 as Instrument No. 2006-0073261 of Official Records Reference is made to said document for full particulars. 9. Matters which may be disclosed by an inspection or by a survey of said land that is satisfactory to this Company, or by inquiry of the parties in possession thereof. Page 6 I • File No: 11824992 10. Any rights, interests or claims of the parties in possession of said land, including but not limited to those based on an unrecorded agreement, contract or lease. This Company will require that a full copy of any unrecorded agreement, contract or lease be submitted to US1 together with all supplements, assignments and amendments, before any policy of title insurance will be issued. 11. Any easements not disclosed by those public records which impart constructive notice and which are not visible and apparent from an inspection of the surface of said land. 12. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose, and which are not shown by the public records. END OF SCHEDULE B EXCEPTIONS PLEASE REFER TO THE "NOTES AND REQUIREMENTS SECTION" WHICH FOLLOWS FOR INFORMATION NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THIS TRANSACTION Page 7 • I File No: 11824992 REQUIREMENTS SECTION: REQ N0.1: The Company will require that it be provided with the following with respect to the California limited liability company named below: A. A copy of its operating agreement and any amendments thereto; B. A certified copy of its articles of organization (LLC-1), any certificate of correction (LLC-11), certificate of amendment (LLC-2), or restatement of articles or organization (LLC-10); and C. A copy of the current Statement of Information form (LLC-12) filed with the Secretary of State. limited Liability Company: Carlsbad Village Drive Investors, LLC, a California limited liability company Page 8 I • File No: 11824992 INFORMATIONAL NOTES SECTION NOTE NO. 1: The information on the attached plat is provided for your convenience as a guide to the general location of the subject property. The accuracy of this plat is not guaranteed, nor is it a part of any policy, report or guarantee to which it may be attached. NOTE NO. 2: California insurance code section 12413.1 regulates the disbursement of escrow and sub-escrow funds by title companies. The law requires that funds be deposited in the title company escrow account and available for withdrawal prior to disbursement. Funds deposited with the company bY wire transfer may be disbursed upon receipt. Funds deposited with the company via cashier's check or teller's check drawn on a California based bank may be disbursed on the next business day after the day of deposit. If funds are deposited with the company by other methods, recording andfor disbursement may be delayed. All escrow and sub-escrow funds received by the company will be deposited with other escrow funds in one or more non-interest bearing escrow accounts of the company in a financial institution selected by the company. The company may receive certain direct or indirect benefits from the financial institution by reason of the deposit of such funds or the maintenance of such accounts with such financial institution, and the company shall have no obligation to account to the depositing party in any manner for the value of, or to pay to such party, any benefit received by the company. Those benefits may include, without limitation, credits allowed by such financial institution on loans to the company or its parent company and earnings on investments made with the proceeds of such loans, accounting, reporting and other services and products of such financial institution. Such benefits shall be deemed additional compensation of the company for its services in connection with the escrow or sub-escrow. WIRING INSTRUCTIONS FOR THIS OFFICE ARE: Comerica Bank 2321 Rosecrans Avenue, 5th Floor El Segundo, CA 90245-4903 Phone: (800) 376-0430 ABA #121-137-522 Credit To: Lawyers Title Company-Orange County Account #1891986547 RE: 11824992 903 -CMC - PLEASE INDICATE LAWYERS TITLE COMPANY ESCROW OR TITLE ORDER NUMBER NOTE NO. 3: The charges which the company will make for next day messenger services (i.e. Federal Express, UPS, DHL, Airborne, Express mail, etc.) Are $15.00 per letter, standard overnight service, and $25.00 for larger size packages and/or priority delivery services. Such charges include the cost of such messenger service and the company's expenses for arranging such messenger service and its overhead and profit. Special messenger services will be billed at the cost of such services. There will be no additional charge for pick-up or delivery of packages via the company's regularly scheduled messenger runs. Page 9 • I File No: 11824992 NOTE NO.4 THIS COMPANY REQUIRES CURRENT BENEFICIARY DEMANDS PRIOR TO CLOSING. If the demand is expired and a current demand cannot be obtained, our requirements will be as follows: (a) If this Company accepts a verbal update on the demand, we may hold an amount equal to one monthly mortgage payment. This hold will be in addition to the verbal hold the lender may have stipulated. (b) If this Company cannot obtain a verbal update on the demand, we will either pay off the expired demand, or wait for the amended demand, at our discretion. (c) All payoff figures are verified at closing. If the customer's last payment was made within 15 days of closing, our Payoff Department may hold one month's payment to insure check has cleared the bank (unless a copy of the cancelled check is provided, in which case there will be no hold). Typist: rh3 Date Typed: January 19, 2010 Page 10 I Exhibit B (Revised 11-17-06) CALIFORNIA LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION STANDARD COVERAGE POLICY-1990 EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE • The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees or expenses which arise by reason of: 1. (a) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building or zoning Jaws, ordinances, or regulations) restricting, regulating, prohibiting or relating (i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the land; (ii) the character, dimensions or location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land; (ffl) a separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or any parcel of which the land is or was a part; or (iv) environmental protection, or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances or governmental regulations, except to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect, lien, or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. (b) Any governmental police power not excluded by (a) above, except to the ·extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. 2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but not excluding from coverage any taking which has occurred prior to Date of Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without knowledge. 3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters: (a) whether or not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant; (b) not known to the Company, not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but known to the insured claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the insured claimant prior to the date the insured claimant became an insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy; or (e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured claimant had paid value for the insured mortgage or for the estate or interest insured by this policy. 4. Unenforceability of the lien of the insured mortgage because of the inability or failure of the insured at Date of Policy, or the inability or failure of any subsequent owner of the indebtedness, to comply with the applicable doing business laws of the state in which the land is situated. 5. Invalidity or unenforceability of the lien of the insured mortgage, or claim thereof, which arises out of the transaction evidenced by the insured mortgage and is based upon usury or any consumer credit protection or truth in lending law. 6. Any claim, which arises out of the transaction vesting in the insured the estate of interest insured by this policy or the transaction creating the interest of the insured lender, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency or similar creditors' rights laws. EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE -SCHEDULE B, PART I This policy does not insure against loss or damage (and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys' fees or expenses) which arise by reason of: 1. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records. Proceedings by a public agency which may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the public records. 2. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of the land or which may be asserted by persons in possession thereof. 3. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, which are not shown by the public records. 4. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose, and which are not shown by the public records. 5. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), {b) or (c) are shown by the public records. CLTA HOMEOWNER'S POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE (10/22/03) ALTA HOMEOWNER'S POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE EXCLUSIONS In addition to the Exceptions in Schedule B, You are not insured against Joss, costs, attorneys' fees, and expenses resulting from: 1. Governmental police power, and the existence or violation of any law or government regulation. This includes ordinances, laws and regulations concerning: a. building b. zoning c. Land use d. improvements on the Land e. Land division f. environmental protection This Exclusion does not apply to violations or the enforcement of these matters if notice of the violation or enforcement appears in the Public Records at the Policy Date. This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 14, 15, 16, 17 or 24. • ' File No: 11824992 2. The failure of Your existing structures, or any part of them, to be constructed in accordance with applicable building codes. This Exclusion does not apply to violations of building codes if notice of the violation appears in the Public Records at the Policy Date. 3. The right to take the Land by condemning it, unless: a. a notice of exercising the right appears in the Public Records at the Policy Date; or b. the taking happened before the Policy Date and is binding on You if You bought the Land without Knowing of the taking. 4. Risks: a. that are created, allowed, or agreed to by You, whether or not they appear in the Public Records; b. that are Known to You at the Policy Date, but not to Us, unless they appear in the Public Records at the Policy Date; c. that result in no loss to You; or d. that first occur after the Policy Date-this does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 7, B.d, 22, 23, 24 or 25. 5. Failure to pay value for Your Title. 6. Lack of a right: a. to any Land outside the area specifically described and referred to in paragraph 3 of Schedule A; and b. in streets, alleys, or waterways that touch the Land. This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 11 or 18. LIMITATIONS ON COVERED RISKS Your insurance for the following Covered Risks is limited on the Owner's Coverage Statement as follows: For Covered Risk 14, 15, 16 and 18, Your Deductible Amount and Our Maximum Dollar Limit of Liability shown in Schedule A. The deductible amounts and maximum dollar limits shown on Schedule A are as follows: Your Deductible Amount Our Maximum Dollar limit of Liability Covered Risk 14: Covered Risk 15: Covered Risk 16: Covered Risk 18: 1% of Policy Amount or $2,500 (whichever is less) 1% of Policy Amount or $5,000 (whichever is less) 10/o of Policy Amount. or $5,000 (whichever is less) 10fo of Policy Amount or $2,500 (whichever is less) $10,000 $25,000 $25,000 $5,000 AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION RESIDENTIAL TITLE INSURANCE POLICY (6-1-87) EXCLUSIONS In addition to the Exceptions in Schedule B, you are not insured against loss, costs, attorneys' fees, and expenses resulting from: 1. Governmental police power, and the existence or violation of any law or government regulation. This includes building and zoning ordinances and also laws and regulations concerning: land use improvements on the land land division environmental protection This exclusion does not apply to violations or the enforcement of these matters which appear in the public records at Policy Date. This exclusion does not limit the zoning coverage described in Items 12 and 13 of Covered Title Risks. 2. The right to take the land by condemning it, unless: a notice of exercising the right appears in the public records on the Policy Date the taking happened prior to the Policy Date and is binding on you if you bought the land without knowing of the taking 3. Title Risks: that are created, allowed, or agreed to by you that are known to you, but not to us, on the Policy Date --unless they appeared in the public records that result in no loss to you that first affect your title after the Policy Date --this does not limit the labor and material lien coverage in Item 8 of covered Title Risks 4. Failure to pay value for your title. 5. Lack of a right: to any land outside the area specifically described and referred to in Item 3 of Schedule A OR in streets, alleys, or waterways that touch your land This exclusion does not limit the access coverage in Item 5 of Covered Title Risks. AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION LOAN POLICY (10-17-92) WITH ALTA ENDORSEMENT-FORM 1 COVERAGE EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees or expenses which arise by reason of: 1. (a) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building and zoning laws, ordinances, or regulations) restricting, regulating, prohibiting or relating to (i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the land; (ii) the ' • File No: 11824992 character, dimensions or location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land; (iii) a separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or any parcel of which the land is or was a part; or (iv) environmental protection, or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances or governmental regulations, except to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. (b) Any governmental police power not excluded by (a) above, except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. 2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but not excluding from coverage any taking which has occurred prior to Date of Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without knowledge. 3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters: (a) created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant; (b) not known to the Company, not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but known to the insured claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the insured claimant prior to the date the insured claimant became an insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy (except to the extent that this policy insures the priority of the lien of the insured mortgage over any statutory lien for services, labor or material or to the extent insurance is afforded herein as to assessments for street improvements under construction or completed at Date of Policy); or (e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured claimant had paid value for the insured mortgage. 4. Unenforceability of the lien of the insured mortgage because of the inability or failure of the insured at Date of Policy, or the inability or failure of any subsequent owner of the indebtedness, to comply with applicable doing business laws of the state in which the land is situated. 5. Invalidity or unenforceability of the lien of the insured mortgage, or claim thereof, which arises out of the transaction evidenced by the insured mortgage and is based upon usury or any consumer credit protection or truth in lending law. 6. Any statutory lien for services, labor or materials (or the claim of priority of any statutory lien for services, labor or materials over the lien of the insured mortgage) arising from an improvement or work related to the land which is contracted for and commenced subsequent to Date of Policy and is not financed in whole or in part by proceeds of the indebtedness secured by the insured mortgage which at Date of Policy the insured has advanced or is obligated to advance. 7. Any claim, which arises out of the transaction creating the interest of the mort9agee insured by this policy, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors' rights laws, that is based on: (i) the transaction creating the interest of the insured mortgagee being deemed a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer; oc (ii) the subordination of the interest of the insured mortgagee as a result of the application of the doctrine or equitable subordination; or (iii)the transaction creating the interest of the insured mortgagee being deemed a preferential transfer except where the preferential transfer results from the failure: (a) to timely record the instrument of transfer; or (b) of such recordation to impart notice to a purchaser for value or a judgment or lien creditor. The above policy form may be issued to afford either Standard Coverage or Extended Coverage. In addition to the above Exclusions from Coverage, the Exceptions from Coverage in a Standard Coverage policy will also include the following General Exceptions: EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE This policy does not insure against loss or damage (and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys' fees or expenses) which arise by reason of: 1. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records. Proceedings by a public agency which may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the public records. 2. Any facts, rights, interests or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of the land or which may be asserted by persons in possession thereof. 3. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, which are not shown by the public records. 4. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose, and which are not shown by the public records. 5. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b) or (c) are shown by the public records. 2006 ALTA LOAN POLICY (06-17-06) EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy, and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees, or expenses that arise by reason of: 1. (a) Any law, ordinance, pe-rmit, or governmental regulation (including those relating to building and zoning) restricting, regulating, prohibiting, or relating to (i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the Land; (ii) the character, dimensions, or location of any improvement erected on the Land; (iii) the subdivision of land; or (iv) environmental protection; or the effect of any violation of these la~v's, ordinances, or governmental regulations. This Exclusion l(a) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 5. • ' File No: 11824992 (b) Any governmental police power. This Exclusion l(b) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 6. 2. Rights of eminent domain. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 7 or 8. 3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters (a) created, suffered, assumed, or agreed to by the Insured Claimant; {b) not Known to the Company, not recorded in the Public Records at Date of Policy, but Known to the Insured Claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the Insured Claimant prior to the date the Insured Claimant became an Insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the Insured Claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy (however, this does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 11, 13, or 14); or (e) resulting in loss or damage that would not have been sustained if the Insured Cla·lmant had paid value for the Insured Mortgage. 4. Unenforceability of the lien of the Insured Mortgage because of the inability or failure of an Insured to comply with applicable doing-bu~ness laws of the state where the Land is situated. 5. Invalidity or unenforceability in whole or in part of the lien of the Insured Mortgage that arises out of the transaction evidenced by the Insured Mortgage and is based upon usufy or any consumer credit protection or truth-in-lending law. 6. Any claim, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors' rights laws, that the transaction creating the lien of the Insured Mortgage, is (a) a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer, or (b) a preferential transfer for any reason not stated in Covered Risk 13(b) of this policy. 7. Any lien on the Title for real estate taxes or assessments imposed by governmental authority and created or attaching between Date of Policy and the date of recording of the Insured Mortgage in the Public Records. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk ll(b). The above policy form may be Issued to afford either Standard Coverage or Extended Coverage. In addition to the above Exclusions from Coverage, the Exceptions from Coverage in a Standard Coverage policy will also include the following Exceptions from Coverage: EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE This policy does not insure against loss or damage (and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys' fees or expenses) that arise by reason of: 1. (a) Taxes or assessments that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the Public Records; (b) proceedings by a public agency that may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the Public Records. 2. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims that are not shown by the Public Records but that could be ascertained by an inspection of the Land or that may be asserted by persons in possession of the Land. 3. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records. 4. Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land and not shown by the Public Records. 5. {a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b) or (c) are shown by the Public Records. AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION OWNER'S POLICY (10-17-92) EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees or expenses which arise by reason of: 1. (a) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building and zoning laws, ordinances, or regulations) restricting, regulating, prohibiting or relating to {i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the land; (ii) the character, dimensions or location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land; (iii) a separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or any parcel of which the land Is or was a part; or (iv) environmental protection, or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances or governmental regulations, except to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. (b) Any governmental police power not excluded by (a) above, except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. 2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but not excluding from coverage any taking which has occurred prior to Date of Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without knowledge. 3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters: (a) created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant; (b) not known to the Company, not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but known to the insured claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the insured claimant prior to the date the insured claimant became an insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant; (d) attaching or created subseQuent to Date of Policy; or (e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured claimant had paid value for the estate or interest insured by this policy. 4. Any claim, which arises out of the transaction vesting in the insured the estate or ·Interest insured by th1s policy, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors' rights laws, that is based on: (i) the transaction creating the estate or interest insured by this policy being deemed a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer; or ' • File No: 11824992 (ii) the transaction creating the estate or interest insured by this policy being deemed a preferential transfer except where the preferential transfer results from the failure: (a) to timely record the instrument of transfer; or (b) of such recordation to impart notice to a purchaser for value or a judgment or lien creditor. The above policy form may be issued to afford either Standard Coverage or Extended Coverage. In addition to the above Exclusions from Coverage, the Exceptions from Coverage in a Standard Coverage Policy will also include the following General Exceptions: EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE This policy does not insure against loss or damage (and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys' fees or expenses) which arise by reason of: 1. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records. Proceedings by a public agency which may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the public records. . 2. Any facts, rights, interests or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of the land or which may be asserted by persons in possession thereof. 3. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, which are not shown by the public records. 4. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose, and which are not shown by the public records. 5. {a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; {c) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under {a), {b) or {c) are shown by the public records. 2006 ALTA OWNER'S POLICY (06-17-06) EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy, and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees, or expenses that arise by reason of: 1. (a) Any law, ordinance, permit, or governmental regulation (including those relating to building and zoning) restricting, regulating, prohibiting, or relating to (i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the Land; {ii) the character, dimensions, or location of any improvement erected on the Land; (iii) the subdivision of land; or {iv) environmental protection; or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances, or governmental regulations. This Exclusion l(a) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 5. (b) Any governmental police power. This Exclusion l(b) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 6. 2. Rights of eminent domain. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 7 or 8. 3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters (a) created, suffered, assumed, or agreed to by the Insured Claimant; (b) not Known to the Company, not recorded in the Public Records at Date of Policy, but Known to the Insured Claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the Insured Claimant prior to the date the Insured Claimant became an Insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the Insured Claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy (however, this does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 9 and 10); or (e) resulting in loss or damage that would not have been sustained if the Insured Claimant had paid value for the Title. 4. Any claim, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors' rights laws, that the transaction vesting the Title as shown in Schedule A, is (a) a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer; or (b) a preferential transfer for any reason not stated in Covered Risk 9 of this policy. 5. Any lien on the Title for real estate taxes or assessments imposed by governmental authority and created or attaching between Date of Policy and the date of recording of the deed or other instrument of transfer in the Public Records that vests Title as shown in Schedule A. The above policy form may be issued to afford either Standard Coverage or Extended Coverage. In addition to the above Exclusions from Coverage, the Exceptions from Coverage in a Standard Coverage policy will also include the following Exceptions from Coverage: EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE This policy does not insure against loss or damage (and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys' fees or expenses) that arise by reason of: 1. (a) Taxes or assessments that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the Public Records; (b) proceedings by a public agency that may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the Public Records. 2. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims that are not shown by the Public Records but that could be ascertained by an inspection of the Land or that may be asserted by persons in possession of the Land. 3. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records. 4. Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land and not shown by the Public Records. 5. (a) Unpatented mining claims; {b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b) or (c) are shown by the Public Records. • ' File No: 11824992 ALTA EXPANDED COVERAGE RESIDENTIAL LOAN POLICY (10/13/01) EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys fees or expenses which arise by reason of: 1. (a) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building and zoning laws, ordinances, or regulations) restricting, regulating, prohibiting or relating to (i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the Land; (ii) the character, dimensions or location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the Land; (iii) a separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or areas of the Land or any parcel of which the Land is or was a part; or (iv) environmental protection, or the effect of any violation of these Jaws, ordinances or governmental regulations, except to the extent that s notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the Land has been recorded in the Public Records at Date of Policy. This exclusion does not limit the coverage provided under Covered Risks 12, 13, 14, and 16 of this policy. {b) Any governmental police power not excluded by (a) above, except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violat'1on affec.t'1ng the land has been recorded in the Public Records at Date of Policy. This exclusion does not limit the coverage provided under Covered Risks 12, 13, 14, and 16 of this policy. 2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the Public Records at Date of Policy, but not excluding from coverage any taking which has occurred prior to Date of Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without Knowledge. 3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters: (a) created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the Insured Claimant; (b) not Known to the Company, not recorded in the Public Records at Date of Policy, but Known to the Insured Claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the Insured Claimant prior to the date the Insured Claimant became an Insured under this policy; (c) resulting In no loss or damage to the Insured Claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy (this paragraph does not limit the coverage provided under Covered Risks 8, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26); or (e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the Insured Claimant had paid value for the Insured Mortgage. 4. Unenforceability of the lien of the Insured Mortgage because of the inability or failure of the Insured at Date of Policy, or the inability or failure of any subsequent owner of the ·Indebtedness, to comply with applicable do·1ng business laws of the state ·,n which the Land is situated. 5. Invalidity or unenforceability of the lien of the Insured Mortgage, or claim thereof, which arises out of the transaction evidenced by the Insured Mortgage and is based upon usury, except as provided in Covered Risk 27, or any consumer credit protection or truth in lending law. 6. Real property taxes or assessments of any governmental authority which become a lien on the Land subsequent to Date of Policy. This exclusion does not limit the coverage provided under Covered Risks 7, S(e) and 26. 7.Any claim of invalidity, unenforceability or lack of priority of the lien of the Insured Mortgage as to advances or modifications made after the Insured has Knowledge that the vestee shown in Schedule A is no longer the owner of the estate or interest covered by this policy. This exclusion does not limit the coverage provided in Covered Risk B. 8. Lack of priority of the lien of the Insured Mortgage as to each and every advance made after Date of Policy, and all interest charged thereon, over liens, encumbrances and other matters affecting the title, the existence of which are Known to the Insured at: (a) The time of the advance; or (b) The time a modification is made to the terms of the Insured Mortgage which changes the rate of interest charged, if the rate of Interest is greater as a result of the modification than it would have been before the modification. This exclusion does not limit the coverage provided in Covered Risk 8. 9. The failure of the residential structure, or any portion thereof to have been constructed before, on or after Date of Policy in accordance with applicable building codes. This exclusion does not apply to violations of building codes if notice of the violation appears in the Public Records at Date of Policy. ' j!n Lawyers Title ~\"'~ rv INSURANCE CORPORATION • Lawyers Title 4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 120 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 724-3170 File No. 11824992 Notice of Available Discounts Pursuant to Section 2355.3 in Title 10 of the California Code of Regulations Fidelity National Financial, Inc. and its subsidiaries ("FNF") must deliver a notice of each discount available under our current rate filing along with the delivery of escrow instructions, a preliminary report or commitment. Please be aware that the provision of this notice does not constitute a waiver of the consumer's right to be charged the filed rate. As such, your transaction may not qualify for the below discounts. You are encouraged to discuss the applicability of one or more of the below discounts with a Company representative. These discounts are generally described below; consult the rate manual for a flill description of the terms, conditions and requirements for such discount. These discounts only apply to transactions involving services rendered by the FNF Family of Companies. This notice only applies to transactions involving property improved with a one-to-four family residential dwelling. FNF Underwritten Title Company LTC-Lawyers Title Company Available Discounts FNF Underwriter LTIC -Lawyers Title Insurance Corp. FEE REDUCTION SETTLEMENT PROGRAM (LTC and LTIC) Eligible customers shall receive a $20.00 reduction in their title and/or escrow fees charged by the Company for each eligible transaction in accordance with the terms of the Final Judgments entered in The People of the State of California. DISASTER LOANS (L TIC) The charge for a Lender's Policy (Standard or Extended coverage) covering the financing or refinancing by an owner of record, within 24 months of the date of a declaration of a disaster area by the government of the United States or the State of California on any land located in said area, which was partially or totally destroyed in the disaster, will be 50% of the appropriate title insurance rate. SHORT TERM RATE (LTIC) • ' If there is an insured owner and an order for title insurance is placed within sixty (60) months following the effective date of any prior policy of any title insurer, the charge will be 80% of the appropriate title insurance rate. EMPLOYEE RATE {LTC and LTIC) No charge shall be made to employees (including employees on approved retirement) of the Company or its underwritten, subsidiary or affiliated title companies for policies or escrow services in connection with financing, refinancing, sale or purchase of the employees' bona fide home property. Waiver of such charges is authorized only in connection with those costs which the employee would be obligated to pay, by established custom, as a party to the transaction. LTC Discount Notice Mod. 10/2/2009 CA Discount Notice Page 2 Effective Date: 9/3/2009 ' j~ Lawyers Title ,~, "'£''"''"' "' INSURANCE CORPORATION "Notice to Customers" • Lawyers Title 4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 120 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 724-3170 Order No: 11824992 (Involves Residential Real Property in California ONLY) You may be entitled to receive a $20.00 discount on escrow services if you purchased, sold or refinanced residential property in California between May 19, 1995 and November 1, 2002. If you had more than one qualifying transaction, you may be entitled to multiple discounts. If your previous transaction involved the same property that is the subject of your current transaction, you do no have to do anything; the Company will provide the discount, provided you are paying for escrow or title services in this transaction. If your previous transaction involved property different from the property that is subject of your current transaction, you must -prior to the close of the current transaction -inform the Company of the earlier transaction, provide the address of the property involved in the previous transaction, and the date or approximate date that the escrow closed to be eligible for the discount. Unless you inform the Company if the prior transaction on property that is not the subject of this transaction, the Company has no obligation to conduct an investigation to determine if you qualify for a discount. If you provide the Company information concerning a prior transaction, the Company is required to determine if you quality for a discount which is subject to other terms and conditions. Name: Address: Telephone No: • ' ~~ Lawyers Title ~ r1.< INSURANCE CORPORA-TION "Notice to Customers" Lawyers Title 4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 120 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 724-3170 Order No: 11824992 (Involves Residential Real Property in California ONLY) You may be entitled to receive a $20.00 discount on escrow services if you purchased, sold or refinanced residential property in California between May 19, 1995 and November 1, 2002. If you had more than one qualifying transaction, you may be entitled to multiple discounts. If your previous transaction involved the same property that is the subject of your current transaction, you do no have to do anything; the Company will provide the discount, provided you are paying for escrow or title services in this transaction. If your previous transaction involved property different from the property that is subject of your current transaction 1 you must -prior to the close of the current transaction -inform the Company of the earlier transaction, provide the address of the property involved in the previous transaction, and the date or approximate date that the escrow closed to be eligible for the discount. Unless you inform the Company if the prior transaction on property that is not the subject of this transaction, the Company has no obligation to conduct an investigation to determine if you qualify for a discount. If you provide the Company information concerning a prior transaction, the Company is required to determine if you quality for a discount which is subject to other terms and conditions. Name: Address: Telephone No: 09 ~ \!V G2[-&d SAN OlEGO COUNTY ASS[SSOR'S MAP BOOK 156 PAGE 1B ~ \g) l LAGUNA ~-~ ~ \g) .'E) @ 499AC R S.691 ~ PAR 0.82 AC ~lMWOOD ST 156-18 0711512008 AU 61 -CAPLSBAD LANDS -POR TCTS 115. 117 & 119 77515351 -TOWN OF CARLSBAD AMENDED! • • 10/21/2009 10:14 7504347. J REMAX BY THE SEA • PAGE 01 clearw'"re· wireless broadband· LETTER OF AUTHORJZATION APPLICA TTON FOR ZONING/LAND USE ENTITLEMENTS Site Number: CA-SDG5800 Property Address: 1265 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008 Assessor's Parcel Number: 156-180-21-00 T/We, 'fFANi-<-\))bLI , owner(s) of the above-described property, authorize Clearwire, its employees, representatives, agents, and/or consultants, to act as an agent on my/our behalf for the sole purpose of consummating any building and land-use pennit applications, or any other entitlements necessary for the purpose of constro.cting and operating a. wireless telecommunications facility. IIW e understand that any application may be denied, modified, or approved with conditions, and that such conditions or modifications must be ccmplied with prior to issuance of building permits. I!We furtner understand that signing ofthis authorizati•m in no way creates an obligation of any kind. Signature of Property Owner(s) 1/···Q~ ~ ·~- ______________ Date: • • clearw"re· wireless broadband September 16, 2009 Letter of Introduction SUBJECT: Clear Wireless, LLC Leasing and Zoning agents Dear Sir/Madam The intent of this letter is to provide notification that Clear Wireless, LLC has retained M&M Telecom, Inc. to represent our company fur purposes of lease negotiations, and to file applications on our behalf. Thank you in advance fur working with M&M Telecom, Inc. on this matter. If you should have any questions please feel free to contact me via email at anne. ford@clearwire.com eFord Project Manager -----------------------------------------------------------------------• • c;,l_~ ,,, ." ~Ci!Y<H DISCLOSURE STATEMENT P-1(A) Development Services Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue (760) 602-4610 www.carlsbadca.gov CARLSBAD 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 "Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, in this and any other county, city and county, city municipality, 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 owner must be provided below. 1. APPLICANT (Not the applicant's agent) Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having a financial 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 the shares. 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 Clear Wireless, .=L=.LC:::.._ ________ _ Title, _____________________ _ Title, ______________________ __ Address 4400 Carillon Poi":=n-'::t __________ _ Kirkland, WA 98033 Address. _________________ _ 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 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 Carlsbad Village Drive Investors, LLC Title: _______________ _ Title. _____________ _ Address. __________ __ Address 1241 Carlsbad Vil:::la"'g.::.e.=D::.n:.:.v.::.e ______ _ Carlsbad, CA 92008 Page 1 of 2 Revised 04/09 • • 3. NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION OR TRUST If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a nonprofit organization or a trust, list the names and addresses of ANY person serving as an officer or director of the non- profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the. Non Profit/Trust _______ _ Non Profit/Trust _________ _ Title. __________ _ Title, ____________ _ Address _________ _ Address. ___________ _ 4. Have you had more than $500 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months? DYes ~No If yes, please indicate person(s): __________ _ NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary. I certify that all the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. See Letter of Authorization See Letter of Authorization Signature of owner/date Signature of applicant/date Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant Danielle Goldman, M&M Telecom, Inc. (agent for Clear Wireless, LLC) Print or type name of owner/applicant's agent P-1(A) Page 2 of 2 Revised 04/09 • Project Description Pl(B} CA-SDGS664 REMAX Building The C/earwire Network • clearw·re· wireless broadband Clearwire is a wireless broadband internet service provider utilizing WiMAX technology in the Broadband Radio Service (BRS) band. It is majority owned by Sprint, in addition to Google, Time Warner, Comcast, Intel, and others. As a broadband internet service provider, Clearwire provides communities with the latest, most competitive level of high-speed wireless internet service. Clearwire is licensed by the FCC at the 2500-2700 MHz spectrum. As an affiliate of Sprint, the two companies share rights to each other's facilities and services. The facilities that Clearwire deploys will not only be used to sell the Clear brand but will also be used by Sprint to deploy the Sprint 4G network. Clearwire's primary goal in its network deployment is to collocate at existing wireless communications facilities wherever possible. Where collocation with Sprint and other carriers cannot be achieved, installations on existing rooftops are preferred to new construction. By collocating at existing wireless communications facilities, Clearwire will be able to offer its high speed internet service with the least expansion of infrastructure. That cost-savings is passed to consumers. Site Selection Process The site selection process begins when Clearwire's RF engineers determine that a facility is necessary as an integral component of Clearwire's BRS network in the area. Based on this need, the RF engineers issue a search ring, delineating the area where a facility must be located to ensure the functionality of the wireless network. Clearwire's staff and consultants then conduct reconnaissance of the area and locate potential sites within the ring. This method is identical to that of Sprint and other PCS providers. Each potential site must satisfy four requirements to be considered viable. The first requirement is that the site must work in the network from a radio frequency engineering perspective (this determination is based on location, height, and topography). The second requirement is that the site must be located on a parcel that is "zoneable." Zoning analysis prioritizes existing wireless communications facilities, public facilities, then moves to commercial and industrial sites, with residential sites given the least priority. In the City of Carlsbad, special consideration is given to wireless facility siting guidelines established by City Council Policy No. 64. The third requirement is that the site must be "buildable," meaning that it meets structural requirements; there are sufficient utilities, including electrical power and other services, and there is adequate access for construction and maintenance. The final requirement is that Clearwire is able to obtain a lease with the site's owner at commercially reasonable terms. Based on the technical needs, search process, and selection criteria outlined above, Clearwire was able to select a location for a wireless communication facility at the subject property that • Project Description Pl(B) CA-SDG5664 REMAX Building • clearw·re· wireless broadband will meet the coverage needs of the area. Also in accordance with Policy 64, an EMF report has been prepared to document compliance with FCC regulations governing RF. The Subject Site at 1265 Carlsbad Village Drive The subject proposal is the installation of (6) panel antennas, (6) DAP head units, (3) directional antennas, and (1) GPS antenna on the rooftop of a professional office building located at 1265 Carlsbad Village Drive. This site is located in the R-P-Q zone. Since it is developed with a non- residential use (professional office building), it is located a preferred location as defined in Policy 64. Furthermore, the site is fully screened by FRP (fiber-reinforced polymer, an RF-friendly material) that is architecturally integrated with the existing development. Photo simulations of the proposed construction have been prepared and included with this application. The design of the proposed facility has undergone several iterations in order to arrive at the present design. Originally, we proposed four-sided screening with a rock veneer finish (to match the existing at the north end of the building) around the installation that would only project 4' 4" above the existing parapet. However, the City comments letter stated that the addition looked like an "add-on." So we resubmitted with a stucco finish that would match the existing architectural finish at that portion of the building. Finally, the planners asked for us to add a roof to the proposed addition. This modification required a further increase in the proposed height. However, no views are obstructed by this increase in height, since the adjacent residential building has views that are oriented toward the west. The subject property was selected after multiple sites were considered: • Back-up Candidate 1 11015 Chestnut Avenue!: This site would be a Sprint collocation facility (MCUP 07-06). Like the subject property, this back-up candidate is located in the R-P-Q zone and is surrounded by residential parcels. However, the property owner rejected Clearwire's design proposal on the basis that no microwave (directional) antennas would be allowed. Since the entire Clearwire network depend on microwave technology, this rejection from the owner killed the site (see email attachment). Furthermore, the attached coverage maps evidence that there would have been a substantial loss in the RF coverage (which comes from the panel antennas) anyway. • Back-up Candidate 2 13500 Harding Street!: This site is a City-owned park (Brierly Field) where we considered installing the Clearwire antennas on a stadium light post. Even with a 55-foot radian center for the antennas, the attached coverage maps document a significant loss in RF coverage, and the site would not meet out coverage objectives. This site is located in the OS zone and would not be a preferred location per City Council Policy No. 64. Furthermore, like the subject property, the site is also surrounded by residential parcels. • Project Description Pl(B) CA-SDG5664 REMAX Building • clearw·re· wireless broadband • Back-up Candidate 3 13150 Pio Pico Drivel: This back-up candidate is a collocation facility with the existing Nextel installation. Like the subject property, this back-up candidate is in the R-P-Q zone and is surrounded by residential parcels. Most importantly, this site would not function at all because Ciearwire backhaul team was not able to establish a line-of-sight for any of the directional antenna links for this facility. Since the Clearwire network depends on the directional antenna links, direct line-of-sight is required before a site can be considered viable or it will not function. • Back-up Candidate 4 11200 Carlsbad Village Drivel: This site is a City of Carlsbad administration building located in the R-P-Q zone (like the subject property). This site would not functionally work for the Clearwire network because the backhaul team was not able to establish a line-of- sight from any of the directional antenna links for this candidate. Furthermore, the attached coverage maps show reduced coverage at this site for the Clearwire RF coverage objectives, and this coverage is further reduced by the tree clutter surrounding the buildings. • Proposed Fatility: The subject site was selected as the best of all alternatives in this search ring. Sector 1, which is the antenna sector facing east and located behind the existing parapet, meets the coverage needs for the residential areas to the east better than all candidates. Sectors 2 and 3 must be located at the south end of the building in order for this site to be viable. Although residents have asked that these sectors be relocated to the north end of the building, the attached items illustrate that this design alternative is not feasible. With the south-facing sector relocated to the north end of the building, there would be a high signal loss due to near- field obstructions on the rooftop, and a large signal reflection and attenuation area across the rooftop that would deplete the coverage for the neighboring areas. The proposed facility at 1265 Carlsbad Village Drive offers the highest level of RF coverage to the surrounding area. The site is located in a preferred zone, and many other wireless communications facilities have been approved in the R-P-Q zone on commercial buildings with residential uses surrounding. The subject facility has been designed to look completely integrated with the existing architecture, per several iterations with the Planning Division. Finally, a report was submitted with the application documenting compliance with the FCC regulations regarding radiofrequency levels. Equipment and Operation Clearwire's equipment includes BRS panel antennas, RF remote radio units (DAP head units}, and directional antennas. The design of Clearwire equipment uses the most diminutive components. The panel antennas proposed at 1265 Carlsbad Village Drive measure 4 feet by 13 inches by 3 inches, while directional antennas measure approximately 26 inches in diameter by 8 inches in thickness. The proposed Clearwire equipment cabinet is also compact, measuring • Project Description Pl(B) CA-SDG5664 REMAX Building • clearw're· wireless broadband 25 inches in width and depth by 54 inches in height. This equipment cabinet is proposed on the rooftop behind the FRP screening. The antennas will be installed within an existing RF-friendly screening that is visually integrated with the rest of the building to create minimal visual impact. Clearwire's installations are unmanned and operate 24 hours daily to provide maximum coverage to the community. Operational maintenance of the facilities rarely consists of more than 2 monthly site visits, which are conducted within standard daytime working hours. The facilities will be in compliance with FCC regulations regarding RF and electromagnetic emissions, and a report documenting compliance is provided at application submittal for each site. An RF/EME report is submitted with this application. Danielle Goldman From: Sent: To: Subject: • Kristen [kristen@premier4hoa.com] Tuesday, September 01, 2009 1:34 PM 'Lynn Sivertsen' RE: 1015 Chestnut Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008 They do not want to allow microwave dishes. Sincerely, Kristen Barnett Community Association Manager Premier Community Services 5661 Palmer Way, Suite A Carlsbad, CA 92010 760-431-4800 760-431-4805 fax -----Original Message----- From: Lynn Sivertsen [mailto:lynn.sivertsen@mmtelecominc.com] Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 6:11PM To: 'Kristen' Subject: RE: 1015 Chestnut Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008 Hi Kristen, • I believe there was supposed to be a board meeting last week. I just wanted to follow up to see if there was any progress. Thanks so much. Lynn Lynn Sivertsen M&M Telecom, Inc. Site Acquisition Specialist "A Certified Woman Owned Business" Cell-(858) 663-3593 Fax-(866) 208-7916 Emai/-lynn.sivertsen@mmtelecominc.com From: Kristen [mailto:kristen@premier4hoa.com] Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 9:57AM .---------------------------~-- CLEARWIRE CANDIDATE ANALYSIS CA-SDG5664 August5,2010 Fernando Carranza RF Engineer Clearwire Corp. clearw·re wireless broadband • • Candidate Locations 1 clear ·re wireless broadband Backup Candidate 1: 1015 Chestnut Ave, Carlsbad, CA 92008 Design Issues: •Landlord Design rejection •Low objective coverage levels clear • re wireless broadband Backup Candidate 2: 3500 Harding St, Carlsbad, CA 92008 )\ Design Issues: •Low objective coverage levels clearw e wireless broadband Backup Candidate 3: 3150 Pio Pica Dr, Carlsbad, CA 92008 Design Issues: •Low objective coverage levels •No line-of-site to neighbor candidates Coverage Levels • >-70dBm • -80dBm to -70dBm • -90dBm to -80dBm 0 <-90dBm clearw· e wireless broadband Backup Candidate 4: 1200 Carlsbad Village Dr, Carlsbad, CA 92008 Design Issues: •Low objective coverage levels •No line-of-site to neighbor candidates •High signal loss factor due to tree clutter Coverage Levels • >-70dBm • -80dBm to -70dBm • -90dBm to -80dBm 0 <-90dBm clearw·re wireless broadband Proposed Candidate: 1265 Carlsbad Village Dr, Carlsbad, CA 92008 Coverage Levels • >-70dBm • .SOdBm to -70dBm • -90dBm to .SOdBm 0 <-90dBm clearw·re wireless broadband Site RF Design Objectives • RF Coverage to the East, South & West • Clear line-of-site to neighbor candidate • Antenna near-field free from building and tree clutter/obstructions • Antenna downtilt availability 7 clearw·re wireless broadband • • Proposed Design 8 Summary: Sector 1: Meets coverage goal to the East. No near-field obstructions. Sector 2: Meets coverage goal to the South. No near-field obstructions. Sector 3: Meets coverage goal to the West. No near-field obstructions. • • clearw·re wireless broadband Alternative Design -Failed Summary: Sector 1: Meets coverage goal to the East. No near-field obstructions. Sector 2: Several near-field obstructions. Large signal reflection and attenuation area from rooftop. High loss with antenna downtilt for interference mitigation. Sector 3: Meets coverage goal to the West. No LOS to neighboring candidate to the west. clear ' \ I . e I I I I • e 9 wireless broadband , \ • • clear w·reless CA-SDG5664 REMAX Building PHOTO SURVEY 1265 Carlsbad Village Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008 LOOKING NORTH TOWARD THE SUBJECT SITE LOOKING SOUTH TOWARD THE SUBJECT SITE ~ -~-----------------, • • clear w·reless CA-SDG5664 REMAX Building PHOTO SURVEY 1265 Carlsbad Village Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008 LOOKING EAST TOWARD THE SUBJECT SITE LOOKING WEST TOWARD THE SUBJECT SITE clear w·reless PHOTO SURVEY • CA-SDG5664 REMAX Building 1265 Carlsbad Village Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008 LOOKING NORTH FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOOKING SOUTH FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTY • clear w·reless PHOTO SURVEY • CA-SDG5664 REMAX Building 1265 Carlsbad Village Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008 LOOKING EAST FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOOKING SOUTH TOWARD THE SUBJECT PROPERTY • HAZARDOUS WASTE AND SUBSTANCES STATEMENT P-1(C) • Development Services Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue (760) 602-4610 www.carlsbadca.gov Consultation of Lists of Sites Related to Hazardous Wastes (Certification of Compliance with Government Code Section 65962.5) Pursuant to State of California Government Code Section 65962.5, I have consulted the Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List compiled by the California Environmental Protection Agency and hereby certify that (check one): 18] The development project and any alternatives proposed in this application are not contained on the lists compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the State Government Code. D The development project and any alternatives proposed in this application are contained on the lists compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the State Government Code. APPLICANT Name: Clear Wireless, LLC Address: P.O. Box 55 Poway, CA 92074 Phone Number: (61 9) 972-4944 PROPERTY OWNER Name: Carlsbad Village Drive Investors, LLC Address: 1241 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Phone Number: __________ _ Address of Site: 1265 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008 Local Agency (City and County): City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego Assessor's book, page, and parcel number: __ 15_6_-_18_o_-_2_1 _______________ _ Specify list(s): ______________________________ _ Regulatory Identification Number: ________________________ _ Date of List: _______________________________ _ See Letter of Authorization Property Owner Signature/Date The Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List (Cortese List) is used by the State, local agencies and developers to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act requirements in providing information about the location of hazardous materials release sites. P-1(C) Page 1 of2 Revised 04/09 • Legal Description EXHIBIT"A" • CA-SDG5664 REMAX Building 1265 Carlsbad Village Drive APN: 156-180-21 All that certain real property situated in the County of San Diego, State of California, de- scribed as follows: That portion of Fractional Block 88 of the Town of Carlsbad, in the County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 535, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County May 2, 1888, and of Ninth Street adjoining said Block 88, as closed February 15, 1893, by Order of the Board of Supervisors of San Diego County, and of Tract 119 of Carlsbad Lands, in San Diego County, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 1661, described as a whole as follows: Beginning at the point of intersection of the Southeasterly line of Elm Avenue within the Easterly line of the Town of Carlsbad, running Thence South 55° 27' West along said Southeasterly line of Elm Avenue 66.79 feet to the True Point of Beginning; Thence continuing South 55° 27' West 100 feet to a point; Thence South 34° 33' East, a distance of 200 feet to a point; Thence North 55° 27' East 1 00 feet to a point; Thence North 34° 33' West 200 feet to the True Point of Beginning. Excepting therefrom that portion thereof described in a deed recorded June 14, 1967 at Recorder's File/Page No. 84982 of said Official Records. ~ «~ ~ CITY OF CARLSBAD SECTION 1 NEW DEVELOPMENT STORM WATER STANDARDS QUESTIONNAIRE E-34 Development Services Engineering Department 1635 Faraday Avenue 760-602-2750 www.carlsbadca.gov PRIORITY PROJECT TYPE YES NO Does you project meet one or more of the following criteria: 1. Home subdivision of 100 units or more. Includes SFD, MFD, Condominium and Aoartments X 2. Residential development of 10 units or more. Includes SFD, MFD, Condominium and Aoartments X 3. Commercial and industrial develoQ.ment greater than 100,000 square feet including Qarking areas. Any development on private land that is not for heavy industrial or residential uses. Example: Hospitals, X Hotels, Recreational Facilities, Shoooino Malls, etc. 4. Heavv Industrial I Industry greater than 1 acre (NEED SIC CODES FOR PERMIT BUSINESS TYPES) SIC codes 5013, 5014, 5541, 7532-7534, and 7536-7539 X 5. Automotive reQair shag. SIC codes 5013,5014,5541,7532-7534, and 7536-7539 X 6. A New Restaurant where the land area of develoQ.ment is 5 000 square feet or more including Q.Brking areas. X SIC code 5812 7. Hillside develogment (1) greater than 5,000 square feet of impervious surface area and (2) develop.ment will grade on any natural slooe that is 25% or oreater X 8. Environmentallv Sensitive Area (ESA). Impervious surface of 2,500 square feet or more located within, "directly adjacent"2 to (within 200 feet), or "discharaina directlv to"3 receivina water within the ESA 1 X 9. Parking lot. Area of 5,000 square feet or more, or with 15 or more parking spaces, and potentially exposed to urban runoff X 10. Retail Gasoline Outlets serving more than 100 vehicles gerda'(. X Serving more than 100 vehicles per day and greater than 5,000 square feet 11. Streets roads highways and freeways. Project would create a new paved surface that is 5,000 square feet or greater. X 12. Coastal Development Zone. Within 200 feel of the Pacific Ocean and (1) creates more than 2500 square feet of impenmeable surface or (2) increases imoermeable surface on orooertv bv more than 10%. X 1 ESA (Environmentally Sensitive Areas) include but are not limited to all Clean Water Act Section 303(d) impaired water bodies; areas designated as Areas of Special Biological Significance by the State Water Resources Control Board (Water Quality Contra I Plan for the San Diego Basin (1994) and amendments); water bodies designated with the RARE beneficial use by the State Water Resources Control Board (Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (1994) and amendments); areas designated as preserves or their equivalent under the Multi Species Conservation Program within the Cities and County of San Diego; and any other equivalent environmentally sensitive areas which have been identified by the co-permittees. 2 "Directly adjacent" means situated within 200 feet of the environmentally sensitive area. 3 "Discharging directly to" means outflow from a drainage conveyance system that is composed entirely of flows from the subject development or redevelopment site, and not commingled with flow from adjacent lands. Section 1 Results: If you answered YES to ANY of the questions above you have a PRIORITY project and PRIORITY project recuirements DO apply. A Storm Water Management Plan, prepared in accordance with City Storm Water Standards, must be submitted at time of application. Please check the "MEETS PRIORITY REQUIREMENTS" box in Section 3. If you answered NO to ALL of the questions above, then you are a NON-PRIORITY project and STANDARD requirements apply. Please check the "DOES NOT MEET PRIORITY REQUIREMENTS" box in Section 3. E-34 Page 2 of 3 REV 8/12/09 ... A «' ~ CITY OF CARLSBAD STORM WATER STANDARDS QUESTIONNAIRE E-34 Development Services Engineering Department 1635 Faraday Avenue 760-602-2750 www.carlsbadca.gov SECTION 2 SIGNIFICANT REDEVELOPMENT: YES NO 1. If the existing development was constructed today, would it qualify as a priority project? (Priority projects are X defined in Section 1) If you answered YES, please proceed to question 2. If you answered NO, then you ARE NOT a significant redevelopment and you ARE NOT subject to PRIORITY project requirements, only STANDARD requirements. Please check the "DOES NOT MEET PRIORITY REQUIREMENTS" box in Section 3 below. 2. Is the project solely limited to one of the following: a. Trenching and resurfacing associated with utility work? b. Resurfacing and reconfiguring existing surface parking lots? C. New sidewalk construction, pedestrian ramps, or bike lane on public andlor private existing roads? d. Replacement of existing damaged pavement? If you answered NO to ALL of the questions, then proceed to Question 3. If you answered YES to ONE OR MORE of the questions then you ARE NOT a significant redevelopment and you ARE NOT subject to PRIORITY project requirements, only STANDARD requirements. Please check the "DOES NOT MEET PRIORITY REQUIREMENTS" box in Section 3 below. 3. Will the development create, replace, or add at least 5,000 square feet of impervious surfaces on an existing developn1ent, or be located within 200 feet of the Pacific Ocean and (1) create more than 2500 square feet of X impermeable surface or (2) increase impermeable surface on property by more than 1 0°/o? If you answered YES, you ARE a significant redevelopment and you ARE subject to PRIORITY project requirements. Please check the "MEETS WITH REQUIREMENTS" box in Section 3 below. If you answered NO, you ARE NOT a significant redevelopment, and you ARE NOT subject to PRIORITY project requirements, only STANDARD requirements. Please check the 'DOES NOT MEET PRIORITY REQUIREMENTS" box in Section 3 below. SECTION 3 Questionnaire Results: 0 MY PROJECT MEETS PRIORITY REQUIREMENTS. MUST COMPLY WITH PRIORITY PROJECT STANDARDS AND MUST PREPARE A STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR SUBMITTAL AT TIME OF APPLICATION. IX] MY PROJECT DOES NOT MEET PRIORITY REQUIREMENTS AND MUST ONLY COMPLY WITH STANDARD STORM WATER REQUIREMENTS. Applicant Information and Signature Box Address: Assessor's Parcel Number(s): Th. 8 n C'l U 0 I IS ox or llY se ny 1265 Carlsbad Village Drive 156-180-21-00 Applicant Name: Applicant Title: City Concurrence: I Yes.l No I \/1 Clear Wireless, LLC By: \j,Lu.~ l[Sign~ Jd Date: 03/15/10 ,·-.....,}'"' Date.· 0/00 lb Project ID: l/IU!.(f 10 ~o1 7 E-34 Page 3 of 3 REV 8/12/09 \ • • ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM (To be Completed by Applicant) Date Filed: (To be completed by City) Application Number(s): __:_:hii:.....::C.::U-"f__,I_,0:_'0:::_7,__ _________________ _ General Information 1. Name of project: CA-SDG5664 REMAX Building 2. Name of developer or project sponsor: ...:C"""Ie"'a"-r-'W-'-"-ire"-l..,e"'s,..s ....... LL=:C"'------------ Address: 4400 Carillon Point City, State, Zip Code Kirkland WA 98033 Phone Number: -------------------------- 3. Name of person to be contacted concerning this project: Danielle Goldman, M&M Telecom, Inc. Address: P.O. Box 55 City, State, Zip Code: Poway, CA 92074 Phone Number: (619) 972-4944 4. Address of Project: 1265 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008 Assessor's Parcel Number: __.1-"5"'6'--1'-'8"'0"--..,2'-'-1----------------- 5. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal a$encies: None 6. Existing General Plan Land Use Designation: __,0'---------------- 7. Existing zoning district: __.R"'---'P_-_,Q.__ ___________________ _ 8. Existing land use(s): Professional Office Building 9. Propo$ed use of site (Project for which this form is filed): Wireless Communication Facility Project Description 10. Site size: 19,000 square feet 11. Propo$ed Building square footage: 100 square feet (lease area) 12: Number of fioors of construction: __.N-"IccA,__ ________________ _ 13. Amount of off-street parking provided: ----'N~/-'-A'------------------ 14. Associated projects: --'-'NL!.Wn"'---------------------- P-1(0) Page 2 of4 Revised 04/09 \ • • 15. If residential,. include the number of units and schedule of unit sizes: --'N-"1"-A-'--------- 16. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities: --------------------- 100 square feet of leased space for equipment cabinet, plus antenna installation. 17. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities: _,_,N"'/A::L_ __ _ 18. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project: -'N=/A_:_ _____ _ 19. If the project involves a variance, conditional use or rezoning applications, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required: City Council Policy No. 64 requires a CUP for all wireless facilities. P-1(0) Page 3 of 4 Revised 04/09 • • Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). Yes No 20. Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands, beaches, or hills, or substantial D IKl alteration of ground contours. 21. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or D IKl roads. 22. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project. D IX] 23. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. D lXI 24. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. D IKl 25. Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water quality or quantity, or D IKl alteration of existing drainage patterns. 26. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. D lXI 27. Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent or more. D IX] 28. Use of disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, D IKl flammables or explosives. 29. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, D lXI etc.). 30. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.). D IKl 31. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. D lXI Environmental Setting Attach sheets that include a response to the following questions: 32. Describe the· project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site. Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted. 33. Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one-family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, set-back, rear yard, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity. Snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted. Certification I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and Information presented are true and correct to the best of my k(,'\le~ge an1elief ,., 03/1~10 ,,,,..., ~--h~ c For· Clear Wireless C P-1(D) Page 4 of 4 Revised 04/09 ' . • Environmental Setting EIA Information Form P1 (D) • 32. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site. Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted. The subject property is located on the south side of Carlsbad Village Drive, between Pia Pica Drive and Highland Drive. The subject property is fully developed with a commercial office building and associated parking lot. The subject parcel is located on a hill but is fully graded and therefore flat. The attached photo survey illustrates the existing conditions of the subject property. 33. Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, . commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one-family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, set-back, rear yard, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity. Snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted. The area surrounding the subject property is fully developed with no sensitive land uses or open spaces. The property to the north is developed with a City of Carlsbad administration building. Property to the south is residential. To the east, there is a fire station, and to the west, there is a professional office building. The attached photo survey illustrates the surrounding conditions. CA-SDG5664 REMAX Building 1265 Carlsbad Village Drive • • City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad CA 92008 1111111 ~11111111~ 1111111111111111111111111111111 Applicant: CLEAR WIRELESS LLC Description Amount MCUP1007 707.12 1265 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR CBAD Receipt Number: R0078611 Transaction ID: R0078611 Transaction Date: 03/19/2010 Pay Type Method Description Amount Payment Check 707.12 Transaction Amount: 707.12 City of Carlsbad Faraday Center .. Faraday Cashiering 001 1007801-4 03/19/2010 35 ' Fri, Mar 19, 2010 12:51 PM Receipt Ref Nbr: R1007B01-4/0009 PERMITS -PERMITS Tran Ref Nbr: 100780104 0009 0012 Trans/Rcpt#: R0078611 SET #: MCUP1007 Amount: Item Subtota 1 : Item Tot a 1: ITEM(S) TOTAL: Check (Chk# 001843) Total Received: Have a nice day! 1 @ $707, 12 $707.12 $707.12 $707.12 $707.12 $707.12 l_ **************CUSTOMER COPY************* Clearwire Site ID -CA-SDG 5664-C Site Name -Remax Building Site Compliance Report 1265 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 San Diego County Site visit date: March 2, 2010 Site survey by: Mohamed Frej Report generated date: March 3, 2010 Report by: John Lee Clearwire is Conditionally Compliant with FCC Rules based on Occupational Maximum Permissible Exposure Level. © 2010 Sitesafe, Inc. Arlington, VA David Charles Cotton, Jr. Registered Professional Engineer (Electrical) State of California, 18838, Expires 2011-Jun-30 Date: 2010-Mar-03 ~site r1Fo rf compl1once experts Clearwire CA-SDG 5664-C -Remax Building Radio Frequency (RF) Site Compliance Report 1265 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008 200 N. Glebe Road • Suite 1000 • Arlington, VA 22203·3728 703.276.1100 •lnfo@sltesafe.com rf compliance experts Table of Contents 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................... 2 1 .1 PURPOSE OF REPORT •.•...•..•....•..•..•.........•..•.•..•..•......•..•..•.•...••....•.•..••..•.•..•..•..•.... 2 1 .2 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE ..•..•..•.•.......•....•..•..•...•..•..•..•.•...••...•..•..•...•.•..•..•..•.•.. 3 2 SITE COMPLIANCE ............................................................................................. 4 2.1 ACTIONS FOR SITE COMPLIANCE ..........•..•....•..•......•..•..•......•..•.•.•..•..•..•..•..•..•..•.•.. 4 2.2 SITE SAFETY PROCEDURES ..•..•.•......•.•....•..•..•.•.......•.•..•..•......•..•.•....•..•...•.•..•..•..•.•.. 5 3 SITE ACCESS PROCEDURES ............................................................................... 6 4 ANTENNA INVENTORY AND PICTURES ............................................................. 7 4.1 TRANSMITTING ANTENNA INVENTORY ..•.........•..•..•...•..•..•..•.•....•..•.......•..•.•..•.....•.•..• 7 4.2 ANTENNA INVENTORY AND PICTURES ......•....•..•..•...•..•..•..•.•....•..••..•..•...•.•..•..•..•.•..• 8 5 SITE MEASUREMENTS COLLECTED ................................................................... 12 6 THEORETICAL RF EMISSIONS DIAGRAMS ....................................................... 13 7 FIELD TECHNICIAN CERTIFICATION ................................................................ 15 8 ENGINEER CERTIFICATION .............................................................................. 16 APPENDIX A-STATEMENT OF LIMITING CONDITIONS ......................................... 17 APPENDIX B-ASSUMPTIONS AND DEFINITIONS .................................................. 18 GENERAL MODEL ASSUMPTIONS •..........•..•.......•..•......•......•..•..•..•.•.....•..•.•...•..•....•..•..•... 18 USE OF GENERIC ANTENNAS .•.•..•..•....•..•..•....•..•..•...•..•..•.•.•..•..•..•.••.•..•..•.•...•..•.....•..•..•.• 18 DEFINITIONS •..•...........•.•...•..•.....•..•..•....•..•..•....•..•.•......•..•..•.•..•..•..•.•..•..•..•.....•..•........•.. 19 APPENDIX C-RULES & REGULATIONS ................................................................... 21 EXPLANATION OF APPLICABLE RULES AND REGULATIONS .••..•..•..•.•..•..•..•.•..•..•...•.•...•..•.....• 21 OCCUPATIONAL ENVIRONMENT EXPLAINED •..•..•..•.•....•....•.•..•..•..•.•..•..•..•.•...•..•.•..••.....•.•. 21 APPENDIX D-GENERAL SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................... 22 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ..•.•.....••...•..•..•..•.•..•......•....•.........•........•..•..•....•..•..•.....•..•..•. 23 200 N. Glebe Road • Suite 1000 • Arlington, VA 22203·3728 703.276.1100 olnto@sltesafe.com rf compliance experts 1 Executive Summary 1.1 Purpose of Report Clearwire has contracted with Sitesafe, Inc. (Sitesafe). an independent Radio Frequency (RF) regulatory and engineering consulting firm, to determine whether the proposed communications site. CA-SDG 5664-C-Remax Building. located at 1265 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA. is in compliance with Federal Communication Commission (FCC) Rules and Regulations for RF emissions. Sitesafe • s field personnel visited CA-SDG 5664-C -Remax Building on March 2. 2010. This report contains a detailed summary of the RF environment at the site including: • photographs of the site; • diagram of the site; • inventory of the make I model of all transmitting antennas found on the site (where possible); • record of any Maximum Permissible Exposure ("MPE") measurements taken on the site. as applicable; and • theoretical MPE based on modeling. This report addresses exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields in accordance with the FCC Rules and Regulations for all individuals. classified in two groups. "Occupational or Controlled" and "General Public or Uncontrolled." The FCC defines an Occupational or Controlled environment as one 'where persons are exposed to RF fields as a consequence of their employment and where those persons exposed have been made fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over their exposure. Typical criteria for an Occupational or Controlled environment is restricted access (i.e. locked doors, gates, etc.) to areas where antennas are located coupled with proper RF warning signage. The FCC defines a site as a General Public or Uncontrolled environment when human exposure to RF fields occurs to the general public or in which persons who are exposed as a consequence of their employment may not be fully aware of the potential for exposure or can not exercise control over the exposure. Typical criteria for a General Public or Uncontrolled environment are unrestricted access (i.e. unlocked or no restrictions) to areas where antennas are located without proper RF warning signage being posted. The theoretical modeling of the RF energy being transmitted at a given site have been performed in accordance with the FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin 65 ("OET Bulletin 65"), Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields. Edition 97-01. published August 1997. 200 N. Glebe Road • Suite 1000 • Arlington. VA 22203-3728 703.276.1100 •lnfo@sResale.eom Page 2 sites of~? rf compliance e)(perrs This document specifically addresses compliance of Clearwire's transmitting facilities independently and in relation to all collocated transmitting facilities, which together constitute the RF environment at the site. II you have any questions regarding RF safety and regulatory compliance, please do not hesitate to contact Sitesale's Customer Support Department at (703) 276- 1100. 1.2 Statement of Compliance Upon evaluation of the cumulative RF emission levels from all operators at this site, and a thorough review of site access procedures. hazard signage and visible antenna locations. Sitesafe has determined that: This site Is condiHonally compliant with the FCC rules and regulations, as described in OET Bulletin 65. The corrective actions needed to make this site compliant are located in Section 2.1 . Clearwire is predicted to contribute greater than 5% of the maximum permissible exposure (MPE) based on theoretical modeling using parameters supplied by the client. A detailed explanation of the 5% rule can be found in the Definition section of Appendix B. The compliance determination is based on Occupational MPE levels due to theoretical levels, RF signage placement, proposed antenna inventory and the level of restricted access to the antennas at the site. Any deviation from the Clearwire's proposed deployment plan could result in the site being rendered non- compliant. Measurements have also been performed to validate the assumptions used in out theoretical modeling of this site. Measurements provide a view of MPE percentage levels at the site at the time of Sitesale's visit and are used to validate modeling results. Theoretical modeling is used lor determining compliance and the percentage of MPE contribution. 200 N. Glebe Road • Suite 1000 • Arlington, VA 22203-3728 703.276.1100 •lnfo@sltesafe.com Page3 rf compliance experts 2 Site Compliance 2.1 Actions for Site Compliance Based on common industry practice and our understanding of FCC and OSHA requirements, this section provides a statement of recommendations for site compliance. RF alert signage recommendations have been proposed based on existing measurements and theoretical analysis of MPE levels. Sitesafe has documented the locations of any RF signs and barriers that are required for compliance. Barriers can consist of locked doors. fencing, railing, rope, chain, paint striping or tape, combined with RF alert signage. This site is conditionally compliant with the FCC rules and regulations. Clearwire contributes greater than 5% of the maximum permissible exposure (MPE); therefore. additional action is required by Clearwire to attain compliance. It is recommended that Clearwire review Appendix Din order to maintain a current RF Safety Awareness program. • Posting Yellow Caution RF signs near Clearwire antennas #4 through #6 and #8 and #9, such that a person or a roofing worker could read and understand the signs prior to entering areas that may exceed 1 00 % of the Occupational MPE limit. During our field visit, Sitesafe documented the presence and location of signs and barriers. Areas that require corrective action for site compliance are listed below. No action means the location is compliant. Site Access Locations No action required. Clearwlre Proposed Alpha Sector Location Install antennas in accordance with proposed Clearwire deployment plan. Clearwlre Proposed Beta Sector LocaHon Yellow caution sign required. Install antennas in accordance with proposed Clearwire deployment plan. Clearwlre Proposed Gamma Sector LocaHon Yellow caution sign required. Install antennas in accordance with proposed Clearwire deployment plan. 200 N. Glebe Road • Suite 1000 • Arlington, VA 22200·3728 700.276.1100 •lnfo@Sftesale.com Page4 sitesofe rf compliance experts 2.2 Site Safety Procedures The following items are general safety recommendations that should be administered on a site by site basis as needed by the carrier. General Maintenance Work: Any maintenance personnel required to work immediately in front of antennas and I or in areas indicated as above I 00% of the Occupational MPE limits should coordinate with the wireless operators to disable transmitters during their work activities. Training and Qualification Verification: All personnel accessing areas indicated as exceeding the General Population MPE limits should have a basic understanding of EME awareness and RF Safety procedures when working around transmitting antennas. Awareness training increases a workers understanding to potential RF exposure scenarios. Awareness can be achieved in a number of ways (e.g. videos, formal classroom lecture or internet based courses). Physical Access Control: Access restrictions to transmitting antennas locations is the primary element in a site safety plan. Examples of access restrictions are as follows: • Locked door or gate • Alarmed door • Locked ladder access • Restrictive Barrier at antenna locations (e.g. Chain link with posted RF Sign) RF Slgnage: Everyone should obey all posted signs at all times. RF signs play an important role in properly warning a worker prior to entering into a potential RF Exposure area. Assume all antennas are active: Due to the nature of telecommunications transmissions, an antenna transmits intermittently. Always assume an antenna is transmitting. Never stop in front of an antenna. If you have to pass by an antenna, move through as quickly and safely as possible thereby reducing any exposure to a minimum. Maintain a 3 foot clearance from all antennas: There is a direct correlation between the strength of an EME field and the distance from the transmitting antenna. The further away from an antenna, the lower the corresponding EME field is. Rooftop RF Emissions Diagram: Section 6 of this report contains an RF Emissions Diagram that outlines various theoretical Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) areas on the rooftop. This analysis is all theoretical and assumes a duty cycle of I 00% for each transmitting antenna at full power. This analysis is a worst case scenario. This analysis is based on one of two access control criteria: General Public criteria means the access to the site is uncontrolled and anyone can gain access. Occupational criteria means the access is restricted and only property trained individuals can gain access to the antenna locations. 200 N. Glebe Road • SuHe 1000 • AIRngton, VA 22203·3728 703.276.1100 • lnfo@sHesafe.com Page 5 3 Site Access Procedures ~site ""' r r compliance ex p erts A site visit was conducted on March 2, 2010 at approximately 1:50PM. At that time, a diagram of the site was verified, obtained or produced containing the locations of all visible antennas, RF signs and access points on site. These antennas were recorded and photographed. The antenna make(s)/model(s) and centerlines were verified where possible. The following information was gathered regarding site access at the facility. Site access was locked or restricted at the time of the site visit. Building Management was required to unlock the hatch for Sitesafe field personnel. There was no RF Advisory signage posted at any site access point. Figure 1: Site Access Hatch 200 N. Glebe Road • Suite 1000 • Arlington, VA 22203·3728 703.276.1100 •lnfo@sltesafe.com Page 6 sitescJfe rf compliance experts 4 Antenna Inventory and Pictures 4.1 Transmifflng Antenna Inventory The Antenna Inventory shows all transmitting antennas at the site (see Section 4.2). This inventory was verified on site, and was utilized by Sitesafe to perform theoretical modeling of RF emissions. The inventory coincides with the site diagrams in this report, identifying each antenna's location at CA-SDG 5664-C- Remax Building. The antenna information collected includes the following information: • Licensee or wireless operator name • Frequency or frequency band • Transmitter power-Effective Radiated Power ("ERP"), or Equivalent Isotropic Radiated Power ("EIRP") in Watts • Antenna manufacturer make, model, and gain For other carriers at this site, the use of "Generic" as an antenna model, or "Unknown" for an operator means the information with regard to carrier, their FCC license and/or antenna information was not available nor could it be secured while on site. Equipment, antenna models and nominal transmit power were used for modeling, based on past experience with radio service providers. 200 N. Glebe Rood • Suite 1000 • Arlington, VA 22203·3728 703.27&.11 00 • lnfo@sHesafe.com Page? Ant # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 sitesofe rf compliance experrs. 4.2 Antenna Inventory and Pictures The following antenna inventory and representative photographs, on this and the following page, were obtained or verified during the site visit and were utilized to create the site model diagrams: Table 1: Antenna Inventory Operated By TX Freq ERP Antenna Az Antenna Model Location (MHz) (Watts) Gain (dBd) (Deg) X y Clearwire [Proposed) 2663 274 15.86 50 Argus LLPX31 OR XX-Pol SO' 94' Clearwire [Proposed) 2663 274 15.86 so Argus LLPX310R XX-Pol 50' 91' Clearwire [Proposed) 2663 274 15.86 170 Argus LLPX31 OR XX-Pol 25' 13' Clearwire [Proposed) 2663 274 15.86 170 Argus LLPX31 OR XX-Pol 22' 14' Clearwire [Proposed) 2663 274 15.86 270 Argus LLPX310R XX-Pol 22' 19' Clearwire [Proposed) 2663 274 15.86 270 Argus LLPX310R XX-Pol 25' 20' Clearwire [Proposed) 18750 100 36.96 so ANDREW VHLP2-18 50' 87' Clearwire [Proposed) 18750 100 36.96 170 ANDREW VHLP2-18 19' 15' Clearwire [Proposed) 80000 1200 42.56 238 E-Link 1 OOOEXR 19' 17' NOTE: X, Y and Z indicate relative position of the antenna to the origin location on the site. displayed in the model results diagram. Specifically, the Z reference indicates antenna height above the main site level unless otherwise indicated. ERP values provided by the client and used in the modeling may be greater than are currently deployed. For other carriers at this site the use of "Generic" as an antenna model or "Unknown" for a wireless operator means the information with regard to carrier, their FCC license and/or antenna information was not available nor could it be secured while on site. Equipment. antenna models and nominal transmit power were used for modeling, based on past experience with radio service providers. 200 N. Glebe Road • SuHe 1000 • Arlington, VA 22203·3728 703.276.1100 • info@sltesafe.com PageS z 6' 6' 6' 6' 6' 6' 6' 6' 6' Fe rf compllonce experts Figure 2: Clearwlre Proposed Alpha Sector Antennas 11 , 12 and 17 Figure 3: Clearwlre Proposed Beta and Gamma Sectors Antennas 13, 14, 18 and 15, 16, f9 200 N. Glebe Rood • Suite 1000 • Arlington, VA 22203-3728 703.276.1100 •lnfo@sHesafe.com Page 9 --· --------~-------------------------.. ~sitecrtFo rr co mp l •o n ce ex p e r ts Figure 4: Clearwlre Proposed Equipment Location Figure 5: Rooftop overview facing Southeast 200 N. Glebe Road • Suite 1000 • Arlington, VA 22203-3728 703.276.1100 •lnfo@sltesafe.com Page 10 site Fo rf compliance experts Figure 6: Rooftop overview facing North Figure 7: Rooftop overview facing Northwest 200 N. Glebe Road • Suite 1000 • Arlington, VA 22203-3728 703.276.1100 •lnfo@sltesafe.com Page 11 sitesofe rf compl1once experts 5 Site Measurements Collected This section provides a summary of the measurements collected at the site. Actual measurements locations at which these data points were collected are included in the RF emission diagram provided in Section 6 of this report. Two types of measurements were collected at each measurement location: maximum (peak) and spatial average. The spatial average measurement consists of a collection of ten (10) measurements within a ten (10) second time interval taken from zero (0) to six (6) feet in height. The purpose of this measurement technique is to identify the average power density over the dimensions of a typical human body. Table 2 below contains all the measurements collected from accessible areas located at the site at the time of Sitesafe's visit. Whenever possible, measurements are taken in front of the antenna in the transmitting direction. However, because of the antenna configuration at this site, specific emissions could not be discerned from nearby facilities, and no attempt was made to determine power density levels from a specific transmitting antenna. Highest Measured Occupational Level: <1% This value is equal to: Highest General Public Level: <5% Table 2: Spatial Average and Maximum OccupaHonal Measurements Measurements Spatial Maximum Measurements Spatial Maximum Points M1 M2 M3 M4 Average Points Average <1% <1% MS <1% <1% <l% M6 <1% <1% <1% Ml <1% <1% <1% M8 <1% RF meters and probes have been calibrated and used according to the manufacturer's specifications. Measurements provide a view of the MPE percentage levels at the site at the time of Sitesafe's site visit and are used to validate modeling results. Theoretical modeling is used for determining compliance and the percentage of MPE contributions. An RF Emission diagram has been included in section 6 of this document. All measurement locations are identified in this diagram. The locations of measurements in the RF Emission diagram can be cross referenced with Table 2 (above) to determine the actual spatial average and maximum measurement value per location. 200 N. Glebe Road • SuHe 1000 • Arlington. VA 22203-3728 703.276.1100 olnfo@sHesafe.com Page 12 <1% <1% <1% <1% siteso~E~ rf compliance experts 6 Theoretical RF Emissions Diagrams The RF emission diagram(s) below display theoretical spatially averaged percentage of the Maximum Permissible Exposure for all systems at the site unless otherwise noted. These diagrams use modeling as proscribed in OET Bulletin 65 and assumptions detailed in Appendix B. The key at the bottom of each diagram indicates if percentages displayed are referenced to FCC Occupational or General Public Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) limits. Color coding on the diagram is as follows: • Areas indicated as Gray are below 5% of the MPE limits or below. • Green represents areas predicted to be between 5% and 20% of the MPE limits. • Yellow represents areas predicted to be between 20% and 100% of the MPE limits. • Red areas indicated predicted levels greater than 1 00% of the MPE limits. General Population diagrams are specified when an area is not accessed controlled; i.e. personnel that do not meet Occupational or RF Safety trained criteria, could gain access. If trained occupational personnel require access to areas that are delineated as Red or above 100% of the limit, Sitesafe recommends that they utilize the proper personal protection equipment (RF monitors), coordinate with the carriers to reduce or shutdown power, or make real-time power density measurements with the appropriate power density meter to determine real-time MPE levels. This will allow the personnel to ensure that their work area is within exposure limits. The key at the bottom also indicates the level or height of the modeling with respect to the main level. The origin is typically referenced to the main rooftop level. or ground level for a structure without access to the antenna level. For example: Average from 0 feet above to 6 feet above origin and Average from 20 feet above to 26 feet above origin The first indicates modeling at the main rooftop (or ground) level averaged over 6 feet. The second indicates modeling at a higher level (possibly a penthouse level) of 20 feet averaged over 6 feet. AbbrevlaHons used In the RF Emlsslons Dla rams 200 N. Glebe Road • Suite 1000 • ArUngton, VA 22203-3728 703.276.1100 •lnfo@sltesale.com Page 13 Type Notice Caution Warn in sitesofe rf compliance exper!s As discussed in Section 5, site measurement locations for spatial average measurements collected at the time of Sitesafe's visit have been added to the RF emissions diagram. While the theoretical modeling represents worst case MPE levels based on the assumption(s) detailed above. the measurement data is a snapshot of MPE levels at the time of our visit. and dependent on transmitter duty cycle. system implementation and emissions from other RF sources at nearby antenna sites. Addlffonallnformaffon In the RF Emissions Diagrams Key The RF Emission Diagram provides indications of RF signage, barriers and locked doors. The table below lists the abbreviations used to indicate locked doors. signs and barriers: e and Barrier Ke RF Sl na e Barriers Exlsffng Recommended Type Exisffng Recommended Locaffon Locaffon Locaffon Locaffon NE NR LE LR CE CR WE WR RE RR As discussed in Section 5, site measurements collected at the time of Sitesafe' s visit have been added to the RF Emission diagrams. While the software modeling represents theoretical MPE levels based on the assumptions detailed above. the site measurement data is a snapshot of MPE levels. and dependent on transmitter duty cycle. system implementation and emissions from other RF sources at nearby antenna sites. 200 N. Glebe Road • Suite 1000 • ArUngton, VA 22203·3728 703.276.1100 •lnlo@sllesafe.com Page14 It site www.sitesafe.com Sitesafe lD# 57832 Site Name: Remax Building =::..-::-.: ......... '!:1\:.r..-o::=:-.: ............. ,__. __ fC..,.,....~ _ .. RF Emissions Diagram for: Remax Building Main Level M6 ACUNI~ D 0 % of FCC Public Exposure Limit Average from 0 feet above to 6 feet above origin • IOO <=X D 20 <=X < 100 • 5 <=X <20 X <=5 Feet ~ 10 0 10 20 Grid Size is 10.0 R site www.sitesafe.com Sitesafe lD# 57832 Site Name: Remax Building =::....-:::-:=--==: ....... .,--,...._. -..rc ........ ~ ... " RF Emissions Diagram for: Remax Building Main Level M6 M7 f/1 r 0 , M4 m 0 ~ 0 M8 0 11 M 3 %of FCC Occupational Exposure Limit Average from 0 feet above to 6 feet above origin • lOO <=X 20 <=X < 100 • 5 <=X <20 X <=5 Feet ruuuuu---1_.1 10 0 10 20 Grid Size is 1 0.0 sitesofe rf compliance experts 7 Field Technician Certification I. Mohamed Frej, state: That I am an employee of Sitesafe, Inc., in Arlington, Virginia, which provides RF compliance services to clients in the wireless communications industry; and That I have successfully completed RF Safety Awareness training, am aware of the hazards and, therefore, can be exposed to RF fields classified for "Occupational" exposure; That I am familiar with the Rules and Regulations of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) as well as the regulations of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), both in general and specifically as they apply to the FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radio-frequency Radiation; and That I have been trained in the proper use of measurement equipment, and have successfully completed Sitesafe training in policy, procedure and proper site measurement and modeling; and That I performed survey measurements of the RF environment at the site identified as CA-SDG 5664-C -Remax Building on March 2, 201 0 at 1 :50 PM in order to determine where there might be electromagnetic energy that is in excess of both the Controlled Environment and Uncontrolled Environment levels; and That the survey measurements were performed with a Holiday model Hl-2200 field intensity meter (serial number 00109415) and a Holiday model C300 field intensity probe, (serial number 001 09413) calibrated on 4/24/2009; and That I have prepared this Site Compliance Report and believe it to be true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and based on data gathered. By: Mohamed Frej 200 N. Glebe Road • Suite 1000 • Arlington, VA 22203-3728 703.276.1100 olnfo@sllesale.com Page 15 sitesofe rf compliance experts 8 Engineer Certification The professional engineer whose seal appears on the cover of this document hereby certifies and affirms that: I am registered as a Professional Engineer in the jurisdiction indicated in the professional engineering stamp on the cover of this document; and That I am an employee of Sitesafe, Inc., in Arlington. Virginia, at which place the staff and I provide RF compliance services to clients in the wireless communications industry; and That I am thoroughly familiar with the Rules and Regulations of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) as well as the regulations of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). both in general and specifically as they apply to the FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radio-frequency Radiation; and That survey measurements of the site environment of the site identified as CA-SDG 5664-C -Remax Building have been performed in order to determine where there might be electromagnetic energy that is in excess of both the Controlled Environment and Uncontrolled Environment levels; and That I have thoroughly reviewed this Site Compliance Report and believe it to be true and accurate to the best of my knowledge as assembled by and attested to by John Lee. March 3, 2010 200 N. Glebe Road • SuHe 1000 • Allington, VA 22203·3728 703.276.1100 • lnlo@sHesate.com Page 16 rf compliance experts Appendix A -Statement of Limiting Conditions Sitesafe field personnel visited the site and collected data with regard to the RF environment. Sitesafe will not be responsible for matters of a legal nature that affect the site or property. The property was visited under the premise that it is under responsible ownership and management and our client has the legal right to conduct business at this facility. Due to the complexity of some wireless sites, Sitesafe performed this visit and created this report utilizing best industry practices and due diligence. Sitesafe cannot be held accountable or responsible for anomalies or discrepancies due to actual site conditions (i.e., mislabeling of antennas or equipment, inaccessible cable runs, inaccessible antennas or equipment, etc.) or information or data supplied by Clearwire, the site manager, or their affiliates, subcontractors or assigns. Sitesafe has provided computer generated model(s) in this Site Compliance Report to show approximate dimensions of the site, and the model is included to assist the reader of the compliance report to visualize the site area, and to provide supporting documentation for Sitesafe's recommendations. Sitesafe may note in the Site Compliance Report any adverse physical conditions, such as needed repairs, observed during the survey of the subject property or that Sitesafe became aware of during the normal research involved in performing this survey. Sitesafe will not be responsible for any such conditions that do exist or for any engineering or testing that might be required to discover whether such conditions exist. Because Sitesafe is not an expert in the field of mechanical engineering or building maintenance, the Site Compliance Report must not be considered a structural or physical engineering report. Sitesafe obtained information used in this Site Compliance Report from sources that Sitesafe considers reliable and believes them to be true and correct. Sitesafe does not assume any responsibility for the accuracy of such items that were furnished by other parties. When conflicts in information occur between data provided by a second party and physical data collected by Sitesafe. the physical data will be used. 200 N. Glebe Road • Suite 1000 • Arlington, VA 22203-3728 703.276.1100 •lnfo@sltesafe.com Page 17 rr compliance experts Appendix 8 -Assumptions and Definitions General Model AssumpHons In this site compliance report, it is assumed that all antennas are operating at full power at all limes. Software modeling was performed for all transmitting antennas located on the site. Sitesafe has further assumed a I 00% duty cycle and maximum radiated power. The site has been modeled with these assumptions to show the maximum RF energy density. Sitesafe believes this to be a worst-case analysis, based on best available data. Areas modeled to predict emissions greater than I 00% of the applicable MPE level may not actually occur, but are shown as a worst-case prediction that could be realized real time. Sitesafe believes these areas to be safe for entry by occupationally trained personnel utilizing approprtate personal protective equipment (in most cases, a personal monitor). Thus, at any time, if power density measurements were made, we believe the real- time measurements would indicate levels below those depicted in the RF emission diagram(s) in this report. By modeling in this way, Sitesafe has conservatively shown exclusion areas -areas that should not be entered without the use of a personal monitor, carriers reducing power, or performing real-time measurements to indicate real-time exposure levels. Use of Generic Antennas For the purposes of this report, the use of "Generic" as an antenna model. or "Unknown" for an operator means the information about a earner, their FCC license and/or antenna information was not provided and could not be obtained while on site. In the event of unknown information, Sitesafe will use our industry specific knowledge of equipment, antenna models, and transmit power to model the site. If more specific information can be obtained for the unknown measurement criteria, Sitesafe recommends remodeling of the site utilizing the more complete and accurate data. Information about similar facilities is used when the service is identified and associated with a particular antenna. If no information is available regarding the transmitting service associated with an unidentified antenna, using the antenna manufacturer's published data regarding the antenna's physical characteristics makes more conservative assumptions. Where the frequency is unknown, Sitesafe uses the closest frequency in the antenna's range that corresponds to the highest Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE), resulting in a conservative analysis. 200 N. Glebe Road o Suite 1000 o Allington, VA 22203-3728 703.276.1100 olnlo@sltesafe.com Page 18 siteso~e rf compl1once expe.-rs Definitions 5% Rule-The rules adopted by the FCC specify that, in general. at multiple transmitter sites actions necessary to bring the area into compliance with the guidelines are the shared responsibility of all licensees whose transmitters produce field strengths or power density levels at the area in question in excess of 5% of the exposure limits. In other words, any wireless operator that contributes 5% or greater of the MPE limit in an area that is identified to be greater than 100% of the MPE limit is responsible taking corrective actions to bring the site into compliance. Compliance-The determination of whether a site is safe or not with regards to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Radiation from transmitting antennas. Decibel (dB) -A unit for measuring power or strength of a signal. Duty Cycle -The percent of pulse duration to the pulse period of a periodic pulse train. Also, may be a measure of the temporal transmission characteristic of an intermittently transmitting RF source such as a paging antenna by dividing average transmission duration by the average period for transmission. A duty cycle of 100% corresponds to continuous operation. Effective (or Equivalent) Isotropic Radiated Power ~IRP) -The product of the power supplied to the antenna and the antenna gain in a given direction relative to an isotropic antenna. Effective Radiated Power ~RP) -In a given direction, the relative gain of a transmitting antenna with respect to the maximum directivity of a half wave dipole multiplied by the net power accepted by the antenna from the connecting transmitter. Gain (of an antenna) -The ratio of the maximum intensity in a given direction to the maximum radiation in the same direction from an isotropic radiator. Gain is a measure of the relative efficiency of a directional antennas as compared to an omni directional antenna. General Population/Uncontrolled Environment-Defined by the FCC, as an area where RFR exposure may occur to persons who are unaware of the potential for exposure and who have no control of their exposure. General Population is also referenced as General Public. Generic Antenna-For the purposes of this report, the use of "Generic" as an antenna model means the antenna information was not provided and could not be obtained while on site. In the event of unknown information, Sitesafe will use our industry specific knowledge of antenna models to select a worst case scenario antenna to model the site. Isotropic Antenna -An antenna that is completely non-directional. In other words, an antenna that radiates energy equally in all directions. Max/mum Measurement-This measurement represents the single largest measurement recorded when performing a spatial average measurement. 200 N. Glebe Road • Suite 1000 • Arlington, VA 22203-3728 703.276.1100 •lnfo@sHesafe.com Page 19 sitesofe rf compliance experts Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) -The rms and peak electric and magnetic field strength, their squares, or the plane-wave equivalent power densities associated with these fields to which a person may be exposed without harmful effect and with acceptable safety factor. Occupational/Controlled Environment-Defined by the FCC, as an area where Radio Frequency Radiation (RFR) exposure may occur to persons who are aware of the potential for exposure as a condition of employment or specific activity and can exercise control over their exposure. OfT Bulletin 65-Technical guideline developed by the FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology to determine the impact of Radio Frequency radiation on Humans. The guideline was published in August 1997. OSHA (OccupaHonal Safety and Health AdmlnlslraHon)-Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing a safe and healthy workplace for their employees. OSHA's role is to promote the safety and health of America's working men and women by setting and enforcing standards; providing training, outreach and education; establishing partnerships; and encouraging continual process improvement in workplace safety and health. For more information, visit www.osha.gov. Radio Frequency Radiation -Electromagnetic waves that are propagated from antennas through space. Spatial Average Measurement-A technique used to average a minimum of ten (10) measurements taken in a ten (10) second interval from zero (0) to six (6) feet. This measurement is intended to model the average energy an average sized human body will absorb while present in an electromagnetic field of energy. Transmitter Power Output (TPO) -The radio frequency output power of a transmitter's final radio frequency stage as measured at the output terminal while connected to a load. 200 N. Glebe Road • SuHe 1000 • Arlington, VA 22203-3728 703.276.1100 • lnfo@sftesale.com Page20 sitesofe rf compliance e)(perrs Appendix C -Rules & Regulations ExplanaHon of Applicable Rules and Regulations The FCC has set farth guidelines in OET Bulletin 65 for human exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields. Specific regulations regarding this topic are listed in Part 1 , Subpart I, of Title 47 in the Code of Federal Regulations. Currently, there are two different levels of MPE -General Public MPE and Occupational MPE. An individual classified as Occupational can be defined as an individual who has received appropriate RF training and meets the conditions outlined below. General Public is defined as anyone who does not meet the conditions of being Occupational. FCC and OSHA Rules and Regulations define compliance in terms of total exposure to total RF energy, regardless of location of or proximity to the sources of energy. It is the responsibility of all licensees to ensure these guidelines are maintained at all times. It is the ongoing responsibility of all licensees composing the site to maintain ongoing compliance with FCC rules and regulations. Individual licensees that contribute less than 5% MPE to any total area out of compliance are not responsible for corrective actions. OSHA has adopted and enforces the FCC's exposure guidelines. A building owner or site manager can use this report as part of an overall RF Health and Safety Policy. It is important for building owners/site managers to identity areas in excess of the General Population MPE and ensure that only persons qualified as Occupational are granted access to those areas. Occupational Environment Explained The FCC definition of Occupational exposure limits apply to persons who: • are exposed to RF energy as a consequence of their employment; • have been made aware of the possibility of exposure; and • can exercise control over their exposure. OSHA guidelines go further to state that persons must complete RF Safety Awareness training and must be trained in the use of appropriate personal protective equipment. In order to consider this site an Occupational Environment, the site must be controlled to prevent access by any individuals classified as the General Public. Compliance is also maintained when any non-occupational individuals (the General Public) are prevented from accessing areas indicated as Red or Yellow in the attached RF Emissions diagram. In addition, a person must be aware of the RF environment into which they are entering. This can be accomplished by an RF Safety Awareness class, and by appropriate written documentation such as this Site Compliance Report. All Clearwire employees who require access to this site must complete RF Safety Awareness training and must be trained in the use of appropriate personal protective equipment. 200 N. Glebe Road • Suite 1000 • ArRngton, VA 22203-3728 703.276.1100 •lnlo@sHesate.com Page 21 sitesofe rr compliance expe,.rs Appendix D -General Safety Recommendations The following are general recommendations appropriate for any site with accessible areas in excess of I 00% General Public MPE. These recommendations are not specific to this site. These are safety recommendations appropriate for typical site management. building management, and other tenant operations. I. All individuals needing access to the main site (or the area indicated to be in excess of General Public MPE) should wear a personal RF Exposure monitor, successfully complete proper RF Safety Awareness training, and have and be trained in the use of appropriate personal protective equipment. 2. All individuals needing access to the main site should be instructed to read and obey all posted placards and signs. 3. The site should be routinely inspected and this or similar report updated with the addition of any antennas or upon any changes to the RF environment including: • adding new antennas that may have been located on the site • removing of any existing antennas • changes in the radiating power or number of RF emitters 4. Post the appropriate NOTICE, CAUTION, or WARNING sign at the main site access point(s) and other locations as required. Note: Please refer to RF Exposure Diagrams in Appendix B, to inform evervone who has access to this site that beyond posted signs there may be levels in excess of the limits prescribed by the FCC. The signs below are examples of signs meeting FCC guidelines. NOTICE ..... ........, .... _,_. .. ,....._....,..,.,~c ..,...t'lllk.......,. ...... ~-'""':'=--..­----·-------.. --..... A CAUTION ~ loyoflidl...,. l)(IMI: 1tt1t1o lrtoqi,IIII'!Cy fWd• aiiNI 111t 1MY ~fCC MM ror """~ ·-·--~._, ... __ ..,...._ .... ~ .... -""" .. ,_ ................ -..................... -~-······-.-. lleyOMII tllft pD-IIt: ...... n.q..-, ,...... llllll'llllo ut. ,.eM tn. FCC '\1101 ""-......~~ . ........ r ...... ,._...._..... ...... __ ..-..... --..;; ... _._.... _ _,_,_ .. __ , 5. Ensure that the site door remains locked (or appropriately controlled) to deny access to the general public if deemed as policy by the building/site owner. 6. For a General Public environment the four color levels identified in this analysis can be interpreted in the following manner: • Areas indicated as Gray are at 5% of the General Public MPE limits or below. This level is safe for a worker to be in at any time. 200 N. Glebe Road • Suite 1000 • Arlington, VA 22203-3728 703.276.1100 • lnlo@sHesale.com Page 22 sitesofe rf compliance experts • Green represents areas predicted to be between 5% and 20% of the General Public MPE limits. This level is safe for a worker to be in at any time. • Yellow represents areas predicted to be between 20% and 100% of the General Public MPE limits. This level is safe for a worker to be in at any time. • Red areas indicated predicted levels greater than 1 00% of the General Public MPE limits. This level is not safe for the General Public to be in. 7. For an Occupational environment the four color levels identified in this analysis can be interpreted in the following manner: • Areas indicated as Gray are at 5% of the Occupational MPE limits or below. This level is safe for a worker to be in at any time. • Green represents areas predicted to be between 5% and 20% of the Occupational MPE limits. This level is safe for a worker to be in at any time. • Yellow represents areas predicted to be between 20% and 1 00% of the Occupational MPE limits. Only individuals that have been properly trained in RF Health and Safety should be allowed to work in this area. This is not an area that is suitable for the General Public to be in. • Red areas indicated predicted levels greater than 1 00% of the Occupational MPE limits. This level is not safe for the Occupational worker to be in for prolonged periods of time. Special procedures must be adhered to such as lock out tag out procedures to minimize the workers exposure to EME. 8. Use of a Personal Protective Monitor: When working around antennas, Sitesafe strong recommends the use of a Personal Protective Monitor (PPM). Wearing a PPM will properly forewarn the individual prior to entering an RF exposure area. Keep a copy of this report available for all persons who must access the site. They should read this report and be aware of the potential hazards with regards to RF and MPE limits. Additional Information Additional RF information is available by visiting both www.Sitesafe.com and www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety. OSHA has additional information available at: http://www.osha-slc.gov /SLTC/radiofrequencyradiation. 200 N. Glebe Road • Suite 1000 • ArDnglon, VA 22203·3728 703.276.1100 olnlo@sllesale.com Page 23 ------------------------------~--------- State of California-The Resources Ag. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME Pi~ ~ 2010 ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEE CASH RECEIPT SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE. TYPE OR PRINT CLEARLY LEAD AGENCY CITY OF CARLSBAD COUNTY/STATEAGENCY OF FILING SAN DIEGO PROJECT TITLE MCUP 10-07 -CA-SDG5657 REMAX BUILDING PROJECT APPLICANT NAME CLEAR WIRELESS, LLC PROJECT APPLICANT ADDRESS 4400 CARILLON POINT PROJECT APPLICANT (Check appropriate box): 0 Local Public Agency 0 School District CHECK APPLICABLE FEES: 0 Environmental Impact Report 0 Negative Declaration CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY KIRKLAND 0 Other Special District 0 Application Fee Water Diversion (State Water Resources Control Board Only) 0 Projects Subject to Certified Regulatory Programs 0 County Administrative Fee 0 Project that is exempt from fees 0 Notice of Exemption 0 DFG No Effect Determination (Form Attached) 0 Other ------------------- PAYMENT METHOD: RECEIPT# SD2010 0823 STATE CLEARING HOUSE# lffappOc;abJo) STATE WA 0 State Agency $2,792.25 $2,010.25 $850.00 $949.50 $50.00 DATE 09-03-2010 DOCUMENT NUMBER *20100823* PHONE NUMBER 619-972-4944 ZIP CODE 98033 0 Private Entity $ ______ _ $ ______ _ $ _______ _ $ _______ _ $ $50.00 --------- $ _______ _ 0 Cash 0 Credit 0 Check 0 Other 227120 TOTAL RECEIVED $ $50.00 -------- SIGNATURE L. Kesian X 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ORIGINAL-PROJECT APPLICANT COPY-DFG/ASB COPY· LEAD AGENCY COPY· COUNTY CLERK FG 753.5a (Rev. 7108) e David L. Butler e COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ASSESS OR/REC 0 RD ER/COUNTY CLERK ASSESSOR'S OFFICE 1600 Pacific Highway, Suite 103 San Diego, CA 92101-2480 Tel. (619) 236-3771 • Fax (619) 557-4056 www.sdarcc.com RECORDER/COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE 1600 Pacific Highway, Suite 260 P.O. Box 121750 *San Diego, CA 92112-1750 Tel. (619)237-0502 • Fax (619)557-4155 Transaction#: 232873220100903 Deputy: LKESIAN Location: COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 03-Sep-2010 13:56 FEES: 50.00 Qty of I Fee Notice of Exemption for Ref# NOE: 0823 50.00 TOTAL DUE PAYMENTS: 50.00 Check 50.00 TENDERED SERVICES AVAILABLE AT OFFICE LOCATIONS * Tax Bill Address Changes * Records and Certified Copies: Birth/ Marriage/ Death/ Real Estate * Fictitious Business Names (DBAs) * Marriage Licenses and Ceremonies • Assessor Parcel Maps * Property Ownership • Property Records • Property Values * Document Recordings SERVICES AVAILABLE ON-LINE AT www.sdarcc.com * Forms and Applications * Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) * Grantor/ Grantee Index * Fictitious Business Names Index (DBAs) • Property Sales * On-Line Purchases Assessor Parcel Maps Property Characteristics Recorded Documents '· e NOTICE OF EXEMPTION To: SD County Clerk Attn: Linda Kesian Mail Stop A-33 1600 Pacific Highway San Diego, CA 921 0 I From: f?O f1lli@ bavid Butler, Recorder/Couuty Clerk SEP 0 3 2010 BY L. Kesian DEPUTY CITY OF CARLSBAD Planning Division 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Subject: Filing of this Notice of Exemption is in compliance with Section 2 1152b of the Public Resources Code (California Environmental Quality Act). Project Number and Title: MCUP I 0-07 -CA-SDG5657 REMAX Building Project Location -Specific: _,_12=-6=5"---C=ar,_,_ls=b=a=d_V,_,i=ll=ag""'e"---D=-.:....:ri'-'-v=-e _______________ _ Project Location -City: =C=ar:....:.l=sb=a=d'-------Project Location -County: =S=anc:..-=D..:..:ie:..cg>!'o ___ _ Description of Project: Request for the installation, operation, and maintenance of a Wireless Communication Facility (WCF) for Clearwire consisting of (6) WiMax panel antennas, (6) DAP head units, (3) directional units, and (I) equipment cabinet located behind an existing RF transparent parapet wall and a proposed radio frequency (RF) friendly screen wall enclosure designed with a 4 hipped roof and asphalt shingles to match the roof of the commercial (REMAX) building at 1265 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad CA 92008 Name of Public Agency Approving Project: =C'-'-'it:.J_y__,o'-'-f__,C=ae!..!rl'-"-sb=a:o.>d,___ ____________ _ Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: .:....P=la=n=n=in~g._;D"-'i'-'-v=is=io=n,__ __________ _ Name of Applicant: =C_,_,le=a"--r _,_W,__,i""'re,_,l"""es""'s"--'='L=eL=C'------------------------ Applicant's Address: 4400 Carillon Po int Kirkland WA 98033 Applicant's Telephone Number: =6-"-19'---=-9-'-'72=---'4-=-94....:...4-'--------------------- Exempt Status: (Check One) D Ministerial (Section 2 1080(b)(l); 15268); D Declared Emergency (Section 2 1 080(b)(3); 15269(a)); D Emergency Project (Section 2 1 080(b )( 4); 15269 (b )(c)); [8] Categorical Exemption-State type and section number: 1530 I( e) "Addition to Existin g Facilities" D Statutory Exemptions-State code number: -'-'N"-'/Ac..!..,_ _______________ _ 0 Gene ral rule (Section 1506l (b)(3)) Reasons why project is exempt: The project is an addition to an existing office building. Lead Agency Contact Person: Shelley Glennon Telephone: (760) 602-4625 ::ILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLERK . r 9-/-/o DON NEU, Planning Director Date Date received for filing at OPR: Revised 06/10 D ·~ • • FILE COPY '( ... ~CITY OF ~CARLSBAD 1·13·!0 Planning Department www.carlsbadca.gov NOTICE OF AN INFORMAL HEARING SCHEDULED FOR A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT A Minor Conditional Use Permit (MCUP) has been applied for to allow the installation, operation, and maintenance of a Wireless Communication Facility (WCF) for Clearwire consisting of (6) Wimax panel antennas, (6) DAP head units, (3) directional units, and (I) equipment cabinet located behind an existing RF transparent parapet wall and a proposed radio frequency (RF) friendly screen wall enclosure designed with a 4 hipped roof and asphalt shingles to match the roof of the office (REMAX) building. The project site is located at 1265 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, California, and more particularly described as: A portion of Tract 119 within Map No. 1661 as filed March 1, 1915 in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California. Notice is hereby given that a request for an informal hearing was submitted on June 25, 20 I 0, within 10 days after a Notice of Request for a MCUP was mailed out. Therefore, pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Title 21 Section 21.42.070 "Minor Conditional Use Permit: Decision- making Process," an informal hearing shall take place. This notice is hereby given to inform the requestor(s) and the applicant of the informal hearing date, time and location. INFORMAL HEARING SCHEDULE HEARING DATE: Tuesday, July 27,2010 HEARING TIME: 1:30PM HEARING LOCATION: 1635 Faraday Avenue (Room !50) Carlsbad, CA 92008 CASE NO.: MCUP 10-07 CASE NAME: CA-SDG5664 REMAX Building, 1265 Carlsbad Village Drive Date Notice Mailed out to Applicant and Requestor(s): July 13,2010 CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DIVISION ® PROJECT INFORMATION APPUCANT Clr.AAw!Ae: w: UOO cAAillON PO<N1 I<J""'-""0 ...... _3J _, __ (~10) 818-5553 E""-'•--•-"''""'-'""""' .. <om CONtACT Df)oN SISKOW$!<1 COOE I~FORMATION "'"""" C'-"S$1FlCAfiON. R-P-Q .JL>I!I,>tllCllOM C!T¥ OF CAOlSS><I CONST!!U(;fl()f< TYPE: V-B OCCUPANCY. A-J GENE""-ow. o cu•R(NT USE TEUCOMt.IUMIU.nONS F.<.CilllY """"<>SED \1'5( 1l1LCOW•UNOCO.l00><$ F.O.CIUTY TELCO COMPANY .,. POWER COMPIWY '~' CONI"""',_ -IDS """"'' 18"'1 ""'"'"'" PROJECT TEAM ENGINEER P!IC CORF'ORI<fJO'< 13<2' [W<I(L$00< Sl S<lll( lOO P<l .... Y. CA 9206<1 """"' (8"<1) 0611-2018 , .... ··~) 6118-181> .,..,,_ .. »o;IOpd«O'POot CONTA<;T S0><"'L SHAH. P~ ~ ""'"' m£COO.O, 10.: PO. SOX 55 ·-Y. c• ·~,. """"'-(610) 9'1-... •· '"""-·''"' ... _.,.,..,..,"-"'"'"'""""'"'"' CONFM;T <W<lfll£ ""'-""''" SJTE ACQUISITION "'~"' l£L[C""', INC PO !lOX 55 O()WIOY_C>-920" P"ON!: W>ll) 66J ''"' O<AJL ""' '--'"""-"''''"'"m'"' "''" CON1ACT LYNN $rJ[Rl$f;N !U .• ...,R[ O>t1 COPLEY ""'""· >IJ'T[ >00 "'" O<EGO. <> 9211 """"' (7Gll) 5]~ 10]1 £"""'-fo<"oodo«><<oo•o0<'0o~"•<om C"""".ocr mt-OC """"'-'• PROPERTY OWNER CA•LS~ IOL'-""'l: 0""'1: I""'STORS, LlC 12'1 CO.OlSS<O VILLI« 0AM: CAALSBAO CA gzooe C<>"TAC! FlUNK \'lOll <)n'IC£_ (160) ~"'-'"'"' OHO"'-('60) d•·"'00 SITE LOCATION !BASED 0111 HAD ~31 V.lll\JoE JS oo' !<l >l"" '""CifUOI': 117 20' ,.,. w TOP 01' Sll<u<:TUOE ..;c >156 0" PARCEL NUMBER($) , .. 100 21-00 AREA OF' PARCEL *'"·000 <;on PROJECT AREA- ±100 s' '"'" ""' PROJECT MAWIGER 5761 cool£" """"'· sum: 100 $AN OOU:O, c.o 9:1111 PH()N[ (019) 818-006] ,...._ ..,~ ... ·-··'~"''''""' CQNt.OCT DQio SISKOWSKI CONSTRI!CfiON MANAGER CL~E: 5'61 CoPlEY QAIV(, ><JlT£ >00 W< OOE:CO, 0. 0<1 H P»()N[ (619) 200-<J<Q , .... ,"'""'""""'"""'."""""'""''" CONT.ocT J1JHN C»'fBWoiCO Y .. Y TEL.E:c""', INC PHC>Nf; (619)950 -5 [MAIL '>'"""h-m\ol<o<o••""<<<>m CC>NT.O.Cl .,..-..., llHL "'"'"' TEl.E:C"" <NC PHQ><(-{6!9) lJ9 ,l8l,1 '"''"'-'""' '"'''""'""'."'"''''""""''"''""' C""""..cT -'EM F!AE:'"'"IONI clearw·re WIRELESS BROADBAND REMAX BUILDING CA-SDG5664C 1265 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR. CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ~ !'RQPQS(> lO IN$TAU. ~6) "'""' """"'-~ ~0) ""' ooo ""'"' """ Ill ~ """"""' BD<"" POo""'£:0 "'-•••on.• soorr• "...,; "'n< • """''" """' WOT>! """""-'<HINGLE; 10 .... TC" D<ISllt<C Ol'LD!!OO ~1) ;e'OJ)~NT:N£T ""U_ El[ INSTAlLED 00< ""' Of tl<~TING CODE COMPLIANCE All-KN<0 ... 1'1: • ..,_5<"All.B[P£R...,.<ffil ... O !NST""-'-<0 IN ACCOilD•N<:E WfT1< '"' CUO:.[NT EOOTION5 OC l"' ;OU,I)WINC Cot!F;S I<S AOOPIEO BY lH[ LOCAl G<M:RNI•G loU"""''"<'> ~OlHING '" lH£5F; """'' 15 TO B£ CONS,.UCf[O lQ P[•~n """" '''" co••o•~!NC lO l~('$( cooe:s 1 '-'<JfORNIA COO( Of R[CU .... l!ONS 1. 1001 CALI+'OI<Nio\ BIJ!IJ)ONC COOE J 2007 CAI_LI'OONI.\ M[C-K:<l COO[ • 2007 C>UO'OfONio\ PLVW81NO COO[ S 2007 CAI_OFORNI.\ ELECTIOIC CovE 0 I<Nt LOCAl BVILI)IN<; COO( "'0<""''""' TO lH[ AB<l"o'[ ; cm-jco.J•n-Olio....,.crs ...... I)"""R[OIJIR'fM(NlS f.O.C"-"" IS UN-[0 -"<0 NOT '01< "U""" Ho0o8<l>'ION HANI)It.IPP[O .O.CC£5$ NOT R[OUH'l£0 IN ACCO"""""' WID< CAI_IF"Q.Nio\ Ai)«>N1$ ..... lfiiE STAr[ ;~. ''''" l. TJTU: >• CHA!'T[R 1 1B_ "'Cf!O>< VICINITY MAP PROJECT NO. MCUP10-07 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION ""''"'""""fi0NCC>NTA"'£0"'TI<ISS[T<J< """''"""""""""""""l'iiS-"'""'a-.-... 1\JR[ '-"" !IS£ 00 1>5Cl<>S-011-<{R ,_ ""' <'HO::H "'"''" lQ , ........ ""'''"' " '"""'"' """"'"""' DRAWING INDEX SHEET DESCRIPT10N " DRIVING DIRECTIONS ABBREVIATIONS ~ROiol CLEARWIRE O!'F~. S.t.N DIEGO. CA 1 StAR1 our ~0<0<(; t<ST ON COPLEY D. l()ftARO ""'"""" f1[UJ DA l T\JON RICKT ONlO Ho;;K"""' "(lD OR J "-"'" L1:rT OO<TO c""""" cr 4_ Tl!R. RIGHT o•to >HAWliN( $l 5 TUR• RIGHT OHlU C"'"RE~ONT W[$0 8LV0 6 o.(£1<(:£,..n;r.--.. _ ' o-eo5 " a«owrs •-5 " "tAK£TH£CAACS&IoO"L'-"-'EDA£J<IT 9 TUR• OOCHl ()NlQ CAR'.S""" Vl'-'-"'1: ()0 10 """rJ[ AT 126~ CARLSEWl VOLLAGE OR "' <c ··~ :::0 ~ ,~, ~, a ~" -" ·~ ~c ~~~· ,., ~~ " ~D G>e oo AJRC"""'"""""' .. , =:.::::;:,::''""-"' -· OUUI<NG "'-""''"" C£1UNC ., 0~ CONCR[T£ CONSlll<O(;f-.;l" '~' co•n•vous ~ ~~ ., "'"" ~"" "' ~· ~ fL[VAWN ~~·K:Al ·~ "' ~\'~"' """" " "-"""'""'"' " ~· "" ~· ""'-"'"'/£0 ~~~~""""""''"" ""''"" "''-' ~"""' ~~:"""' "-Pl"'OO!l -"""""' ~OP """"'""' ""-=.~':i Tll£AT[0 :!."~':o.o.c :;.o '"' E!~C..TIO« ~~~' 0""'""" ~"EC """""'""" >0"""[ !'OOT •NSU'-"liOH ~~::TE£L """.,. '~ ""•••'""""-,-.L!Cl OU""""" COD< " '"'" $1JSPE~OCD ·-OS ""'""Ww ~c -·· "'-:::' n••m s~, -UM£% NOI£0 01H[O!W~[ Yl'i<;EllJ><[I)O.OS ~" ""~ """""""'"'"" """'"' .. "''" MOl .. PUC.OL£ ., -""''"""""""' ::;o ..,,_, •or lQ 5C>L[ .... "'.,..,.,, ""'""" O<Jl';ID[""""'"' clear v/re M&M TELECOM. INC MBC<., '-'·""""'" ..... , {6101"'-'-'""' "" '"") .,.___.,., "DC CO~"G""ToO.-.. ~~~ I ,,,., ... ,"""""-"""'"'" ._v.co•>OOO l'fi ~·,.) .... , ... ,.._,.,.,..,_,.,, REMAX BUILDING CA-SDG5664C t:.!<>S CARLS6.0.0 VILLAG~ OR CARLSaAil. CA 9200e TITLE SHEET T-1 ~ 1r DII"E~»>NS S""""' ON Pl.'~< 00 NOT SU,U: tO!•Rt:CTlY. t•Et• ""' R[O\JC~ON OR ff<I.AA(;Et.of:Nl """" """"-p'"""' 'o I~ '"] 1:5 PROJECT NO. MCUP10-07 •PN 1~6-1B0-2o-oo _,- clear w·r M&M TELECOM. fNC •o "'"'" ..... Y.OA-,014 -<(O!t)<C>--F"" ("")''""_."" ~~~ I ''2:1' """ruoo "'· "'-"' >oo .... Y.CA.i,.. "'-'i""'i-·l<U ,,.,( ... ) __ ,, REMAX BUILDING CA-SDG5664C 1265 CAA!.SBAD VJLLJ\GE D1't CARLSBAD. CA 92001! SITE PLAN A-1 SCALE NOTE IF OI~~NSIONS SHOW'N o• PWO 00 NOT \O.lE C()RR£GIP_ C+<£C• COR RE0l)(:T100< OR ~"'--""'!: .. OH ''"'"' ()RIQNAI_ PWOS stR\JC!UAAl """'-'<'i;IS 'S '>EOUIR[D TO OCIER"''"[ !~[ 'L'SI{Wl'Y or THC PROPOS£0 Q[SICN 11-<E '"""' >llE ""o '""'-liON Of''"' ••o•osm "'-"''"'"'Y """"N ""'-l IS SL<8J[CT TO G-C( ..n(R THE COO.O~LFT'ON ()I ~Tlllli>1U-.....,.,SIS ROOF PLAN ¢. ~ . l PROJECT NO. MCUP10-07 ~. 'J P""EJ.AHT_'"r AZIIOIJll;.,~.~ 0tREC1"I<ll<>.l_...,.,-7 liEARr"'>•tso-~ clear w're M&M T£L£COM. INC ,,_, """"'·"'"""" "<-•("0)60.1->0ilO ... ("")',.__'""' I '""" """"LSON $f."-'" 2<10 .,_,_co.,,.. "'-to .. l __ _ ... , ... , ... _..,, REMAX BUILDING CA-SDG5664C 1265 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR CAALSBAO, CA 92006 ROOF PLAN A-2 SCALE NOTEo or \)\OjD«I<>'<S s-.. Q~ "'-"< 00 NOf SU.CC tclRRH:n_y_ t><EC• FOF< REIXJCT10.. OR [NLNO>E\I£Nf FRI)OI QltOCI ..... PL'I<S "--SU> ~(bOB VNUWITU> K7-5WX EOUI'IOENT c.a.£1 @ ' zo'-o ~ -~,.,_/ STRUCTUAAL NOTE N<TEPH.S, (2] Df'EC110Miol.. --...., <•J ON' HE.oD '-"'ITS smuCTU"-'L """'-'"'" " R(0'""'" ro """""''~' n<£ rusoecn>< oc '"' P<OPosm OES!<;" T~( [)(ACT LOCAflO!< OF TH( PRQP()S£0 EOUIP~E!<' """'~' 1$ SU!I.J(Cf ro c-w.oe: """" '"' C""'PlDlON OF STRlJCTU""'-"""->'SIS PROPOSED EQUIPMENT LAYOUT •. o· > ~ t:== DJ i I c 1) / \_~~·- PROPOSED ANTENNA LAYOUT SECTOR 1 """f'OS(l) C'-'-R£ 009 ---· lJNUWIIID .V-540X touAtENT Cooai<ET ' STRUCT\JAAl NOTE 5T"UCTU""'--"'-'J.<SI; IS P[OU"'Ul TO O(n""""" TH[ FWI<~L.JT"r OF T~E PR<l"'~(O Q[51GN 1'<[ E"-'<;t SIZ( M<O l"""fl(lN Of THE PRQP%£0 RF-F.IENOLY SCREEN "-''-' IS SUBJECT TO (""""'£ WTEfi T"[ CO""'-"'"" OF STRJC".J""'-·-YSIS # . • ' l PROPOSED ANTENNA LAYOUT SECTORS 2 & 3 PROJECT NO. MCUP10-07 PAOPOSEI:I ~ Rf SCREEN TO ... TCI< ('£} lrnJCCO FlNOSI< ~ DPR£C~ANT ·~ 8EAII~.YG ~ rsu· - ' !Ojjiijjii 1)2" • ' 2 3 clear v/re M&M TeLECOM INC •o ""'" .._, ""'.,.,. ·-·~····""'·""" Fu(>OOJ<><-•>OS ~~~ I ,,,_""'"""·"'"'"" """"'·"""""" m. i''") .. ,_,.,. '"'-105!11 ... _,, REMAX BUILDING CA-SDG5664C f261>CAR!.S8.0.0 IIIL.I.AG~ DR CARLSBAQ,CA!I;!OOI! EQUIPMENT lAYOUT SH((T NUlOilER A-3 ~ oF (N~ENSIOOIS s-• ON PL.ON 00 ~Ot ~ CORI'!fPl_r, Cl<EC~ ~OR I<COVCIWIV 00 EN~IIENT """' OI\1CIHAI. PL.<NS SOUTHWEST ELEVAnON STfi.UCTUFW. NOTE SI1<1JCTUR.I.i. ....... \'<;"' IS ~EaliOR[O to OCl{ ... ONt 1'1<[ FUISOEII.JfY Of' THE •oOC><'<lS(O DESIGN. T><[ EXACt 5JZ( »<!> <CCA,_ Of" r><E ~= f<1'-l'"t<~Y SCI>UI< W-'IJ. tS SUBJECT to C>W<C£ ..,.,..,. T><E COWPUnON 01' Sfiii!CT\JI<At.""'l.Y$1$ NORTHWEST ELEVATION PROPOSED C~IIE (4) .,_ """'El. ANTE......,. (4) tw' HE.00 ~rom,;. NfO (2) "'"E<:1JOI.w. ANTE......,. <XlNCfAlLO EIEI"OP<O PROPOSED Cl.E.lRWIRE ..,. liWISP.oJiENT SI::OED< """"' Mrn ..........,., """"· SC"ttN TO .... TCH (£) STUCCO ""ISH. 1100'1NO TO ... TC~ (E) A(l(fltG @ ~ CLU<R¥1lll£ (4) -""H£1. ANTENNAS, (4) OolP ~E.\0 lJ!<fl!;, ONO (2) I>RECl'lOIW. 01<1"£-. C0Nc£JU0 80<0,0 PROPOSED C!DRI'il~ Rf" ~ SC!!EE!< PANU lll<l'l< <-'"PI'OI f!OOI", SCilED< TO .... TCM (£) !mJCCI) rn!ii<. IOOO<'ING TO ... TCH (£) ROOF"OOC PROI'OSED~E(2) P....U-....(2)[)N' uNIT<;,ONil(1)DI~'f!l!l<NO @ @ -----------~-~-~~~~ --~·-----~ ~-~ ~-"-'"!!~~~-· El.['l ~-,- ---------~~~~· P'ROPOSED CL.£N<W111E (1) Ol)e Ut<UtOIIEO R7·,.0X EOUif'WtNT CAIIIN£1 LO(:O.f[[l ON 000" TOP ,_, @ PROJECT NO. MCUP1Q.07 ~----------~-~!~~~~ ---------~-Of_ ~-R!.!E~~ EL.£\1 •• o P110P0SED ANTEN"" """ C£Hml ~--------------------· ELEV ~ -0'" ,. '/""•, 2 clear w·re M&M TELECOM. INC ., .., ... _..,..,,,. _(.,O)oa:I.-S-">.(700)',._.'""" PDC CD~FD'"A~I"~ ~~~ I '""-WI><"·""""""' f<~ (OSS) ... _,.,. '"' (11511)0 .. -2017 REMAX BUILDING CA-SDG5664C 1:11;5 CARLSBAD IIUAAE DR CARLSBAD. CA92008 ELEVATIONS A-4 .-"'*'E~SIQNS s-.. ON ~LJ>N 00 NOT SCI.J.E C<>RRI:Cl1.¥ CMECK <0!! REOUCTIOH 00 [NLJoll<;(•fNT "'0U Of<'GONAL PW<S PAOPQS[tl <::uNIWIR£ (4] ...... """'-N<TE-s. (4) """~-""~"""{~) .. ~~ CONC£ALED BEt«<<D PR<>POSEO ~[ "" TlW<SPNW<T 5CRW'< """'-Will< 4-HIPI'ED Oi<>Of, SCREEN TO .... TCH (E) STUCCO flNOSI<. ~ Tl) .... TCH (E) ~ NORTH EAST ELEVATION STRUCll IIW. NOTE S"'UCfUito<. """-"'"' IS R[QUTR(O TO OCTER~TNE THE <EOSJillJTY M TH[ -S[D OCSION T><E ElVCf SIZE @i~~ AN0 COC..TIOH OF fH[ PAOI>I)SUl RF-FJ!1f;t<D\_Y SCRITN ORoPcs£D CliN!tl1"' (4) -..x p..,.El_ ~ (4) ~All <S SUBJECT TO COW<(:( "'"''" TM( C""'PUliON M 0* Hf.oll '-"'""S. .... 0 {2) !>ll£CT10NOL Nf!D-s Sf'WCT'-"«L•-'"'IS ~I!OfNl~~I!F~ SOUTH EAST ELEVATION SOlED< PANEL IITfH 4-MA'Etl ROOf". SJ:REEH Tl) WllO< {E) S!UeCO F"INISM, OCIOI'W<G TO ""'l1:H (E) IIOOA..C @ --------·---------~-~--~ 45~~ / -------·------~-"!:.-~i&: ~-0 ---------------~-~~-~0 PROJECT NO. MCUP10-07 /~--·-----~-~-~-~!~ -----~-""-~!!F_S~!_~_<;2~ n£V 42 6 Et.F;V-"'"-2" --~----------~-~~-~~ El£'1 o·-o· •Je" -,._,- clear wre ..,"""'"-"""'"" ·~·--·-"""" M&M TELECOM INC "'""'" """"""'""'""'" ... ., .. , 1 ... )001-'*"' ,., ('oo)•><-•.,. ~"C toQR~DRATOD,._ ~~~ I •mo-w;oo«.><>fl'100 --"·"'',.,.. m. (!51!) .. ,_,""' ""1!100)060-"'" REMAX BUILDING CA-SDG5664C 126~ CARLSa.'Ttl 1/UAGE Df;t CAFII.SaACI-CA g200e ELEVATIONS A-5 . ,- 1/ \ '---' MANUFACT\JRER MOT"""'-" P~RT f" ~MINO l(l(l(l LE)<GTH ~-{1<7 MM) "'01>< 0" (ISS M") GPS SPECIFICATION tUNlJFACTimER PO..,RWA'( PART j· POI-te->Xw<!·R LE:NGT>< ..,. """'" ·~­O£PTH r Wl(oCHT '-2 lB5 ('«/ SRAr:•t:T<J ANTENNA SPECIFICATION ;~ NON£ NQNC 4 M""UrACJIJRf)l-""DREW PART 1 V><cPI OlAMETER 20' D[PT><· •. 2" """'>(! 122' ...,ICHf 3-0 L!lS DIRECTIONAL ANTENNA SPEC. DAP HEAD UNIT SPEC. MANU<ACfi,JRE;R HlJA~ !>a!OTE R<OWJ """ p •• , , ,.,. "" ., ... LfNCrn 19' ''''""-, .. ,. DEPTH 6 2" WI(ICHT.+<.LBS c":~n;";~":'~ 'ci~------'.J H(AO UNoT ANTENNA SECTION 2 ANTENNA DETAIL PROJECT NO. MCUP10-07 DIRECTIONAL ANTENNA SECTION MANUrACT\JR(R .... , """""' Di<OENS<.;.. "'""''" OOB UNVUITID .,.,.,., ... 5<"H ' 21"0 • 25"W ~-- -1'-0" f----->" !>A (l<t ~OO(R CCW<DlJ" ~----------~ L,.t=::J':::==_]:lli=:-,. "'' "" n:coo c,_,, CABINET FRONT ELEVATION I I -; • ' ~ \e~ .:..~ ---" II CABINET SIDE ELEVATION CABINET REAR ELEVATION 5 EQUIPMENT DETAIL 3 6 clear vv"r e M&M TELECOM, INC REMAX BUILDING CA-SDG5664C 1265 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR CARLSBACI, CA onooa DETAILS A-6 • • FILE COPY ·~ ( ... f)> CITY Oc ~CARLSBAD C9·/5·j0 Planning Department www.carlsbadca.gov NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Notice is hereby given that a Minor Conditional Use Permit (MCUP) has been applied to allow the installation, operation, and maintenance of a Wireless Communication Facility (WCF) for Clearwire consisting of (6) Wimax panel antennas, (6) DAP head units, (3) directional units, and (I) equipment cabinet located behind an existing RF transparent parapet wall and a proposed radio frequency (RF) friendly screen wall enclosure designed with a 4 hipped roof and asphalt shingles to match the roof of the office (REMAX) building. The project site is located at 1265 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, California, and more particularly described as: A portion of Tract 119 within Map No. 1661 as filed March 1, 1915 in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California If you have any objections to the granting of this MCUP or wish to have an informal hearing to discuss the requested MCUP, please notify the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008, in writing within I 0 days of the date of this notice. If you have any questions, please call Shelley Glennon in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4625. CASE NO.: MCUP 10-07 CASE NAME: CA-SDG5664 REMAX Building, 1265 Carlsbad Village Drive DATE: June 15,2010 CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT ~~· --------------~~~~==~~~~~~~--------~ ~·~ 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T (760) 602-4600 F (760) 602-8559 ® Planning Department April27, 2010 M&M Telecom, Inc. Attn: Danielle Goldman PO Box 55 Poway, CA 92074 • • FILE COPY www.carlsbadca.gov SUBJECT: MCUP 10-07. CA SDGS664 REMAX BUILDING-CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) APPLICABILITY/PROCESS DETERMINATION This is to advise you that after reviewing the application for the project referenced above, the City has determined that the following environmental review process (pursuant to CEQA) will be required for the project: The project is exempt from the provisions of CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Categorical Exemption Section 15301(e) "Addition to Existing Facilities". No environmental review is required for the project. A Notice of Exemption will be filed after approval of the project with the San Diego County Clerk's Office which involves a filing fee. Please submit a check to the project planner in the amount of $50.00 made out to the San Diego County Clerk. For additional information related to this CEQA applicability/process determination, please contact the project planner, Shelley Glennon, at (760) 602-4625 or via email at shelley.glennon@carlsbadca.gov. DON NEU Planning Director DN:SG:sm c: Carlsbad Village Drive Investors, LLC, Attn: Frank Violi, 1241 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008 Chris, DeCerbo, Principal Planner David Rick, Project Engineer File Copy Data Entry ~··'----------------------------------------------------------------:· 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008·7314 T {760) 602-4600 F {760) 602-8559 ® ' • • ATTACHMENT "2" CERTIFICATION OF POSTING I certify that the "Notice of Project Application" has been posted at a conspicuous location on the site on '··3/ ~q !2010 (DATE) SIGNATURE _"f"--::.;o_s.C.,;;;-"'-::::· €>'~(::....\ _·(_:\.~...,·· .,-::1~",.-lrl-+(-'~_;_;_· _ ---~ ',J PRINT NAME Ccl \..• .. :('-V c5J 1\...Ce..t'. z. :Jv- PROJECT NUMBER: -i',\_:_\:_c(..._' . ...l\.L} .r.Y_...~.\~C,_·..::,l'-''.+1-- RETURN TO: .:.'\'-\\ 1 )f ~~ (;,1 ' NNC:N (Planner) CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 Page 4 of G Rev1scd 11/0!1 ' • , ~ ~~ • CITY OF CARLSBAD • REVIEW AND COMMENT MEMO ~ DATE: MARCH 22, 2010 REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT ON PROJECT NO{S): MCUP 10-07 REVIEW NO: 1 PROJECT TITLE: CA SDG 5664 REMAX BUILDING APPLICANT: CLEAR WIRELESS LLC PROPOSAL: INSTALLATION OF 6 PANEL ANTENNAS, 6 DAP HEAD UNITS, 1 DIRECTIONAL ANTENNA AND 1 GPS ANTENNA TO: ~ Land Development Engineering-Terie Rowley ~ Police Department-J. Sasway ~ Fire Department-James Weigand ~ Building Department-Will Foss 0 Recreation -Mark Steyaert 0 Public Works Department (Streets) -Thomas Moore 0 Water/Sewer District ~ Landscape Plancheck Consultant-PELA 0 School District 0 North County Transit District-Planning Department 0 Sempra Energy-Land Management 0 Caltrans (Send anything adjacent to 1-5) 0 Parks/Trails-Liz Ketabian *ALWAYS SEND EXHIBITS FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT Please review and submit written comments and/or conditions to the PLANNING TRACKING DESK in the Planning Department at 1635 Faraday Avenue, by APRIL 9, 2010. If you have "No Comments," please so state. If you determine that there are items that need to be submitted to deem the application "complete" for processing, please immediately contact the applicant and/or their representatives (via phone or e-mail! to let them know. Thank you coM M ENTs:_a_Z'"'-!.!:J."\'. t7~~nL!J:-1--. _'"l.A.:...:~~::::tM.a"--. -'~=----"a""~==""--'-. _..Le""'l sL:.....· ___,S''-'et_::::=..._ __ _ CJU-4 Sig&uren 1 DatJ PLANS ATIACHED Review & Comment 03/10 • • City of Carlsbad ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MEMORANDUM March 30, 2010 TO: Planning Tracking Desk FROM: Tecla Levy, Engineering SUBJECT: MCUP 10-07, CA SDG 5664 REMAX BUILDING (APN: 158-180-21); CLEAR WIRELESS, LLC The Engineering Department has completed its review of the above referenced project for application completeness and has determined that the application and plans submitted for this project are complete. Engineering staff does not have any comments to add to the project. Please add the following conditions to the approving resolution/letter: • Developer shall complete and submit to the City Engineer a Project Threat Assessment Form (PTAF) pursuant to City Engineering Standards. Concurrent with the PTAF, Developer shall also submit the appropriate Tier level Storm Water Compliance form and Tier level Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as determined by the completed PTAF all to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. • Developer shall comply with the City's Stormwater Regulations and implement best management (BMP) practices at all times. Best management practices include but not limited to pollution treatment practices or devices, general housekeeping practices, pollution prevention and educational practices, maintenance procedures, and other management practices or devices to prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants to stormwater, receiving water or stormwater conveyance system to the maximum extent practicable. If you or the applicant has any questions, please contact Tecla Levy at 760-602-2733. Attachment cc: File • CITY OF CARLSBAD • REVIEW AND COMMENT MEMO DATE: MARCH 22, 2010 REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT ON PROJECT NO(S): MCUP 10-07 REVIEW NO: 1 PROJECT TITLE: CA SDG 5664 REMAX BUILDING APPLICANT: CLEAR WIRELESS LLC PROPOSAL: INSTALLATION OF 6 PANEL ANTENNAS, 6 DAP HEAD UNITS, 1 DIRECTIONAL ANTENNA AND 1 GPS ANTENN..:.:A-'-----------1 TO: ~ land Development Engineering-Terie Rowley ~ Police Department-J. Sasway /ZI Fire Department-James Weigand /ZI Building Department-Will Foss 0 Recreation -Mark Steyaert 0 Public Works Department (Streets)-Thomas Moore 0 Water/Sewer District /ZI landscape Plancheck Consultant-PELA 0 School District 0 North County Transit District-Planning Department 0 Sempra Energy-Land Management 0 Caltrans (Send anything adjacent to 1-5) 0 Parks/Trails -liz Ketabian *ALWAYS SEND EXHIBITS FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT Please review and submit written comments and/or conditions to the PLANNING TRACKING DESK in the Planning Department at 1635 Faraday Avenue, by APRIL 9, 2010. If you have "No Comments," please so state. If you determine that there are items that need to be submitted to deem the application "complete" for processing, please immediately contact the applicant and/or their representatives (via phone or e-mail! to let them know. Thank you A ().. -r--COMMENTS:___:f-=.VU_:O(J)11~~/1'1~t:}V:.:.__· II:__ ___________ _ Cvl~llit;nature 4--i -lo -- Date PLANS A IT ACHED Review & Comment 03/10 ' ... MCUP4JNNUAL REVIEW .EET INSTRUCTIONS 1. COMPLETE PROJECT INFORMATION BELOW AND PRINT COPY. 2. DOWNLOAD (DMS) RESOLUTIONS AND REVIEW ALL CONDITIONS AND APPROVED PLANS (COORDINATE WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS). 3. REVIEW CODE COMPLAINT HISTORY (CODE ENFORCEMENT, POLICE, FIRE, ETc.). 4. CONTACT APPLICANT (OR OWNER) AND SCHEDULE AN APPOINTMENT FOR THE REVIEW. 5. COMPLETE REVIEW INFORMATION SECTION DURING REVIEW. 6. HAVE PRINCIPAL PLANNER REVIEW AND SIGN. 7. PLACE COMPLETED REVIEW SHEET IN ADMIN IN-BOX FOR PROJECT FILE (ADMIN WILL FILE). PROJECT INFORMATION CASE NAME: CA SDG5664 REMAX BUILDING CASE NUMBER(S): MCUP 10-07 APPROVING RESO NO(S). MCUP Administrative Approval letter (August 17, 2010) PLANNER COMPLETING REVIEW: Jason Goff, Associate Planner PROJECT HISTORY Does project have a code complaint history? If yes, check those that apply and explain below. 0 Code Enforcement 0 Police 0 Yes Comments (include corrective actions taken and date compliance obtained): C8J No 0 Fire Prevention Q: \.C EO\.PLANNING\.ADM IN\. TEMPLA TES\.MCU PANNUALREVIEWSHEET 02/11 ' J ,; .. ~ tfEVIEW INFORMATION • Has the permit expired? 0 Yes k3J No Permit expires: August 15, 2020 Date of review: August 6, 2012 Name: Kim Lance 0 Applicant k3J Owner k3J Other If other, state title: Assistant to Frank Violi (property owner) *CURRENT APPLICANT INFORMATION: Name: CLEARWIRE, LLC Phone: 855-342-9679 Contact name (if different): LaTanxa jones (Clearwire Representative) Address: 4400 Carillion Point Kirkland, W A 98033 *CURRENT OWNER INFORMATION: Name: Carlsbad Village Drive Investors, LLC Phone: 760-434-1400 Contact name (if different): Frank Violi Address: 1265 Carlsbad Village Drive, Suite 100, Carlsbad, CA 92008 E-mail:~" rnm _ (o ll) Does project comply with conditions of resolution(s) and approved plans? 0 Yes [8:] No If no, list below the condition(s) and/ or plan aspects the project is not in compliance with per resolution number or exhibit. Proje<::t has not xet been constructed nor has the aJ2J2licant filed for building 12ermits. I contacted Dean Siskowski (J2revious re12resentative) b:r: tele]2hone on 8/_ 6/_2012 and informed him that the MCUP would become null and void unless a building 12ermit was issued J2rior to August 17,2012 (J2er Condition No. 10 of Cit)' Planner al212roval letter dated Auggst 17, 2010 for MCUP 10-07). Dean indicated that he no longer represents Clearwire and that I needed to contact the corporate headquarters in W A. I followed up with a call to Clearwire's cor12orate headquarters in WA (425-216-7600) and left a message regarding the situation. LaTanxa I ones (855-342-9679) of Clearwire returned the call at 1:06pm (same da:r:) and informed me that this site had been terminated and that Clearwire would not be pursuing the permit or an extension. Corrective action(s) to be taken: None required. Permit will be allowed to expire. Date planner l-' follow-up review and confirmed project compliance: / \,L '\l Y1 'IJI J tW '-wJ:_ ( _; L ~~~~~~:~~~ ~oc)l:>al Planner Signature *Applicant and owner must be updated for annuB review to be complete. Q:\.C ED\.PLANNING\.AOM IN\. TEMPLATES\. MC UPANNUALREVIEWSHEET 02/11 • MCUP 8-'JNUAL REVIEW S~ET FILE COPY INSTRUCTIONS 1. COMPLETE PROJECT INFORMATION BELOW AND PRINT COPY. 2. DOWNLOAD (DMS) RESOLUTIONS AND REVIEW ALL CONDITIONS AND APPROVED PLANS (COORDINATE WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS). 3. REVIEW CODE COMPLAINT HISTORY (CODE ENFORCEMENT, POLICE, FIRE, ETc.). 4. CONTACT APPLICANT (OR OWNER) AND SCHEDULE AN APPOINTMENT FOR THE REVIEW. 5. COMPLETE REVIEW INFORMATION SECTION DURING REVIEW. 6. HAVE PRINCIPAL PLANNER REVIEW AND SIGN. 7. PLACE COMPLETED REVIEW SHEET IN ADMIN IN-BOX FOR PROJECT FILE (ADMIN WILL FILE). PROJECT INFORMATION CASE NAME: CA SDG5664 REMAX BUILDING CASE NUMBER(S): MCUP 10-07 APPROVING RESO NO(S). MCUP Administrative Approval letter (August 17, 2010) PLANNER COMPLETING REVIEW: Jason Goff, Associate Planner PROJECT HISTORY Does project have a code complaint history? If yes, check those that apply and explain below. D Code Enforcement D Police DYes Comments (include corrective actions taken and date compliance obtained): ~No D Fire Prevention Q:'\CEO'\PLANNING'\ADMIN'\ TEMPLATES'\MCUPANNUALREVIEWSHEET 02/11 . WVIEW INFORMATION • Has the permit expired? 0 Yes [8J No Permit expires: August 15, 2020 Date of review: August 10, 2011 Name: Rosella Aguilar 0 Applicant ~ Owner ~ Other If other, state title: Assistant to the broker (i.e. Frank Violi) *CURRENT APPLICANT INFORMATION: Name: CLEARWIRE LLC Phone: 619-818-6563 Contact name (if different): Dean Siskowski Address: 4400 Carillion Point Kirkland WA 98033 Mailing (if different): E-mail: dean@siskowski@claerwire.com (optional) *CURRENT OWNER INFORMATION: Name: Carlsbad Village Drive Investors, LLC Phone: 760-434-1400 Contact name (if different): Frank Violi Address: 1265 Carlsbad Village Drive, Suite 100, Carlsbad, CA 92008 Mailing (if different): E-mail: ~com.\' l) Does project comply with conditions of resolution(s) and approved plans? 0 Yes [gJ No If no, list below the condition(s) and/ or plan aspects the project is not in compliance with per resolution number or exhibit. Project has not yet been constructed. According to Dean Siskowski (Qer teleQhone conversation on 800[2011), Clear Wire has shut down all OQerations in San Diego County. Corrective action(s) to be taken: None required at this time. The develo12er has until Auggst 17, 2012 to QUll building 2ermits or the 12ermit becomes null and void 12er Condition No. 10 of Planning Director a12Qrovalletter dated Auggst 17,2010 for MCUP 10-07. Date planner com 1ted foil~;-~preview and ::fbd project compliance: t'\1... ,lO..t .,.. g IOJ?-dl( c~ Dafl,9o ~r Signa~iJ I Principal Planner Signature * pplicant and ow "nformation must be updated for annual review to be complete. Q:\CED\PLANNING\ADMIN\ TEMPLATES\MCUPANNUALREVIEWSHEET 02/11 MCU~NNUAL REVIEW slEET INSTRUCTIONS 1. COMPLETE PROJECT INFORMATION BELOW AND PRINT COPY. 2. DOWNLOAD (DMS) RESOLUTIONS AND REVIEW ALL CONDITIONS AND APPROVED PLANS (COORDINATE WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS). 3. REVIEW CODE COMPLAINT HISTORY (CODE ENFORCEMENT, POLICE, FIRE, ETC.). 4. CONTACT APPLICANT (OR OWNER) AND SCHEDULE AN APPOINTMENT FOR THE REVIEW. 5. COMPLETE REVIEW INFORMATION SECTION DURING REVIEW. 6. HAVE PRINCIPAL PLANNER REVIEW AND SIGN. 7. PLACE COMPLETED REVIEW SHEET IN ADMIN IN-BOX FOR PROJECT FILE (ADMIN WILL FILE). PROJECT INFORMATION CASE NAME: CA SDG5664 REMAX BUILDING CASE NUMBER(S): MCUP 10-07 APPROVING RESO NO(S). MCUP Administrative Approval letter (August 17, 2010) PLANNER COMPLETING REVIEW: Jason Goff, Associate Planner PROJECT HISTORY· Does project have a code complaint history? If yes, check those that apply and explain below. 0 Code Enforcement 0 Police DYes Comments (include corrective actions token and date compliance obtained): IZJ No 0 Fire Prevention Q:'.CED'\PLANNING'.ADMIN'\TEMPLATES'.MCUPANNUALREVIEWSHEET 02/11 I REVIEW INFORMATION Has the permit expired? 0 Yes ~No Permit expires: August 15, 2020 Date of review: August 10, 2011 Name: Rosella A~:uilar 0 Applicant ~ Owner ~ Other If other, state title: Assistant to the broker (i.e. Frank Violil "CURRENT APPLICANT INFORMATION: Name: CLEARvnRE,LLC Phone: 619-818-6563 Contact name (if different): Dean Siskowski Address: 4400 Carillion Point Kirkiand W A 98033 Mailing (if different): E-mail: dean@siskowski@daerwire.com (optional) "CURRENT OWNER INFORMATION: Name: Carlsbad Village Drive Investors, LLC Phone: 760-434-1400 Contact name (if different): Frank Violi Address: 1265. ' Drive. Suite 100. ,CA92008 Mailing~ E-mail: '"" ~nm Does project comply with conditions of resolution(s) and approved plans? 0 Yes rgj No If no, list below the condition(s) and/ or plan aspects the project is not in compliance with per resolution number or exhibit. Project has not :,::et been constructed. According to Dean Siskowski (12er tele12hone conversation on 8Ll0l2011), Clear Wire has shut down all o12erations in San Diego County. Corrective action(s) to be taken: None required at this time. The develo12er has until Au!llist 17, 2012 to J2Ull building 12ermits or the 12ermit becomes null and void 12er Condition No. 10 of Planning Director a12:grovalletter dated Augyst 17,2010 for MCUP 10-07. Date.~lanner comued fol~;7: review and~ project compliance: T\l .. lb. .t .... /6 7-dlf (3 De:A~ ~r Signatu~ J I I Principal Planner Signa ant and ow 1 rmation must be updated for annual review to be complete. Q:,CED,PLANNING,ADMIN,TEMPLATES,MCUPANNUALREVIEWSHEET 02/11 Shelley Glennon From: Max Perez [oakpipes7311@yahoo.coml Friday, June 25, 2010 5:29PM Sent: To: Shelley Glennon Subject: Re: Request for an informal hearing regarding MCUP 10-07 (CA-SDG5664-REMAX Building) Health and Safety Fact Sheets.mht Attachments: Hi SHelley, As we discussed I am requesting a hearing with the planning department of Carlsbad Ca to discuss the potential health risks over the project that is to possibly be approved at the REMAX building located on Carlsbad Village Dr. by Clear Wireless lie. This location is a stone's throw from my front yard and even closer to other know residences and my nabors which have been here over 30+ years. Please research the following of my findings: Internationally acknowledged experts in the field of RF/MW radiation research have shown that RF/MW transmissions of the type used in digital cellular antennas and phones can have critical effects on cell cultures, animals, and people in laboratories and have also found epidemiological evidence (studies of communities, not in the laboratory) of serious health effects at "non-thermal levels," where the intensity of the RF/MW radiation was too low to cause heating. They have found: • • • • • • • • • • Increased cell growth of brain cancer cells 15' A doubling of the rate of lymphoma in mice 161 Changes in tumor growth in rats 17' An increased number of tumors in rats'" Increased single-and double-strand breaks in DNA, our genetic material 191 2 to 4 times as many cancers in Polish soldiers exposed to RF 1101 More childhood leukemia in children exposed to RF 1111 Changes in sleep patterns and REM type sleep 1121 Headaches caused bY, RF/MW radiation exposure 1131 Neurologic changes 1 41 including: o Changes in the blood-brain-barrier 1151 o Changes in cellular morphology (including cell death) 1161 o Changes in neural electrophysiology (EEG) 1171 o Changes in neurotransmitters (which affect motivation and pain perception) 11" o Metabolic changes (of calcium ions, for instance) 1191 o Cytogenetic effects (which can affect cancer, Alzheimer's, neurodegenerative diseases) 1201 • Decreased memory, attention, and slower reaction time in school children 1211 • Retarded learning in rats indicating a deficit in spatial "working memory" 1221 • Increased blood pressure in healthy men 1231 • Damage to eye cells when combined with commonly used glaucoma medications 1241 1 • Many national and international organizations have recognized the need to define the true risk of low intensity, non-thermal RF/MW radiation exposure, calling for intensive scientific investigation to answer the open questions. These include: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • The World Health Organization, noting reports of "cancer, reduced fertility, memory loss, and adverse changes in the behavior and development of children." 1251 The U. S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 1261 The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) 1271 The Swedish Work Environmental Fund 1281 The National Cancer Institute (NCI) 1291 The European Commission (EC) 1301 New Zealand's Ministry of Health 1311 National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia 1321 Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organization-of Australia (CSIR011331 The Royal Society of Canada expert group report prepared for Health Canada 1 ' European Union's REFLEX Project (Risk Evaluation of Potential Environmental Hazards from Low Frequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure Using Sensitive in vitro Methods) 1351 The Independent Group on Electromagnetic Fields of the Swedish Radiation Protection Board (SSI) 1361 The United Kingdom's National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) 1371 The EMF-Team Finland's Helsinki Appeal 2005 1381 I look forward to our hearing over the matter and will be forwarding this information to the local media, and any and all persons that may have concern over this serious topic. Sincerely, Max Perez 1173 Oak Ave Carlsbad Ca. 92008 760-710-1056 949-648-6114 From: Shelley Glennon <Shelley.Giennon@CarlsbadCA.gov> To: "oakpipes7311@yahoo.com" <oakpipes7311@yahoo.com> Sent: Fri, June 25, 2010 5:07:51 PM Subject: Request for an informal hearing regarding MCUP 10-07 (CA-SDG5664-REMAX Building) Hello Max Perez, As previously discussed over the phone, please respond to this email with your request for an informal hearing. Thank you, ?l'; (~ "!!-( ,! ' (f ' CARLSBAD 2 Shelley E. Glennon Assistant Planner Planning Department City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 http://www.carlsbadca.gov/planning P: 760-602-4625 F: 760-602-8559 shelley.glennon@carlsbadca.gov 3 Shelley Glennon From: Sent: Subject: Attachments: Username: Saved by Windows Internet Explorer 8 Friday, June 25, 2010 5:27PM Health and Safety Fact Sheets ATI00009.css; ATT00010.bin; ATI00011.bin Health, Safety & Medicine INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND MEDICINE Position on the Health Effects from Radio Frequency/Microwave (RF/MW) Ra1 Fire Department Facilities from Base Stations for Antennas and Towers fc Conduction of Cell Phone Transmissions The International Association of Fire Fighters' position on locating C• commercial wireless infrastructure on fire department facilities, as adopl membership in August 2004 (IJ, is that the IAFF oppose the use of fire statior stations for towers and/or antennas for the conduction of cell phone transmis a study with the highest scientific merit and integrity on health effects of eJ 1 low-intensity RF/MW radiation is conducted and it is proven that such sitinr hazardous to the health of our members. Further, the IAFF is investigating funding for a U.S. and Canadian study that would c exposures from RF/MW radiation in fire houses with and without cellular ante examine the health status of the fire fighters as a function of their assignment in unexposed fire houses. Specifically, there is concern for the effects of radio frequenr on the central nervous system (CNS) and the immune system, as well as othe effects observed in preliminary studies. It is the belief of some international governments and regulatory bodies and of the wireless telecor industry that no consistent increases in health risk exist from exposure to RF/MW radiation unless It the radiation is sufficient to heat body tissue. However, it is important to note that these positions non-continuous exposures to the general public to low intensity RF/MW radiation emitted f telecommunications base stations. Furthermore, most studies that are the basis of this position an years old and generally look at the safety of the phone itself. IAFF members are concerned about living directly under these antenna base stations for a considerable stationary period of time and on , There are established biological effects from exposure to low-level RF/MW radiation. Such biologic recognized as markers of adverse health effects when they arise from exposure to toxic chemicals The IAFF"s efforts will attempt to establish whether there is a correlation between such biological health risk to fire fighters and emergency medical personnel due to the siting of cell phone antenr stations at fire stations and facilities where they work. Background Critical questions concerning the health effects and safety of RF/MW radiation remain. According allow exposure of our fire fighters and emergency medical personnel to this radiation to continue for tt years when there is ongoing controversy over many aspects of RF/MW health effects? While no c that serious health hazards occur when living cells in the body are heated, as happens with high inte exposure Uust like in a microwave oven), scientists are currently investigating the health hazards ol RF/MW exposure. Low intensity RF/MW exposure is exposure which does not raise the temperaturo cells in the body. Additionally, a National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences panel designated pow electromagnetic fields (ELF/EMF) as "possible human carcinogens." <2> In March 2002 The Association on Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization also assigned this designatior in Volume 80 of its /ARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. <3> Fixed antennas used for wireless telecommunications are referred to as cellular ba: cell stations, PCS ("Personal Communications Service") stations or telephone tr towers. These base stations consist of antennas and electronic equipment. B< antennas need to be high in the air, they are often located on towers, poles, wate rooftops. Typical heights for freestanding base station towers are 50-200 feet. Some base stations use antennas that look like poles, 10 to 15 feet in length, that ~ to as "omni-directional" antennas. These types of antennas are usually found in rur urban and suburban areas, wireless providers now more commonly use pane antennas for their base stations. These antennas consist of rectangular panels, at feet in dimension. The antennas are usually arranged in three groups of three ante One antenna in each group is used to transmit signals to wireless phones, and th• antennas in each group are used to receive signals from wireless phones. At any base station site, the amount of RF/MW radiation produced depends on the radio channels (transmitters) per antenna and the power of each transmitter. T~ channels per antenna sector are available. For a typical cell site using sector antenn 2 the three transmitting antennas could be connected to up to 21 transmitters for a transmitters. When omni-directional antennas are used, a cellular base st< theoretically use up to 96 transmitters. Base stations used for PCS communication require fewer transmitters than those used for cellular radio transmissions, since P usually have a higher density of base station antenna sites. The electromagnetic RF/MW radiation transmitted from base station antennas travel horizon in relatively narrow paths. The individual pattern for a single array of sector ; wedge-shaped, like a piece of pie. Cellular and PCS base stations in the United required to comply with limits for exposure recommended by expert organizations an by government agencies responsible for health and safety. When cellular and PC: are mounted on rooftops, RF/MW radiation levels on that roof or on others near b greater than those typically encountered on the ground. The telecommunications industry claims cellular antennas are safe because the RF/MW radiation lh too weak to cause heating, i.e., a "thermal effect." They point to "safety standards" from groups such< or ICNIRP to support their claims. But these groups have explicitly staled that their claims of "safe RF, exposure is harmless" rest on the fact that it is too weak to produce a rise in body temperature, a "th (4) There is a large body of internationally accepted scientific evidence which points to the existence o effects of RF/MW radiation. The issue at the present time is not whether such evidence exists, bL weight to give it. Internationally acknowledged experts in the field of RF/MW radiation research have shown transmissions of the type used in digital cellular antennas and phones can have critical effects on animals, and people in laboratories and have also found epidemiological evidence (studies of comm the laboratory) of serious health effects at "non-thermal levels," where the intensity of the RF/MW rad· low to cause heating. They have found: • • • • • • • • • • Increased cell growth of brain cancer cells 151 A doubling of the rate of lymphoma in mice 161 Changes in tumor growth in rats 171 An increased number of tumors in rats 181 Increased single-and double-strand breaks in DNA, our genetic material 191 2 to 4 times as many cancers in Polish soldiers exposed to RF 1101 More childhood leukemia in children exposed to RF 1111 Changes in sleep patterns and REM type sleep 1121 Headaches caused b¥, RF/MW radiation exposure 1131 Neurologic changes 1 41 including: o Changes in the blood-brain-barrier 1151 o Changes in cellular morphology (including cell death) 1161 o Changes in neural electrophysiology (EEG) 1171 o Changes in neurotransmitters (which affect motivation and pain perception) 1"1 o Metabolic changes (of calcium ions, for instance) 1191 o Cytogenetic effects (which can affect cancer, Alzheimer's, neurodegenerative disease • Decreased memory, attention, and slower reaction time in school children 1211 • Retarded learning in rats indicating a deficit in spatial "working memory" 1221 • Increased blood pressure in healthy men 1231 • Damage to eye cells when combined with commonly used glaucoma medications 1241 Many national and international organizations have recognized the need to define the true risk of low i thermal RF/MW radiation exposure, calling for intensive scientific investigation to answer the op• 3 These include: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • The World Health Organization, noting reports of "cancer, reduced fertility, memory loss, changes in the behavior and development of children." 125> The U. S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 126> The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) 127> The Swedish Work Environmental Fund 128> The National Cancer Institute (NCI) 129> The European Commission (EC) 130> New Zealand's Ministry of Health 131 > National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia 132> Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organization of Australia (CSIRO~ 133> The Royal Society of Canada expert group report prepared for Health Canada 1 > European Union's REFLEX Project (Risk Evaluation of Potential Environmental Hazan Frequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure Using Sensitive in vitro Methods) 135> The Independent Group on Electromagnetic Fields of the Swedish Radiation Protection Board The United Kingdom's National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) 137> The EMF-Team Finland's Helsinki Appeal2005 138> Non-thermal effects are recognized by experts on RF/MW radiation and health to I health hazards. Safe levels of RF/MW exposure for these low intensity, non-ther have not yet been established. The FDA has explicitly rejected claims that cellular phones are "safe." 139> The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has stated repeatedly that the current (ANSI/IEEE) F standards protect only against thermal effects. 140> Many scientists and physicians question the safety of exposure to RF/MW radiation. The CSlf example, notes that there are no clear cutoff levels at which low intensity RF/MW exposure has no e· the results of ongoing studies will take years to analyze. 141> Internationally, researchers and physicians have issued statements that biological effects from RF/MW radiation exposure are scientifically established: • • • • • • • The 1998 Vienna-EMF Resolution 142> The 2000 Salzburg Resolution on Mobile Telecommunication Base Stations 143> The 2002 Catania Resolution 144> The 2002 Freiburger Appeal 145> The 2004 Report of the European Union's REFLEX Project (Risk Evaluation of Potential E Hazards from Low Frequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure Using Sensitive in vitro Methoc The 2004 Second Annual Report from Sweden's Radiation Protection E Independent Expert Group on Electromagnetic Fields Recent Research Telephony and Health Risks 147> Mobile Phones and Health 2004: Report by the Board of NRPB (The Ul< Radiological Protection Board) 148> The county of Palm Beach, Florida, the City of Los Angeles, California, and the country of New Ze< prohibited cell phone base stations and antennas near schools due to safety concerns. The Brit Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils [BCCPAC] passed a resolution in 2003 banning cellular a schools and school grounds. This organization is comparable to the Parent Teachers Association United States. The resolution was directed to B.C. Ministry of Education, B.C. Ministry of Childre Development, B.C. School Trustees Association, and B.C. Association of Municipalities. US Government Information 4 In the United States, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has u guidelines for RF/MW radiation environmental exposure since 1985. The FCC guidelines for human exposure to RF/MW radiation are derived recommendations of two organizations, the National Council on Radiation Pro1 Measurements (NCRP) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (lEE cases, the recommendations were developed by scientific and engineering experts industry, government, and academia after extensive reviews of the scientific literatur the biological effects of RF/MW radiation. Many countries in Europe and elsewhere use exposure guidelines develop· International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). The ICI\ limits are generally similar to those of the NCRP and IEEE, with a few exceptions. F1 ICNIRP recommends different exposure levels in the lower and upper frequency ran localized exposure from certain products such as hand-held wireless telephones. C1 World Health Organization is working to provide a framework for international harm1 RF/MW radiation safety standards. In order to affirm conformity to standards regarding heating of tissue, measuremer averaged over 0.1 hours [6 minutes]. This method eliminates any spikes in th1 Computer power bars have surge protectors to prevent damage to computers. Fi and emergency medical personnel do not! The NCRP, IEEE, and ICNIRP all have identified a whole-body Specific Absorption I value of 4 watts per kilogram (4 W/kg) as a threshold level of exposure at wh biological thermal effects due to tissue heating may occur. Exposure guidelines in te strength, power density and localized SAR were then derived from this threshol addition, the NCRP, IEEE, and ICNIRP guidelines vary depending on the freque RF/MW radiation exposure. This is due to the finding that whole-body human at RF/MW radiation varies with the frequency of the RF signal. The most restricti~ whole-body exposure are in the frequency range of 30-300 MHz where the h1 absorbs RF/MW energy most efficiently. For products that only expose part of the as wireless phones, exposure limits in terms of SAR only are specified. Similarly, the exposure limits used by the FCC are expressed in terms of SAR, E magnetic field strength, and power density for transmitters operating at frequencie kHz to 100 GHz. The specific values can be found in two FCC bulletins, OET Bulle 65. OET Bulletin 56, "Questions and Answers about Biological Effects and Potential Hazards of R1 Electromagnetic Fields" was designed to provide factual information to the public by answering som commonly asked questions. II includes the latest information on FCC guidelines for human exposu radiation. Further information and a downloadable version of Bulletin 56 can be http://www. fcc.gov 1 oet/i nfo/documents/bulleti nsf# 56 OET Bulletin 65, "Evaluating Compliance With FCC Guidelines for Human E Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields" was prepared to provide assistance in 1 whether proposed or existing transmitting facilities, operations or devices comply wi human exposure to RF/MW radiation adopted by the Federal Communications C (FCC). Further information and a downloadable version of Bulletin 65 can be http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/documentslbulletins/#65 5 The FCC authorizes and licenses products, transmitters, and facilities that gener1 microwave radiation. It has jurisdiction over all transmitting services in the U.S. eJ specifically operated by the Federal Government. Under the National Environmenta of 1969 (NEPA), the FCC has certain responsibilities to consider whether its ; significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Therefore, FCC approval ar of transmitters and facilities must be evaluated for significant impact on the en Human exposure to RF radiation emitted by FCC-regulated transmitters is one factors that must be considered in such environmental evaluations. In 1996, the FCC guidelines for RFIMW radiation exposure as a result of a multi-year proceeding and by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. For further information and answers to questions about the safety of RFIMW rae transmitters and facilities regulated by the FCC go to http:l/www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/rf- Canadian Government Information Industry Canada is the organization that sets regulatory requirements for elect spectrum management and radio equipment in Canada. Industry Canada establishe: for equipment certification and, as part of these standards, developed RSS-102, whi< permissible radiofrequency RFIMW radiation levels. For this purpose, Industry Cana the limits outlined in Health Canada's Safety-Code 6, which is a guideline document RF exposure. A downloadable version of "RSS-102 -Evaluation Procedure for Portable Radio Transmitters with respect to Health Canada's Safety Code 6 for E Humans to Radio Frequency Fields", as well as additional information can be http:/ /strategis. ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/insmt-gst.nsf/vwapj/rss I 02. pdf/$FILE/rss I 02 .pdC Safety Code 6 specifies the requirements for the use of radiation emitting devices. replaces the previous Safety Code 6 -EHD-TR-160. A downloadable version o Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields in the Frequency Ra1 kHz TO 300 GHz -Safety Code 6", as well as further detailed information can t http :I lwww. hc-sc. gc.calhecs-sesc/ ccrpb/publication/99ehd23 7 /toc.htm. US and Canadian Legal Issues Although some local and state governments have enacted rules and regulations at exposure to RFIMW radiation in the past, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 r• United States Federal Government to control human exposure to RFIMW ra particular, Section 704 of the Act states that, "No State or local government or ins1 thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wirel facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to that such facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such Further information on federal authority and FCC policy is available in a fact she· FCC's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau at www.fcc.gov/wtb. In a recent opinion filed by Senior Circuit Judge Stephen F. Williams, No. 03-1336 EMR Netwo Communications Commission and United States of America, the Court upheld the FCC's decision no inquiry on the need to revise its regulations to address non-thermal effects of radiofrequency (RF) 1 the facilities and products subject to FCC regulation as EMR Network had requested in its September for Inquiry. At the request of the EMR Network, the EMR Policy Institute provided legal and research support fo On January 13, 2005, a Petition for Rehearing en bane by the full panel of judges at the DC Ci 6 Appeals was filed. Briefs, background documents and the DC Circuit decision are http: I /www .emrpol icy. org/1 itigation/ case_law/i ndex. htm. The Toronto Medical Officer of Health for the Toronto Board of Health recommende Canada that public exposure limits for RF/MW radiation be made 100 times stricte the recommendation was not allowed, since, as in the US, only the Canad government can regulate RF/MW radiation exposure level. World Health Organization Efforts In 1996, the World Health Organization (WHO) established the International EMF review the scientific literature and work towards resolution of health concerns over RF/MW technology. WHO maintains a Web site that provides addition informat project and about RF/MW biological effects and research. For further inform< http://www. who.int/peh-emf/en/. Conclusion For decades, the International Association of Fire Fighters has been directly involved in protecting a the health and safety of our membership. However, we simply don't know at this time what the p< consequences of long-term-exposure to low-intensity RF/MW radiation of the type used by the eel stations and antennas will be. No one knows--the data just aren't there. The chairman of the Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection ICNIRP), one of the leading international organi: formulated the current RF/MW radiation exposure guidelines, has stated that the guidelines consideration regarding prudent avoidance" for health effects for which evidence is less than conclusil Again, fire department facilities, where fire fighters and emergency response personnel live and wo1 proper place for a technology which could endanger their health and safety The only reasonable and responsible course is to conduct a study of the highest scientific merit and ir RF/MW radiation health effects to our membership and, in the interim, oppose the use of fire stal stations for towers and/or antennas for the conduction of cell phone transmissions until it is proven th< are not hazardous to the health of our members. Footnotes [back] 1. Revised and Amended IAFF Resolution No. 15; August 2004 Study of Firefighters Exposed to Radio Frequency (RF) Radiation from Cell Tov WHEREAS, fire stations across the United States and Canada are being sought companies as base stations for the antennas and towers for the conduction of transmissions; and WHEREAS, many firefighters who are living with cell towers on or adjacent to their 1 paying a substantial price in terms of physical and mental health. As first resp< protectors of the general public, it is crucial that firefighters are functioning at optim and physical capacity at all times; and 7 WHEREAS, the brain is the first organ to be affected by RF radiation and symptoms a multitude of neurological conditions including migraine headaches, extren disorientation, slowed reaction time, vertigo, vital memory loss and attention deficit threatening emergencies; and WHEREAS, most of the firefighters who are experiencing symptoms can attribute t the first week(s) these towers/antennas were activated; and WHEREAS, RF radiation is emitted by these cellular antennas and RF radiation ca every living cell, including plants, animals and humans; and WHEREAS, both the U. S. and Canadian governments established regulatory lir radiation based on thermal (heat) measurements with no regard for the adverse he from non-thermal radiation which is proven to harm the human brain and immune sys WHEREAS, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency stated in a July 16, 2 "Federal health and safety agencies have not yet developed policies concerning p from long-term, non-thermal exposures. The FCC's exposure guideline is considere( of effects arising from a thermal mechanism (RF radiation from cell towers is non-tl not from all possible mechanisms. Therefore, the generalization by many that the protecting human beings from harm by any or all mechanisms is not justified"; and WHEREAS, an Expert Panel Report requested by the Royal Society of Canada p Health Canada (1999) stated that, "Exposure to RF fields at intensities far less required to produce measurable heating can cause effects in cells and tissu biological effects include alterations in the activity of the enzyme ornithine decart calcium regulation, and in the permeability of the blood-brain barrier. Some of thes effects brought about by non-thermal exposure levels of RF could potentially be assc adverse health effects"; and WHEREAS, based on concerns over growing scientific evidence of dangers from R an international conference was convened in Salzburg, Austria, in the summer of ~ renowned scientists declared the upper-most RF radiation exposure limit from a should be 1110th of 1 microwatt (Note that 1110th of 1 microwatt is 10,000 times lolA uppermost limit allowed by the U. S. or Canada.); and it should be noted this lir because of study results showing brain wave changes at 1/1 Oth of 1 microwatt; and WHEREAS, in a recently cleared paper by Dr. Richard A. Albanese of the U. S. I highly recognized physician in the area of the impact of radiation on the humar Albanese states, "I would ask a good faith effort in achieving as low exposure n possible within reasonable financial constraints. Also I would fund targeted studies u subjects and human groups living or working in high radiation settings or heavy eel users, emphasizing disease causations. I urge acceptance of the ideal that there st unmonitored occupational or environmental exposures whose associated diseasE unknown." (The opinions expressed herein are those of Dr. Albanese, and do no1 policies of the United States Air Force.); and WHEREAS, recently a study, not affiliated with the wireless industry, was co firefighters exposed to RF radiation from cell towers/antennas affixed to their stat study revealed brain damage that can be differentiated from chemical causatio1 8 inhalation of toxic smoke) suggesting RF radiation as the cause of the brain dama~ SPECT scans; and WHEREAS, firefighters are the protectors of people and property and should bE under the Precautionary Principle of Science and therefore, unless radiation is prove harmless, cellular antennas should not be placed on or near fire stations; therefore bE RESOLVED, That the IAFF shall seek funding for an initial U. S. and Canadian stu highest scientific merit and integrity, contrasting firefighters with residence in st towers to firefighters without similar exposure; and be it further RESOLVED, That in accordance with the results of the study, the IAFF will establisl policy measures with the health and safety of all firefighters as the paramount objec1 it further RESOLVED, That the IAFF oppose the use of fire stations as base stations for an towers for the conduction of cell phone transmissions until such installations are pr· be hazardous to the health of our members. ••Note: A pilot study was conducted in 2004 of six California fire fighters working and sleeping in towers. The study. conducted by Gunnar Heuser, M.D., PhD. of Agoura Hills, CA, focused on symptoms of six fire fighters who had been working for up to five years in stations with cell tc symptoms included slowed reaction time, lack of focus, lack of impulse control, severe headaches, a sleep, sleep deprivation, depression, and tremors. Dr. Heuser used functional brain scans -SPEC assess any changes in the brains of the six fire fighters as compared to healthy brains of men of tl Computerized psychological testing known as TOVA was used to study reaction time, impulse attention span. The SPECT scans revealed a pattern of abnormal change which was concentrated area than would normally be seen in brains of individuals exposed to toxic inhalation, as might be E fighting fires. Dr. Heuser concluded the only plausible explanation at this time would be RF radial Additionally, the TOVA testing revealed among the six fire fighters delayed reaction time, lack of im and difficulty in maintaining mental focus. [back] 2. An international blue ribbon panel assembled by the National Institute of Environmental He (NIEHS) designated power frequency electromagnetic fields (EMF) as "possible human carcinogens 1998. The panel's decision was based largely on the results of epidemiological studies of children exp and workers exposed on the job. The evaluation of the EMF literature followed procedures deve International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), based in Lyon, France. The working group's ref: basis for the NIEHS report to Congress on the EMF Research and Public Information Dissemination ~ RAPID). The National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) of the United Kingdom noted that th• Advisory Group on Non-Ionizing Radiation are "consistent with those of the NIEHS expert panel." June 26, 1998 statement of the National Radiological Protection Board, sited 1n Microwave News, July. [back] 3. World Health Organization; International Agency for Research on Cancer; /ARC Mono~ Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans; Volume 80 Non-Ionizing Radiation, Part 1: Static and E; Frequency (ELF) Electric and Magnetic Fields; 2002; 429 pages; ISBN 92 832 1280 0; Se• cie.iarc.frlhtdocs/monographs/vol80180. This IARC Monograph provides the rationale for its d ELF/EMF as a possible human carcinogen. It states that: A few studies on genetic effects have examined chromosomal aberrations and micronuclei in lym~ workers exposed to ELF electric and magnetic fields. In these studies, confounding by genotoxic agE solvents) and comparability between the exposed and control groups are of concern. Thus, the studie increased frequency of chromosomal aberrations and micronuclei are difficult to interpret. Many studies have been conducted to investigate the effects of ELF magnetic fields on various genei Although increased DNA strand breaks have been reported in brain cells of exposed rodents, tt, 9 inconclusive; most of the studies show no effects in mammalian cells exposed to magnetic fields a below 50 pT. However, extremely strong ELF magnetic fields have caused adverse genetic effects in, In addition, several groups have reported that ELF magnetic fields enhance the effects of knov chromosome-damaging agents such as ionizing radiation. The few animal studies on cancer-related non-genetic effects are inconclusive. Results on the effe• cell proliferation and malignant transformation are inconsistent, but some studies suggest that ELF " affect cell proliferation and modify cellular responses to other factors such as melatonin. An increasE following exposure of various cell lines to ELF electric and magnetic fields has been reported in sE with different exposure conditions. Numerous studies have investigated effects of ELF magnetic fief end-points associated with signal transduction, but the results are not consistent. [back] 4. The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) statement" Related to the Use of Hand-Held Radiotelephones and Base Transmitters" of 1996 reads: "Thermally mediated effects of RF fields have been studied in animals, including primates. These effects that will probably occur in humans subjected to whole body or localized heating sufficient to in temperatures by greater than 1 C. They include the induction of opacities of the lens of the eye, possi development and male fertility, various physiological and thermoregulatory responses to heat, and ability to perform mental tasks as body temperature increases. Similar effects have been reported in ~ to heat stress, for example while working in hot environments or by fever. The various effects are W€ and form the biological basis for restricting occupational and public exposure to radiofrequency field' non-thermal effects are not well established and currently do not form a scientifically acceptable basis human exposure for frequencies used by hand-held radiotelephones and base stations." International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, "Health Issues Related to the Use Radiotelephones and Base Transmitters," Health Physics 70:587-593, 1996 The ANS!fiEEE Standard for Safety Levels of 1992 similarly states: "An extensive review of the literature revealed once again that the most sensitive measurements harmful biological effects were based on the disruption of ongoing behavior associated with an incr temperature in the presence of electromagnetic fields. Because of the paucity of reliable dat exposures, IEEE Subcommittee IV focused on evidence of behavioral disruption under acute ex~ disruption of a transient and fully reversible nature." IEEE Standards Coordinating committee 28 on Non-Ionizing Radiation Hazards: Standard for SafE Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 KHz to 300 GHz (ANSo 1991), The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, New York, 1992. [back] 5. Drs. Czerska, Casamento, Ning, and Davis (working for the Food and Drug Administr< using "a waveform identical to that used in digital cellular phones" at a power level within our curn (SAR of 1.6 WIKg, the maximum spatial peak exposure level recommended for the general populatio C95.1-1991 standard) found increases in cellular proliferation in human glioblastoma cells. Thi' "acceptable" levels of radiation can cause human cancer cells to multiply faster. The authors note th< reported associations between cellular phone exposure and the occurrence of a brain tumor, gli human glioblastoma cell line was used" in their research. E. M. Czerska, J. Casamento, J. T. Ning, and C. Davis, "Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Cell Proliferation," [Abstract presented on February 7, 1997 at the workshop 'Physical Characteristics Biological Effects of Microwaves Applied in Wireless Communication, Rockville, MD] E. M. Czerska, • Centers for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, Maryland 20 T. Ning, Indian Health Service, Rockville, Maryland 20857, USA; C. Davis, Electrical Engineering f. Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, USA [back] 6. Dr. Michael Repacholi (in 1997, currently the director of the International Electromagnetic at the World Health Organization) took one hundred transgenic mice and exposed some to radiati• minute periods a day for up to 18 months. He found that the exposed mice developed lymphom cancer) at twice the rate of the unexposed mice. While telecommunications industry spokespersons 10 experiment for using mice with a mutation which predisposed them to cancer (transgenic) the resear out that "some individuals inherit mutations in other genes ... that predispose them to develop cane· individuals may comprise a subpopulation at special risk from agents that would pose an otherwise im of cancer." Dr. Repacholi stated "I believe this is the first animal study showing a true non-thermal effect." He experiment in 1998 using 50 Hz fields instead of the 900 MHz pulsed radiation (the type used by ce used in the original experiment and found no cancer risk. He stated that this new data had implic original cellular phone study: "the control groups for both our RF and 50 Hz field studies showed differences. which lessens the possibility that the RF/MW radiation study result was a chance event or in methodology." It is extremely important to note that Dr. Michael Repacholi was Chairman of the ICNIRP at the time on Health Issues Related to the Use of Hand-Held Radiotelephones and Base Transmitters was 1996. M Repacholi et a/., "Lymphomas in E1J-Pim1 Transgenic Mice Exposed to Pulsed 900 MHz EIE Fields," Radiation Research, 147, pp.631-640, May 1997 [back] 7. Dr. Ross Adey (Veterans Administration Hospital at Loma Linda University in 1996 appeared to be a protective effect in rats exposed to the type of radiation used in digital cellular pho were exposed to an SAR of 0.58-0.75 W/Kg 836 MHz pulsed radiation of the TDMA type two hoUI days a week for 23 months, with the signals turned on and off every 7. 5 minutes, so total exposure ~ week. Interestingly this effect was not present when a non-digital, analog signal was used. F developed cancer less often. This study shows that low power fields of the digital cellular frequency cancer development. Whether they would protect or promote in our children is a question for furthers Ross Adey of the Veterans Administration Hospital at Lorna Linda University, CA presented the res (digital cellular) radiation on June 13, 1996 at the 1ff" Annual Meeting of the Bioelectromagneti Victoria, Canada. He presented the findings of the analog cellular phone radiation effect at the J World Congress for Electricity and Magnetism in Biology and Medicine in Bologna, Italy Reviews cs Microwave News issues July/August. 1996 and March!Apri/1997. In recognition of his more than three decades of "fundamental contributions to the emerging s• biological effects of electromagnetic fields," the authors of the November 2004 Report of the Euro REFLEX Project (Risk Evaluation of Potential Environmental Hazards From Low Frequency Electron Exposure Using Sensitive in vitro Methods) chose to include Dr. Adey's personal views on Electron Exposure research as the Foreword to that report. To view the entire r• http://www .itis.ethz.ch/downloads/REFLEX_Finai%20Report_1711 04. pdf The following is taken from Dr. Adey's Foreword found on pages 1-3 of the REFLEX Report: The Future of Fundamental Research in a Society Seeking Categoric Answers to Health Fi Technologies In summary, we have become superstitious users of an ever-growing range of technologies, but we ar to escape the web that they have woven around us. Media reporters in general are no better informed. Lacking either responsibility or accountability, they feeding frenzies from the tiniest snippets of information gleaned from scientific meetings or fn inaccurate interpretation of published research. In consequence, the public has turned with pleac government legislatures and bureaucracies for guidance ... We face the problem brought on by the blind leading the blind. Because of public pressure for rap very complex biological and physical issues, short-term research programs have been funded to ar questions about certain health risks. In many countries, and particularly in the USA, the effects of such harassing and troubleson 11 independent, careful fundamental research have been near tragic. Beguiled by health hazard resean source of funding, accomplished basic scientists have diverted from a completely new frontier in phys, of biological mechanisms at the atomic level. Not only have governments permitted corporate in communications industry to fund this research, they have even permitted them to determine the resea to be addressed and to select the institutions performing the research. [back] 8. Dr. A. W Guy reported an extensive investigation on rats chronically exposed from 2 up to age to low-level pulsed microwaves at SARs up to 0.4 W/Kg. The exposed group was found to have higher incidence of primary cancers. A W Guy, C. K. Chou, L Kunz, L, Crowley, and J. Krupp, "Effects of Long-Term Low-Level R< Radiation Exposure on Rats." Volume 9. Summary. Brooks Air Force Base, Texas, USAF School Medicine, USF-SAM-TR-85-11; 1985 [back] 9. Drs. Henry Lai and N. P. Singh of the University of Washington in Seattle have reported bo double-strand DNA breaks in the brains of rats exposed to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation 1.2 W/Kg. DNA is the carrier of the genetic information in all living cells. Cumulated DNA strand br cells can lead to cancer or neurodegenerative diseases. H. Lai and N. P. Singh, "Single-and Double-Strand DNA Breaks in Rat Brain Cells After Acute Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation," International Journal of Radiation Biology, Vol 69, No 1996 [back] 10. Dr. Stanislaw Szmigielski has studied many thousands of Polish soldiers. He has lou exposed to radiofrequency and microwave radiation in the workplace had more than double the cane unexposed servicemen analyzing data from 1971-1985. He has presented further data sugge! response relationship with soldiers exposed to 100-200 W/cm2 suffering 1.69 times as many ca unexposed, and those exposed to 600-1000 W/cm2 suffering 4.63 times as many cancers. The lev safe for the public according to FCC regulations is 1000 W/cm2. Occupational exposure up to 51 allowed. S. Szmigielski, "Cancer Morbidity in Subjects Occupationally Exposed to High Frequency (Radiof1 Microwave) Electromagnetic Radiation," The Science of the Total Environment 180:9-17, 1996 [back] 11. Dr. Bruce Hocking found an association between increased childhood leukemia incidence in the proximity of television towers. The power density ranged from 0.2-8.0 W/cm2 nearer and 0.02' from the towers. B. Hocking, I. R. Gordon, H. L Grain, and G. E Hatfield, "Cancer Incidence and Mortality and Pr Towers," Medical Journal of Australia 165: 601-605; 1996 [back] 12. Drs. Mann and Roschke investigated the influence of pulsed high-frequency RF/MW radii mobile radio telephones on sleep in healthy humans. They found a hypnotic effect with shortening c latency and a REM (Rapid Eye Movement) suppressive effect with reduction of duration and percer sleep. "REM sleep plays a special physiological role for information processing in the brain, especial consolidation of new experiences. Thus the effects observed possibly could be associated with memory and learning functions'' K. Mann and J. ROschke, "Effects of Pulsed High-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields on Ht Neuropsychobiology 33:41-47, 1996 [back] 13. Dr. Allen Frey has been researching RF/MW radiation for over 3 decades. Here is the paper concerning headaches and cellular phone radiation. "There have been numerous rece headaches occurring in association with the use of hand-held cellular telephones. Are these reporte real? Are they due to emissions from telephones? There is reason to believe that the answer is questions. There are several lines of evidence to support this conclusion. First, headaches as a co exposure to low intensity microwaves were reported in the literature 30 years ago. These were obser. course of microwave hearing research before there were cellular telephones. Second, the blood 12 appears to be involved in headaches, and low intensity microwave energy exposure affects the barr dopamine-opiate systems of the brain appear to be involved in headaches, and low intensity eiE energy exposure affects those systems. In all three lines of research, the microwave ener> approximately the same--in frequencies, modulations, and incide.nt energies-as those emitted by cellular telephones, Could the current reports of headaches be the canary in the coal mine, warning significant effects?" A H. Frey, "Headaches from Cellular Telephones: Are they Real and What Are the Implications?" t Health Perspectives Volume 106, Number 3, pp. 101-103, March 1998 [back] 14. Henry Lai's review of the literature concerning neurological effects of RF/MW radiation: indicate that RF/MW radiation of relatively low intensity can affect the nervous system. Changes i barrier, morphology, electrophysiology, neurotransmitter functions, cellular metabolism, and calciu genetic effects have been reported in the brain of animals after exposure to RF. These change! functional changes in the nervous system. Behavioral changes in animals after exposure to Rl reported. Even a temporary change in neural functions after RF/MW radiation exposure could lead consequences. For example, a transient loss of memory function or concentration could result in an < a person is driving. Loss of short term working memory has indeed been observed in rats after acut< RF/MW radiation. Research has also shown that the effects of RF/MW radiation on the nervous system can cumulate exposure. The important question is, after repeated exposure, will the nervous system adapt to thE and when will homeostasis break down? Related to this is that various lines of evidence suggest that the central nervous system to RF/MW radiation could be a stress response. Stress effects are v cumulate over time and involve first adaptation and then an eventual break down of homeostatic procE H. Lai, "Neurological Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation Relating to Wireless Cc Technology," Paper presentation at the IBC-UK Conference: "Mobile Phones-Is There a Health Risk 16-17, 1997, Brussels, Belgium [back] 15. Blood-Brain-Barrier: The blood-brain-barrier (BBB) is primarily a continuous layer of c• blood vessels of the brain. It is critical for regulation of the brain's activity. Lai notes that "Even though indicate that changes in the BBB occurs only after exposure to RF/MW radiation of high intensities v. increase in tissue temperature, several studies have reported increases in permeability after exposl radiation of relatively low intensities ... Pulsed RF seems to be more potent than continuous wave RF/MW is the type used in digital cellular systems. Effects on the BBB were rfoted at the 0.2 Wlc even at SAR of 0.016-5 Wlkg. These effects could lead to local changes in brain function. H. Lai, Ibid [back] 16. Cellular Morphology: RFIMW radiation induced morphological changes of the central ne cells and tissues have been shown to occur under relatively high intensity or prolonged exposure t radiation. However, there are several studies which show that repeated exposure at relatively low pov caused morphological changes in the central nervous system. Again here pulsed (as in digital phone radiation produced more pronounced effects. Certain drugs given to nonhuman primates sensiti; instance allowing eye damage to occur at very low power intensities. Dr Lai notes "Changes in especially cell death, could have an important implication on health. Injury-induced cell proliferat1 hypothesized as a cause of cancer." Some of these experiments were in the range of SAR 0.53 Wlk~ Wlkg. H. Lai, Ibid [back] 17. Neural Electrophysiology: Changes in neuronal electrophysiology, evoked potentials, a1 been reported. Some effects were observed at low intensities and after repeated exposure, suggesti1 effect. Energy density levels were as low as 50 Wlcm2. 13 H. Lai, Ibid [back]18. Neurotransmitters: Neurotransmitters are molecules which transmit information from one another. Early studies have reported changes in various neurotransmitters (catecholamines, so acetylcholine) in the brain of animals only after exposure to high intensities of RF/MW radiation. Howe more recent studies that show changes in neurotransmitter functions after exposure to low inte radiation. For example, effects were seen at 50 pW/cm2 in one experiment. U.S. and Canadian RFI safety policies allow exposures of 1000 pWicm2 at that frequency. RFIMW radiation activates endogenous opioids in the brain. Endogenous opioids are neurotrar morphine-like properties and are involved in many important physiological and behavioral functions, perception and motivation. The response to RFIMW radiation depends on the area of the brain studied and on the duration Exposure to RF/MW radiation has been shown to affect the behavioral actions of benzodiazepin• drugs such as Valium). H. Lai, Ibid [back] 19. Metabolic Changes in Neural Tissue: Several studies investigated the effects of RFI exposure on energy metabolism in the rat brain. Surprisingly, changes were reported after exposur low intensity RF/MW radiation for a short duration of time (minutes). The effects depended on the !1 modulation characteristics of the RFIMW radiation and did not seem to be related to temperature cl tissue. Calcium ions play important roles in the functions of the nervous system, such as the release of neu, and the actions of some neurotransmitter receptors. Thus changes in calcium ion concentration alterations in neural functions. This is an area of considerable controversy because some research• reported no significant effects of RF/MW radiation exposure on calcium efflux. However, when P< were observed, they occurred after exposure to RF/MW radiation of relatively low intensities and we on the modulation and intensity of the RFIMW radiation studied (window effects). Some studies had as 0.05-0.005 W/Kg. H. Lai, Ibid [back] 20. Cytogenetic effects have been reported in various types of cells after exposure to RFI~ Recently, several studies have reported cytogenetic changes in brain cells by RF/MW radiation , and could have important implication for the health effects of RF/MW radiation . Genetic damage to glial c• in carcinogenesis. However, since neurons do not undergo mitosis, a more likely consequence of neL damage is changes in functions and cell death, which could either lead to or accelerate the de neurodegenerative diseases. Power densities of 1 mWicm2 were employed, a level considered safe by the FCC. RFIMW radiation -induced increases in single and double strand DNA breaks in rats can be blocked t rats with melatonin or the spin-trap compound N-t-butyl--phenylnitrone. Since both compounds ar radical scavengers, these data suggest that free radicals may play a role in the genetic effect of RF. I are involved in the RF-induced DNA strand breaks in brain cells, results from this study could have implication on the health effects of RF exposure. Involvement of free radicals in human diseases, SL and atherosclerosis, has been suggested. Free radicals also play an important role in the aging proce been ascribed to be a consequence of accumulated oxidative damage to body tissues, and involvo radicals in neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheime~s. Huntington, and Parkinson, ha suggested. One can also speculate that some individuals may be more susceptible to the effec radiation exposure. H. Lai, Ibid [back] 21. Dr. A. A. Kolodynski and V. V. Kolodynska of the Institute of Biology, Latvian Academy presented the results of experiments on school children living in the area of the Skrunda Radio Loca· Latvia. Motor function, memory, and attention significantly differed between the exposed and centro 14 children living in front of the station had less developed memory and attention and their reaction time 1 A. A. Ko/odynski, V. V. Ko/odynska, "Motor and Psychological Functions of School Children Living 1 the Skrunda Radio Location Station in Latvia," The Science of the Total Environment 180:87-93, 1996 [back] 22. Dr. H. Lai and colleagues in 1993 exposed rats to 45 minutes of pulsed high frequ radiation at low intensity and found that the rats showed retarded learning, indicating a deficit in sp memory" function. H Lai, A. Horita, and A. W. Guy, "Microwave Irradiation Affects Radial-Arm Maze Performance Bioe/ectromagnetics 15:95-104, 1994 NOTE: Dr. Lai's January 2005 compilation of published RFIMW radiation studies demonstrating bio. of exposure to low-intensity RFIMW radiation is included as a Reference section at the end of this rep• [back] 23. Dr. Stefan Braune reported a 5-10 mm Hg resting blood pressure rise during exposu radiation of the sort used by cellular phones in Europe. The Lancet, the British medical journal wh• appeared, stated that "Such an increase could have adverse effects on people with high blood pressu S. Braune, "Resting Blood Pressure Increase During Exposure to a Radio-Frequency Electromagnel Lancet 351, pp. 1,857-1,858, 1998 [back] 24. Dr. Kues and colleagues (of Johns Hopkins University and the Food and Drug Adminis that placing timolol and pilocarpine into the eyes of monkeys and then exposing them to low power c RF/MW radiation caused a significant reduction in the power-density threshold for causing damag covering the eye and the iris. In fact the power was reduced by a factor of 10, so that it entered the safe" level of the FCC, 1 mW/cm2! Timolol and pilocarpine are commonly used by people suffering fr< This is a very important study, as it points to the fact that laboratory experiments under "ideal" conditi• what one finds in real life. The "safe" level of RF/MW radiation exposure for healthy people is like different than for those of us who suffer from illness, take medications, or are perhaps simply younger those in the experiments. H. A. Kues, J. C. Monahan, S. A. D'Anna, D. S. McLeod, G. A. Lutty, and S. Koslov, "Increased Se1 Non-Human Primate Eye to Microwave Radiation Following Ophthalmic Drug Pretreatment," Bioele• 13:379-393, 1992 [back] 25. The World Health Organization states that "concerns have been raised about the sal• mobile telephones, electric power lines and police speed-control 'radar guns.' Scientific reports ha that exposure to electromagnetic fields emitted from these devices could have adverse health eft• cancer, reduced fertility, memory loss, and adverse changes in the behaviour and development Therefore, "In May 1996, in response to growing public health concerns in many Member States health effects from exposure to an ever-increasing number and diversity of EMF sources, the Organization launched an international project to assess health and environmental effects of expos• and magnetic fields, which became known as the International EMF Project. The International EMF P for five years." "A number of studies at [frequencies above about 1 MHz] suggest that exposure to weak to cause heating may have adverse health consequences, including cancer and memory loss. h encouraging coordinated research into these open questions is one of the major objectives of the EMF Project." World Health Organization Fact Sheet N181, "Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health, The Inter Project," reviewed May 1998 and World Health Organization Fact Sheet N182, "Electromagnetic Fie/ Health, Physical Properties and Effects on Biological Systems," reviewed May 1998, [back] 26. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration in a January 14, 1998 letter to the House Teleco1 Subcommittee stated it "believes additional research in the area of RF is needed." In 1997 the FDA e: following priorities: • Chronic (lifetime) animal exposures should be given the highest priority. 15 • Chronic animal exposures should be performed both with and without the application of cher agents to investigate tumor promotion in addition to tumorigenesis. • Identification of potential risks should include end points other than brain cancer (e.g. ocular radiation exposure). • Replication of prior studies demonstrating positive biological effects work is needed. A care of the Chou and Guy study (Bioelectromagnetics, 13, pp.469-496, 1992) which suggests exposure of rats to microwaves is associated with an increase in tumors, would contribute a the risk identification process for wireless communication products. • Genetic toxicology studies should focus on single cell gel studies of DNA strand breakage anc of micronuclei. • Epidemiology studies focused on approaches optimized for hazard identification are warrante< Food and Drug Administration Recommendations quoted in Microwave News, I 1997 [back] 27. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is planning a multi-country dollar study of cancer among users of wireless phones, beginning 1998. Microwave News, Janu 1998 [back] 28. The Swedish Work Environmental Fund initiated a new epidemiological study on c radiation and brain tumors in 1997. Microwave News, November/December, 1997 [back] 29. The National Cancer Institute announced plans for a 5 year study of brain tumors and RF, in 1993. Microwave News, January/February, 1993 [back] 30. The European Commission (EC) Expert Group on health effects of wireless phones calle research program with a $20 million budget, reported 1997. Microwave News, January/February, 19! [back] 31. A report commissioned by New Zealand's Ministry of Health stated that "It is impen scientific issues be clarified as soon as possible, as there is much at stake." It called for more researc the potential health effects of RF radiation. Microwave News, November/December, 1996 [back] 32. The National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia announced its sponsorsh< $3.5 million project on potential health effects of mobile phone technology in 1996. Micrc November/December, 1996 [back] 33. The Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) of Australia 1995 that the safety of cellular telephones cannot be resolved "in the near future." Dr. Stan Barne researcher of CSIRO, states that "My goal is to establish a national committee to approach thi: coordinating relevant and focused research." He estimated a budget of $3 million over a 3 year pe1 necessary. Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organization, "Status of Research on Biological Effects Electromagnetic Radiation: Telecommunications Frequencies," a report prepared by Dr. Stan Same Microwave News, September/October, 1995 [back] 34. In Canada, Expert Panels are formed in response to requests from governmen organizations for guidance on public policy issues where specialized knowledge is required. The Ro Canada (RSC) is the only national academic organization, encompassing all fields of study in the : and humanities that provides, through its Committee on Expert Panels, a service to Canadians Expert Panels that produce publicly disseminated, arms-length, third party reviews. The most recent report addressing RF/MW radiation examines new data on dosimetry and exposure assessment, ther biological effects such as enzyme induction, and toxicological effects, including genotoxicity, carcinc testicular and reproductive outcomes. Epidemiological studies of mobile phone users and occupatio1 populations are examined, along with human and animal studies of neurological and behavioural effe authoritative reviews completed within the last two years have supported the need for further researcl possible associations between RF fields and adverse health outcomes that have appeared in some 16 http://www .rsc.ca/index. php?lang_id = l&page_id = 120. Recent Advances in Research on Radiofrequency Fields and Health: 2001-2003; A F The Royal Society of Canada, Report on the Potential Health Risks of Radiofrequenc from Wireless Telecommunication Devices, 1999 [back] 35. The European Union effort to address this issue is in the study Risk E1 Potential Environmental Hazards from Low Energy Electromagnetic Field Expo Sensitive in vitro Methods (REFLEX). Exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) ir health is a controversial topic throughout the industrial world. So far epidemiological studies have generated conflicting data and thus uncertainty regarding possible adv effects. This situation has triggered controversies in communities especially in Eun high density of population and industry and the omnipresence of EMF in infrastrL consumer products. These controversies are affecting the siting of facilities, lead in relocate, schools to close or power lines to be re-siled, all at great expense. ThE Union believes that causality between EMF exposure and disease can never be r• proven without knowledge and understanding of the basic mechanisms possibly t1 EMF. To search for those basic mechanisms powerful technologies developed ir and molecular biology were to be employed in the REFLEX project to investigate t sub-cellular responses of living cells exposed to EMF in vitro. The REFLEX data have made a substantial addition to the data base relating to ge1 phenotypic effects of both ELF-EMF and RF-EMF on in vitro cellular systems. Wh neither precludes nor confirms a health risk due to EMF exposure nor was the proje• for this purpose, the value lies in providing new data that will enable mechanis~ effects to be studied more effectively than in the past. Furthermore, the REFLEX d new information that will be used for risk evaluation by WHO, IARC and ICNIRP. information on REFLEX see: http:/ /europa.eu.int/comm/research/t life/ka4/ka4 _electromagnetic_en. htm I [back] 36. The Swedish Radiation Protections Institute (SSI) endeavors to ensure beings and the environment are protected from the harmful effects of radiation, present and in the future. SSI has focused on epidemiological research on c exposure from mobile phones and transmitters as well as experimental cancer re addition three selected topics were also discussed, namely blood-brain barrier, proteins, and precautionary framework. For further information on http://www .ssi. se/forfattning/ eng_forfattlista. html [back] 37. In the United Kingdom, the National Radiological Protection Board (t created by the Radiological Protection Act 1970. The statutory functions of NF advance the acquisition of knowledge about the protection of mankind from radiati through research and to provide information and advice to persons (including C Departments) with responsibilities in the United Kingdom in relation to the prott radiation hazards either of the community as a whole or of particular sections of the c The NFPB believes that there is a need for better occupational studies rather thar more. In particular, the studies need to be of occupational groups for whom me< show that there is genuinely a substantially raised exposure to RF fields. If the studiE more informative than those so far, a key requirement will be for improvec measurement (or improved estimation of exposure) for individuals, or at least for o groups. It would be desirable, as far as practical, that the studies should measure t and timing of RF field exposures, and also that they should include some assessme 17 RF field exposures from sources other than the current occupation. Ideally assessment needs to be anatomical site (organ)-specific, because some source greatly differing doses to different parts of the body. It is a difficulty in these pres1 course, that the appropriate exposure metric is unknown. For further informatior see: http://www. nrpb.org/index. htm [back] 38. On January 5, 2005, the EMF-Team Finland issued the Helsinki AppE members of the European Parliament. In it physicians and researchers call on thE Parliament to apply the Precautionary Principle to electromagnetic fields, especially i and microwave-frequency bands. They criticize the present RF/MW radiation safet~ that do not recognize the biological effects caused by non-thermal exposures to r radiation [i.e., RF/MW radiation.] They also call for continued refunding of the REI research program. The text of the Helsinke Appeal 2005 is 1 http:/ ;www .emrpolicy .org/news/headlines/index.htm [back] 39. On July 19, 1993 Dr. Elizabeth Jacobson, Deputy Director for Science, Center for Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration criticized Thomas Wheeler, President of Telecommunications Industry Association: "I am writing to let you know that we were concerned about two important aspects of your press conf1 16 concerning the safety of cellular phones, and to ask that you carefully consider the following cor you make future statements to the press. First, both the written press statements and your verbal corr the conference seemed to display an unwarranted confidence that these products will be found abso fact, the unremittingly upbeat tone of the press packet strongly implies that there can be no hazan reader to wonder why any further research would be needed at aii ..... More specifically, your selectively quotes from our Talk Paper of February 4 in order to imply that FDA believes that cellul< "safe." ("There is no proof at this point that cellular phones are harmful.") In fact, the same Talk PapE "There is not enough evidence to know for sure, either way." Our position, as we have stated it b Although there is no direct evidence linking cellular phones with harmful effects in humans, a few a suggest that such effects could exist. It is simply too soon to assume that cellular phones are perfect! they are hazardous--either assumption would be premature. This is precisely why more research is ne Full text of letter can be found in Microwave News, July/August. 1993 [back]40. In 1993 the Director of the Office of Radiation and Indoor Air of the Environmental ProlE suggested that the FCC not adopt the 1992 ANSI/IEEE standard "due to serious flaws," among ANSI/IEEE conclusion that there is no scientific data indicating that certain subgroups of the populatio risk than others is not supported by NCRP and EPA reports" and (2) "the thesis that ANSI/IEEE reco are protective of all mechanisms of interaction is unwarranted because the adverse effects leve ANSI/IEEE standard are based on a thermal effect." Letter from Margo T. Oge, Director, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air to Thomas Stanley, Chief Engir engineering and Technology, FCC, dated Nov 9, 1993 [back]41. A brief sampling of the CSIRO report: Problems in studies of human populations published to date include imprecise estimates of exposurE such epidemiological studies may underestimate any real risk. The likelihood of epidemiological stU! useful information is questionable, particularly if the biological end point cannot be predicted. Its valu term (less than 10 years) must be negligible unless there was an enormous increase in the rate of c. Interestingly, the incidence of brain tumors in the EC countries has increased substantially in recent yE RF safety cannot be assessed in the absence of reported serious effects when so little research has t the problem. It is somewhat surprising, and rather disappointing, to find that although the literature c hundreds of publications. there are very few areas of consensus .... At low levels the absence of cle IB and [the] presence of intensity and frequency windows have created questions rather than provided ar There is no doubt that the interpretation of bioeffects data has been clouded by a preoccupation ' mediated processes. In fact, development of the ANSI/IEEE standard is based only on well-establ effects, and ignores the more subtle non-thermal processes that are more difficult to interpret and a~ health. Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organization, "Status of Research on Biological Effects Electromagnetic Radiation: Telecommunications Frequencies," a report prepared by Dr. Stan Barne Microwave News, September/October, 1995 [back] 42. Statement from the October 25-28, 1998 "Symposium of Mobile Phones and Health - Possible Biological and Health Effects of RF Electromagnetic Fields" held at the University of Vienna, The preferred terminology to be used in public communication: Instead of using the I "athermal", "non-thermal" or "microthermal" effects, the term "low intensity biological· more appropriate. Preamble: The participants agreed that biological effects from low-intensity exp scientifically established. However, the current state of scientific consensus is ina derive reliable exposure standards. The existing evidence demands an increase in tt efforts on the possible health impact and on an adequate exposure and dose assessr Base stations: How could satisfactory Public Participation be ensured: The public given timely participation in the process. This should include information on tee exposure data as well as information on the status of the health debate. Public par the decision (limits, siting, etc.) should be enabled. Cellular phones: How could the situation of the users be improved: Technical dat~ made available to the users to allow comparison with respect to EMF-exposure. promote prudent usage, sufficient information on the health debate should be pro procedure should offer opportunities for the users to manage reduction in EMF-e addition, this process could stimulate further developments of low-intensity emission · [back] 43. Statement from the June 7-8, 2000 International Conference on Cell Tower Siting Linkins Public Health, Salzburg, Austria. The full report can be found at: www.land-sbg.gv.at/celltower • It is recommended that development rights for the erection and for operatior station should be subject to a permission procedure. The protocol should following aspects: o Information ahead and active involvement of the local public o Inspection of alternative locations for the siting o Protection of health and wellbeing o Considerations on conservation of land-and townscape o Computation and measurement of exposure 19 o Considerations on existing sources of HF-EMF exposure o Inspection and monitoring after installation • It is recommended that a national database be set up on a governmental details of all base stations and their emissions. • It is recommended for existing and new base stations to exploit all technical to ensure exposure is as low as achievable (ALATA-principle) and that new b< are planned to guarantee that the exposure at places where people spend lon of time is as low as possible, but within the strict public health guidelines. • Presently the assessment of biological effects of exposures from base sta low-dose range is difficult but indispensable for protection of public health. present evidence of no threshold for adverse health effects. o Recommendations of specific exposure limits are prone to considerable u and should be considered preliminary. For the total of all high frequency i limit value of 100 mW/m2 (10 1JW/cm2) is recommended. o For preventive public health protection a preliminary guideline level for th of exposures from all ELF pulse modulated high-frequency facilities sue base stations of 1 mW/m2 (0.1 1JW/cm2) is recommended. [back] 44. Scientists attending the September 13-14, 2002 International Conferenc the Research on Electromagnetic Fields -Scientific and Legal Issues," organized (National Institute for Prevention and Work Safety, Italy), the University of Vienna, a of Catania, held in Catania, Italy, agreed to the following: • Epidemiological and in vivo and in vitro experimental evidence demo1 existence for electromagnetic field (EMF) induced effects, some of which car to health. • We take exception to arguments suggesting that weak (low intensity) EMF ca with tissue. • There are plausible mechanistic explanations for EMF-induced effects which present ICNIRP and IEEE guidelines and exposure recommendations by the E • The weight of evidence calls for preventive strategies based on the p principle. At times the precautionary principle may involve prudent avoidance use. • We are aware that there are gaps in knowledge on biological and physical health risks related to EMF, which require additional independent research. 20 [back] 45. The Freiburger Appeal is a German based appeal by mainly medical,: who are concerned about the effects, they believe, from mobile phone technolog masts that are appearing in their patients. It started in Oct 2002 and with very little i1 publicity has got 50,000 signatories with at least 2000 medical signatures from acros: Mast These physicians and scientists agreed to establish an internationc commission to promote research for the protection of public health from EMF and to ' scientific basis and strategies for assessment, prevention, management and comm1 risk, based on the precautionary principle. Excerpt: On the basis of our daily experiences, we hold the current mobile communications (introduced in 1992 and since then globally extensive) and cordless digital telepho standard) to be among the fundamental triggers for this fatal development. One ca. evade these pulsed microwaves. They heighten the risk of already-present chemh influences, stress the body-immune system, and can bring the body-sti/1-functioninf mechanisms to a halt. Pregnant women, children, adolescents, elderly and sick especially at risk. Statement of the physicians and researchers of lnterdisziplinare Gesellschaft fllr Um1 e. V. (Interdisciplinary Association for Environmental Medicine) IGUMED, Sackingen September 19, 2002. The Freiburger Appeal can be fo http://www .mastsanity .org/doctors-appeals.html. [back] 46. Report of the European Union's REFLEX Project (Risk Evaluation < Environmental Hazards from Low Frequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure Using · vitro Methods), November 2004. The Project studied ELF and RF exposures to var cell types. The report is found http://www .itis.ethz.ch/downloads/REFLEX_Finai%20Report_l71104.pdf From the Summary: [t}he omnipresence of EMF's in infrastructures and consumer products have be of public concern. This is due to the fear of people that based on the many conflicting research data health cannot be excluded with some certainty. Therefore, the overall objective of REFLEX was to fin or not the fundamental biological processes at the cellular and molecular level support such an ass this purpose, possible effects of EMF's on cellular events controlling key functions, including thos carcinogenesis and in the pathogenesis of neurodegenerative disorders, were studied through focus Failure to observe the occurrence of such key critical events in living cells after EMF exposure suggested that further research efforts in this field could be suspended and financial resources be the investigation of more important issues. But as clearly demonstrated, the results of the REFLEX the way into the opposite direction. [back] 47. From the Discussion section of the December 20, 2004 Second Annuc: Sweden's Radiation Protection Board (SSI) entitled: Recent Research on Mobile and Health Risks: Second Annual Report from SS/'s Independent Expert Electromagnetic Fields. The complete report is availal http://www .ssi .se/english/EMF _exp_Eng_2004.pdf To date, little is known about the levels of radiofrequency radiation exposure in 1 population from sources such as mobile phones being used by oneself or other pee phone base stations, and radio and television transmitters. Measurements that performed have usually been made as a result of public concern about base station or other specific sources, and have therefore been made at locations that could be • 21 have higher fields than would be the case if measurement locations were selected Furthermore, all measurements have been stationary, and there is today no know/ the level of exposure that an individual will have throughout the day. There is need for information about the personal exposure to RF fields in the general population, to understanding of the relative importance of exposure from base stations close to the home, frc television transmitters, and from the use of mobile phones . . . Studies with personal RF exposure n of randomly selected samples of the general population are strongly encouraged. [back] 48. Released January 11, 2005, Mobile Phones and Health 2004: Report b: of NRPB Documents of the NRPB: Volume 15, No. ! http://www. n rpb .org/pu blications/ docu ments_of_n rpb/a bstracts/ a bsd 15-5 From the Executive Summary: The Board notes that a central recommendation in the Stewart Report was that a precautionary ap use of mobile phone technologies be adopted until much more detailed and scientifically robust inforr health effects becomes available. The Board considers that it is important to understand the signal characteristics and field strength: new telecommunications systems and related technologies, to assess the RF exposure of pe understand the potential biological effects on the human body. [back] 49. The ICNIRP exposure guidelines are only designed to protect against "known adverse he according to Dr. Jorgen Bernhardt, ICNIRP's chairman. Bernhardt reviewed the updated limits, wh spectrum from 1 Hz to 300 GHz, in a presentation at the 2d" Annual Meeting of the Bioelectromagne; St. Pete Beach, FL, on June 10. The limits protect against "short-term, immediate health effects" s stimulation, contact shocks and thermal insults, according to the guidelines, which appear in the Health Physics (74, pp.494-522, 1998). Despite "suggestive" evidence that power frequency magnetic carcinogenic, ICNIRP has concluded that this and other non-thermal health effects have not been ICNIRP has long followed this approach to standard-setting. In his talk, Bernhardt noted that the guid "no consideration regarding prudent avoidance" for health effects for which evidence is less than cone Microwave News, July/August 1998 Additional References and Studies The following references reporting biological effects of radiofrequency radiation (RFR) at low inten January 2005 were compiled on 12127104 by Henry C. Lai PhD, Research Professor of Bioengineeri. of Washington, Seattle, WA Balode Sci Total Env1ron 180(1):81-85, 1996-blood cells from cows from a farm close and in Ire installation showed significantly higher level of severe genetic damage. Boscol et al. Sci Total Environ 273(1-3):1-10, 2001 -RFR from radio transmission stations (0.005 mV immune system in women. Chiang et al. J. Bioelectricity 8:127-131, 1989-people who lived and worked near radio antenn installations showed deficits in psychological and short-term memory tests. de Pomerai et al. Nature 405:417-418, 2000. Enzyme Microbial Tech 30:73-79, 2002-reported an molecular stress response in cells after exposure to a RFR at a SAR of 0.001 W/kg. This stress respo biological process that is present in almost all animals -including humans. de Pomerai et al. (FEBS Lett 22;543(1-3):93-97, 2003-RFR damages proteins at ( W/kg. 22 D'lnzeo et al. Bioe/ectromagnetics 9(4):363-372, 1988-very low intensity RFR (O.C mW/cm2) affects the operation of acetylcholine-related ion-channels in cells. Thes play important roles in physiological and behavioral functions. Dolk et al. Am J Epidemio/145(1):1-91997-a significant increase in adult leukemias in residents who lived near the Sutton Goldfield television (TV) and frequency modL radio transmitter in England. Dutta et ai.Bioelectromagnetics 1 0(2): 197-202 1989 -reported an increase in calci1 cells after exposure to RFR at 0.005 Wlkg. Calcium is an important componenl cellular functions. Fesenko et al. Bioe/ectrochem Bioenerg 49(1):29-35, 1999 -reported a immunological functions in mice after exposure to RFR at a power density of 0.001 rr Hallberg 0, Johansson 0, ( 2004) concluded that continuous disturbance of mechanisms by body-resonant FM electromagnetic fields seems to amplify the c. effects resulting from cell damage caused e.g. by UV-radiation. Hjollund et al. Reprod Toxico/ 11 (6):897, 1997 -sperm counts of Danish military who operated mobile ground-to-air missile units that use several RFR emitting rad (maximal mean exposure 0.01 mW/cm2), were significantly lower compared to refere Hocking et al. Med J Aust 165(11-12):601-605, 1996-an association was four increased childhood leukemia incidence and mortality and proximity to TV towers. lvaschuk et al. Bioe/ectromagnetics 18(3):223-229, 1999-short-term exposure to eel RFR of very low SAR (26 mW/kg) affected a gene related to cancer. Kolodynski and Kolodynska, Sci Total Environ 180(1):87-93, 1996-school children who lived in fr station had less developed memory and attention, their reaction time was slower, and their n apparatus endurance was decreased. Kwee et al. Electro-and Magnetobiology 20: 141-152, 2001 -20 minutes of cell phone RFR expos Wlkg increased stress protein in human cells. Lebedeva et al. Grit Rev Biomed Eng 28(1-2):323-337, 2000 -brain wave activation was observ subjects exposed to cellular phone RFR at 0.06 mWicm2. Magras and Xenos Bioelectromagnetics 18(6):455-461, 1999 -reported a decrease in reproducti' mice exposed to RFR at power densities of 0.000168-0.001053 mWicm2. Irreversible sterility wa~ fifth generation of offspring. Mann et al. Neuroendocrinology 67(2):139-144, 1998 - a transient increase in blood cortisol wa~ human subjects exposed to cellular phone RFR at 0.02 mWicm2. Cortisol is a hormone involved in stn Marinelli et al. J Cell Physiol. 198(2):324-332, 2004 -exposure to 900-MHz RFR at 0.0035 Wlkg affec defense responses. Michelozzi et al. Epidemiology 9 (Suppl) 354p, 1998-leukemia mortality within 3.5 km (5,863 inhab high power radio-transmitter in a peripheral area of Rome was higher than expected. Michelozzi et al. Am J Epidemiol155(12):1096-1103, 2002-childhood leukemia higher at a distanc from a radio station. Navakatikian and Tomashevskaya "Biological Effects of Electric and Magnetic Fields, Volume 1," D (ed) Academic Press, San Diego, CA. pp.333-342. 1994-RFR at low intensities (0.01 -0.1 mWicm2: 1 W/kg) induced behavioral and endocrine changes in rats. Decreases in blood concentrations of tesl 23 insulin were reported. Novoselova et al. Bioelectro.chem Bioenerg 49(1 ):37-41, 1999 -low intensity RFR (0.001 mW/cm2) aff· of the immune system. Park et al. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health 77(6):387-394, 2004-hi rates for all cancers and leukemia in some age groups in the area near the AM radio broadcasting tov. Persson et al. Wireless Network 3:455-461, 1997 -reported an increase in the permeability of th barrier in mice exposed to RFR at 0.0004 -0.008 Wfkg. The blood-brain barrier envelops the brain < from toxic substances. Phillips et al. Bioelectrochem. Bioenerg. 45:103-110, 1998-reported DNA damage in cells exposed tc of 0.0024-0.024 W/kg. Polonga-Moraru et al. Bioelectrochemistry 56(1-2):223-225, 2002-change in membrane of cells in th after exposure to RFR at 15 ~W/cm'. Pyrpasopoulou et al. Bioelectromagnetics 25(3):216-227, 2004 -exposure to cell phone radiation gestation at SAR of 0.0005 W/kg (5 ~W/cm2) affected kidney development in rats. Salford et al. Environ Health Persp Online January 29, 2003 -Nerve cell damage in mammali< exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones signal at 0.02 W/kg. Santini et al. Pathol Bioi (Paris) 50(6):369-373, 2002 -increase in complaint frequencies for tiredne! sleep disturbance, discomfort, irritability, depression, loss of memory, dizziness, libido decrease, ir lived within 300 m of mobile phone base stations. Sarimov et al. IEEE Trans Plasma Sci 32:1600-1608, 2004-GSM microwaves affect human lymphoc similar to stress response at 0.0054 W/kg. Schwartz et al. Bioelectromagnetics 11(4):349-358, 1990-calcium movement in the heart affected b) of 0.00015 W/kg. Calcium is important in muscle contraction. Changes in calcium can affect heart func Somosy et al. Scanning Microsc 5(4):1145-1155, 1991 -RFR at 0.024 Wfkg caused molecular< changes in cells of mouse embryos. Stagg et al. Bioelectromagnetics 18(3):230-236, 1997-glioma cells exposed to cellular phone RFR al showed significant increases in thymidine incorporation, which may be an indication of an increase in • Stark et al. J Pineal Res 22(4):171-176, 1997-a two-to seven-fold increase of salivary melatonin was observed in dairy cattle exposed to RFR from a radio transmitter antenna. Tattersall et al. Brain Res 904(1):43-53, 2001 -low-intensity RFR (0.0016-0.0044 W/kg) can modulat of a part of the brain called the hippocampus, in the absence of gross thermal effects. The changes may be consistent with reported behavioral effects of RFR, since the hippocampus is involved in memory. Vangelova et al. Cent Eur J Public Health 10(1-2):24-28, 2002-operators of satellite station expose (0.1127 J/kg) of RFR over a 24-hr shift showed an increased excretion of stress hormones. Velizarov et al. Bioelectrochem Bioenerg 48(1):177-180, 1999-showed a decrease in cell prolifera after exposure to RFR of 0.000021 -0.0021 W/kg. Veyret et al. Bioelectromagnetics 12(1):47-56, 1991 -low intensity RFR at SAR of 0.015 W/kg affect the immune system. Wolke et al. Bioelectromagnetics 17(2):144-153, 1996-RFR at 0.001W/kg affects calcium concentr muscle cells of guinea pigs. 24 Return to Top of Document The lntemationa/ Association of Fire Fighters recognizes IAFF Local 3368, Carpinteria-Summerlar who brought this issue to the attention of our membership through the Resolution 15, submittec biennial convention in August 2004. Additionally, the following local affiliates provided support for tt the resolution: Brookline, Massachusetts, San Diego, California, San Francisco, California and Vane Columbia. We also acknowledge the efforts of Dr. Henry C. Lai, University of Washington, Seattle, Dr. Magda Havas of Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario; Janet Newton, President of the EMR P and Susan Foster Ambrose for their technical support and continued passion to protect the health anc fighters and emergency medical personnel. Finally, we thank Dr. Leslie P/achta and the Safe Ossinir. their research efforts and their battle to stop siting cell towers on Ossining, New York schools. RMD; 312005 0 SHARE .. '!l :: ... ................. ······~···· . -~· ........ ----·-· ........................ -~----·-.. •··· International Association of Fire Fighters 1750 New York Ave., NW, washington, DC 20006 • 202.737.8484 • 202.737.8418 (Fax) Copyright© 2010 International Association of Flre Fighters. Last Modified: 6/25/2010 25 (..1'4) BIJ~I!O (~CiRLSBAD Planning Division August17,2010 Clear Wireless, LLC c/o M&M Telecom, Inc. Attn: Danielle Goldman PO Box 55 Poway, CA 92074 • SUBJECT: MCUP 10-07-CA SDG5664 REMAX BUILDING • FILE COPY www.carlsbadca.gov The Planning Director has completed a review of the application for a Minor Conditional Use Permit No. MCUP 10-07-CA SDG5664 REMAX BUILDING requesting the installation, operation, and maintenance of a Wireless Communication Facility (WCF) for Clearwire consisting of (6) WiMax panel antennas, (6) DAP head units, (3) directional units, and (1) equipment cabinet located behind an existing RF transparent parapet wall and a proposed radio frequency (RF) friendly screen wall enclosure designed with a 4 hipped roof and asphalt shingles to match the roof of the commercial (REMAX) building at 1265 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008. The project site is located at 1265 Carlsbad Village Drive, in the Residential Professional Qualified Development Overlay (R-P-Q) Zone in Local Facilities Management Zone 1 (APN 158-180-21-00). A notice was sent to property owners within a 300' radius of the subject property requesting comments regarding the above request. Comments were received within the 10 day noticing period (June 25, 2010) and a request for an informal hearing was filed. On July 27, 2010, the Planning Division held an informal hearing to consider said request. Public testimony was given. After careful consideration of the public testimony given at the informal hearing, a review of the facts set forth in the application and a review of the application's consistency with the City Council Policy 64 "Wireless Communications Facility," and Minor Conditional Use Permit Ordinance (Title 21 Section 21.42), as well as all other applicable City ordinances and policies, the Planning Director has determined that the findings required for granting a Wireless Communication Facility through a Minor Conditional Use Permit can be made and therefore, APPROVES this request based on the following findings and conditions: 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 in that a) the use is necessary and desirable for the development of the community because of the benefit and demand for digital communications and data transmissions for businesses, individuals, public agencies and emergency service systems in this part of the City; (b) the existing use is consistent with the General Plan in that the 0 (Office) General Plan Land Use designation does not preclude the provision of Wireless Communication Facility (WCF) uses. The WCF is consistent with City Council Policy No. 64, Wireless Communication Facilities, in that it is in a preferred location (office building within an Office Land Use Designation) and has a stealth design. The project's location and stealth design comply with General Plan objectives that seek to maintain and enhance Carlsbad's appearance. The applicant 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 • • . MCUP 10-07-CA SDG5664 REMAX BUILDING August 17, 2010 Pa e 2 has submitted information concerning coverage objectives and alternative sites considered. The project site complies with applicable requirements while still meeting coverage objectives. 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 WCF is located within a preferred location as listed in Location Guidelines A.1.b of City Council Policy No. 64 (Office Building) and all aspects of the WCF exhibits stealth design and is completely screened from public view. The WCF use is not precluded by the project site's Residential Professional -Qualified Development (R-P-Q) zoning. Furthermore, the placement of the antennas and associated WCF equipment on the rooftop will not result in any additional building coverage, does not visually impact the existing site or building design since it has been designed to blend in with the building architecture, and the WCF does not interfere with nor is it visible to other surrounding uses. The project has been conditioned to comply with FCC RF Exposure Guidelines within six months after the issuance of occupancy. 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 Planning Director in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood in that the proposed antennas are located on the rooftop of an existing office building (REMAX Building) behind an existing RF transparent roof parapet and within a proposed RF-friendly screen wall enclosure. When completed, the installation of the new antennas and associated WCF qquipment will not impact the appearance of the building as the antennas. and equj\>ment are fully concealed behind the existing parapet and the proposed RF-friencfly screen wall enclosure designed with a roof to match the existing roof, which shall further blend in with the office building architecture. 4. That the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic generated by the proposed use in that the proposed WCF requires, on average, only monthly maintenance visits and occasional visits in response to operational problems. 5. That the proposed WCF is consistent with City Council Policy No. 64 in that it meets all required guidelines including the following: a. The project meets all applicable location guidelines in that the project site is located within a "preferred" location (an existing office building within the Office General Plan Land Use Designation). b. The project meets all applicable design guidelines in that the WCF exhibits "stealth" design by proposing the antennas and associated equipment fully screened behind an existing RF transparent roof parapet and by a proposed RF-friendly screen wall enclosure designed with a rooftop that is textured to match the existing office building. The height of the proposed RF-friendly screen wall enclosure exceeds the maximum 35' height requirement of the R-P (Residential Professional) zone at a proposed height of 35'-5" from finish grade and 45'-9" from ground (parking) level. The height protrusion is an allowed protrusion with the approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Section 21.42.140(A). The increased height is required to achieve the facility's coverage objectives, • f I '· . MCUP 10-07-CA SDG5664 R.AX BUILDING August 17, 2010 • Pa e 3 specifically to the east, south and west, and to properly enclose the antennas with a roof that is designed to match the existing roof of the office building. The proposed WCF antennas and associated mountings do not project outward more than 18 inches from the face of the building and is setback from the adjacent residential zone to the south of the building by approximately 56'-4" which exceeds the minimum setback distance that is equal to the above-ground height of the antennas (32'-2" from finish grade and 42'-6" from ground (parking) level). c. The project meets all performance guidelines in that all proposed equipment has been designed to operate consistent with the City noise standards. An Acoustical Report -CA-SDG5664C REMAX dated August 12, 2010 prepared by SSA Acoustics, LLP demonstrates that the operation of the facility will not generate noise that exceeds City Standards. The WCF has been conditioned for maintenance compliance and for compliance with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Radio Frequency (RF) exposure guidelines. 6. That the Planning Director has determined that the project belongs to a class of projects that the State Secretary for Resources has found do not have a significant impact on the environment, and it is therefore categorically exempt from the requirement for the preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Section 15301(e) -(Additions to Existing Facilities), of the state CEQA Guidelines. Additionally, as Clearwire must comply with FCC regulations, radio frequency emissions from the proposed facility are below levels established a!S acceptable by the FCC, and are therefore not considered a health hazard. In making this determination, the Planning Director has found that the exceptions listed in Section 15300.2 of the state CEQA Guidelines do not apply to this project. 7. The Planning Director 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. Conditions: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to issuance of a building permit. Planning: 1. Approval is granted for MCUP 10-07-CA SDG5664 REMAX BUILDING as shown on Exhibits "A·G" dated August 16, 2010 on file in the Planning Department 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 Minor Conditional Use Permit. MCUP 10-07-CA SD~64 REMAX BUILDING August 17, 2010 Pa e4 • • 3. The 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 Minor Conditional Use Permit, (b) City's approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non- discretionary, 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. 4. The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 5. MCUP 10-07 shall be reviewed by the Planning Director on a yearly basis 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 Planning Director determines that: 1) the minor conditional use permit was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation; or 2) the use for which such approval is granted is not being exercised; or 3) the conditions of approval have not been met; or 4) the minor conditional use permit is being or recently has been exercised contrary to any of the terms or conditions of approval; or 5) the use for which such approval was granted has ceased to exist or has been suspended for one year or more; or 6) the use is in violation of any statute, ordinance, law or regulation; or 7) the use permitted by the minor 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 Planning Director shall hold an informal public hearing and after providing the permittee the opportunity to be heard, the Planning Director may revoke and terminate the minor conditional use permit in whole or in part, reaffirm the minor conditional use permit, modify the conditions or impose new conditions. 6. This Conditional Use Permit is granted for a period of ten (10) years from August 16, 2010 to August 15, 2020. 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 ten (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. 7. 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 Planning Director, notifying all interested parties and successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a Minor Conditional Use Permit 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 Planning Director 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. .-------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mcu'p 10-07-CA SDG5664 AAx BUILDING August 17, 2010 Pa e 5 • 8. Developer shall report, in writing, to the Planning Director 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. 9. 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 ex1ension or amendment request, the Developer/Operator shall submit to the Planning Director either (1) verification that the project is categorically excluded from having to determine compliance with the RF exposure guidelilles 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 Planning Director 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. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. All facilities and related equipment should be maintained in good condition and free from trash, debris, graffiti, and any form of vandalism. Damaged equipment should be replaced promptly. Engineering: 13. Developer shall comply with the City's Storm water Regulations, latest version, and shall implement best management practices at all times. Best management practices include but are not limited to pollution treatment practices or devices, erosion control to prevent silt runoff during construction, general housekeeping practices, pollution prevention and educational practices, maintenance procedures, and other management practices or devices to prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants to storm water, receiving water or storm water conveyance system to the maximum ex1ent practicable. Code Reminder: 14. 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. • MCUP 10-07-CA SDG5664 REMAX BUILDING • August 17, 2010 Pa e6 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 the 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. This decision may be appealed by you or any other member of the public to the Planning Commission within ten days of the date of this letter. Appeals must be submitted in writing to the Planning Department at 1635 Faraday Avenue in Carlsbad, along with a payment of $613.00. The filing of such appeal within such time limit shall stay the effective date of the order of the Planning Director until such time as a final decision on the appeal is reached. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Shelley Glennon at (760) 602-4625. [e~ DON NEU, AICP City Planner DN:SG:sm c: City Planner Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner Tecla Levy, Project Engineer File Copy Data Entry Interested Parties Stewart • Alt Allaoua August 12, 2010 Ms. Danielle Goldman For Clearwire 4400 Carillon Point Kirkland, WA 98033 • Re: Acoustical Report -CA-SDG5664C REMAX Site: 1265 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Danielle, This report presents a noise survey performed in the immediate vicinity of the proposed Sprint telecommunications facility at 1265 Carlsbad Village Drive in Carlsbad, California. This noise survey extends from the proposed equipment to the nearest properties. The purpose of this report is to document the existing conditions and the impacts of the acoustical changes due to the proposed equipment. This report contains data on the existing and predicted noise environments, impact criteria and an evaluation of the predicted sound levels as they relate to the criteria. Ambient Conditions Existing ambient noise levels were measured for 24-hours with a Larson-Davis 820 (Type 1) logging sound level meter from August 1oth to 11th, 201 0. Measurements were conducted in accordance with City of Carlsbad Noise Guidelines Manual. The sound level meter was located on the source property within 1 0 feet of the southeast property line at a height of 7 feet. The average sound level from 11:00 AM to 11 :00 AM was 60 dB(A) and the CNEL was 65 dB(A), primarily due to traffic on Interstate 5; secondary noise sources included traffic on Carlsbad Village Drive and in the property parking lot. The lowest hourly average daytime level was 58 dB(A) and the lowest hourly average nighttime level was 51 dB(A). The weather during the measurements was clear during the daytime hours and overcast during the nighttime hours; the roads were dry. Code Requirements The site is located within the City of Carlsbad Zoning jurisdiction on property with an R-P-Q zoning. The receiving properties to the south and east are zoned R-1 (Residential). The proposed new equipment consists of one equipment support cabinet, which is expected to run intermittently 24 hours a day. The City of Carlsbad Noise Guidelines Manual states that exterior noise entering a residential property is limited as follows: Noise shall not exceed an exterior noise standard of 60 dB(A) CNEL. SSA Acoustics, LLP 222 Etruria Street, Ste 100 Seattle, Washington 98109 t. 206.839.0819 f. 206.839.0824 Clearwire CA-SDG5664C REMAX Predicted Equipment Sound Levels 24-Hour Operation Equipment • The proposed equipment includes one Clearwire DDB Unlimited R7-54DX cabinet that produces a sound level of 55 dB( A) at 5 feet 1• The equipment noise level was predicted to the nearest receiving properties and the nearest receiving dwelling unit; this survey used the methods established by ARI Standard 275-97. Application factors such as location, height, and reflective surfaces are accounted for in predicting the sound level at the nearest receivers. The nearest receiving property is 33 feet east of the proposed cabinet, which is the City of Carlsbad Fire Station No.1, and the nearest occupied residential property is 64 feet to the south. The cabinet is proposed to be on the roof of the three story commercial building and shielded from the nearest adjacent properties by the RF screen and building parapet. The predicted sound level and CNEL at the nearest properties are shown in Table 1. Table 1 Application Factors and Predicted Noise Levels Existina & Prooosed Eauioment to Property Line Line Aliiiiication Factor East South 1 Combined Sound Pressure Level at 5 ft. (dB(A)), Lp1 55 55 2 Distance Factor (OF) -16 -22 lnverse-Sauare Law' IFree Field\: OF= 201oa ld1/d2l 133ft) (64ft) 3 Noise Reduction (NR) -Barrier Effect -3 -3 Parapet & RF Screen 4 New Equipme~\ Sound Pressure Level at Receiver, Lpr I IAdd lines 1 -3 36 30 CNEL Predicted CNEL based on equipments impact at building CNEL CNEL envelooe with no additional backaround noise 43 37 As shown in Table 1, the predicted sound level at the nearest properties with the equipment operating does not exceed 36 dB(A). If this support cabinet were to operate continuously for 24 hours the equivalent CNEL level from this unit would not exceed CNEL 43 dB(A) to the nearest property. This meets the exterior noise standard not to exceed 60 dB(A) CNEL at the nearest residential properties. Please contact us if you have any questions or require further information. Sincerely, SSA Acoustics, LLP t;:l;11a~ ~ Erik Miller-Klein Acoustical Consultant SSA ACOUSTICS, LLP (206) 839-0819-p 1 Nuise data provided by DDB Unlimited based on the standard IQ-4000V Air Conditioning Units used on the C1earwire cabinets. Page2 Coverage Before Proposed Site CA-SDG5664 Areas with good to excellent coverage Areas with marginal to good coverage D Areas with no coverage or outside coverage boundary 0 Future Locations Coverage After Proposed Site CA-SDG5664 D Areas with good to excellent coverage Areas with marginal to good coverage D Areas with no coverage or outside coverage boundary 0 Future Locations ----------------------------------------------------------------------, • The City of Carlsbad • Community & Economic Development Planning Division INFORMAL HEARING AGENDA www .carlsbadca.gov/planning Tuesday, July 26, 2010 1:30PM NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: Room 150 1635 Faraday Avenue This meeting is being held in compliance with Title 21 Section 21.42.070(A)(1)(b) in that the Minor Conditional Use Permit application no. MCUP 10-07 (REMAX BUILDING) was adequately notified for at least 1 0 working days from when the Notice of a Minor Conditional Use Permit was sent out on June 15, 2010 and one written request was submitted to the Planning Division within that given noticing period. INFORMAL PLANNING DIVISION HEARING ACTING PLANNING DIRECTOR: CHRIS DeCERBO PROJECT PLANNER: SHELLEY GLENNON PROJECT DESCRIPTION MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. MCUP 10-07-CA SDG 5664 REMAX BUILDING is a request for approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit to allow the installation, operation, and maintenance of a Wireless Communication Facility (WCF) for Clearwire consisting of (6) Wimax panel antennas, (6) DAP head units, (3) directional units, and (1) equipment cabinet located behind an existing radio frequency (RF) transparent parapet wall and a proposed RF-friendly screen wall enclosure designed with a 4 hipped roof and asphalt shingles to match the roof of the office (REMAX) building. The project site is located at 1265 Carlsbad Village Drive, in the Residential Professional Qualified Development (R-P-Q) Zone in Local Facilities Management Zone 1. INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURES 1. All people in attendance are encouraged to print their name, address and phone number on the Sign-In sheet provided by the Planning Division. 2. Comments and questions shall be open to all informal hearing attendees in regards to the project in subject. 3. All persons wishing to give testimony are welcomed and encouraged to do so. However, due to limited time provided for this informal hearing, it is requested that each new speaker add new information, and not repeat points which previous speakers have made in order to allow all attendees sufficient time to be heard. 4. A final decision on the Minor Conditional Use Permit application will not be made until after the public hearing is adjourned and all testimony can be fully considered by the Planning Director. A notice of the final decision for the Minor Conditional Use Permit will be sent to all informal hearing attendees as well as all owners within a 300 foot radius from the project site. INFORM~ HEARING SIGN-IN s!ET MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. MCUP 10-07 JULY 27, 2010-1:30AM-ROOM 150 Name Address Phone Number I~'>' ';.CLn-" \ 3":0). \-+<,_A sr I t, o '-" <;, " . .l--;; I "\ 2 {):.~-~II" Go !J ""c.."' Po 8o'!C 55 .Pow e; "\(A 'i2.oi~ (Q[') '1':12-~ 'N- 3 fer(\cn.~o(c:.y-rc...lli!t;. 5 :r(!; I ( oP ~ "' l>r. &j), tc,c ~2.11[ lr7 (po} S'3 5' -t (J:) <~ 4 Mr, C&'IL LBV'I ?Jo'dt t-hCTt-iUHiP D 2~u v~-Pt>-t/~¥-I 5 f1A. AlX f''GVC:~ II 7 3 'DC-r.-!C:. A-.. Jl ~ Lf 7 -? l.f 'if: C:/1 v " 6 fij2ABnH k/a<£'1 liM DA-1< At.Jr 760 uq Lf799 7 ffff ~ 13r1 M :i'Tf'Wi!-•\ t;,a ~tJ >< '27 ,, 1J.dl{ 1~o-6Jr-,!>-'fS'f /), """ .. C!lf' 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 • • cell Carlsbad Cell Tower To: Zoning Board To: Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Carlsbad We, the following citizens, residents and community advocates of the City of Carlsbad and all relevant neighboring communities at large do hereby: OPPOSE the placement of a rooftop cell tower and adjoining equipment compound to be located on the property ofRe/Max realtor 1265 Carlsbad Village Dr. Carlsbad Ca 92008 for the following reasons: I. The proposed cell tower does not belong near any area zoned for Single Family Residential Use. 2. The introduction of this structure into the landscape would forever alter the character of the City of Carlsbad 3. This cellular site in height is directly out of scale with, and in great contrast to, the natural aesthetics of the surrounding area. 4. It will lower property values of the single family homes in this residential community, and residents would seek lower tax assessments as a result of this tower. There are various appraiser journals and industry publications that support the arguments of reduced property values and cell phone towers. 5. If the City allows this tower and adjoining equipment compound and facility to be constructed in a Single Family Residential Zoned area, the precedent will be set in stone. Many more towers will be popping up, perhaps next in your backyard. The township will no longer have any recourse once a precedent has been set. 6. The proposed special use and development will have a substantial adverse effect upon adjacent property and the character of the neighborhood. Both of these conditions are prohibited under Chapter 27, Special Use Regulations, Section 3 Standards for Review, Item 3.(???) This item specifically reads: That the proposed use and development will not have a substantial adverse effect upon adjacent property; the character of the neighborhood; traffic conditions; parking; utility and service facilities; and other factors affecting the public health, safety, and welfare. REQUEST that the City of Carlsbad Zoning Board: I. Determine if a legitimate need for a cell tower exists in the center of Carlsbad. This need should be verified by data from a private independant US Cellular environmental testing and technologies company like that ofEt&T in Encinitas and by Carlsbad resident user feedback. 2. Investigate less intrusive areas not located near residential neighborhoods that would be more suited to house a rooftop or other configured cell tower and all accompanying equipment compounds and facilities. A suitable area would be one that would not have an adverse effect upon adjacent property or the character of the neighborhood. Sincerely, The Undersigned The Carlsbad Cell Tower Petition to Zoning Board was created by concerned citizens of Carlsbad Ca. There is no endorsement of this petition, express or implied. Page I • Facts of the proposed Project -6 Cellular Panel Antenna's -6 D.A.P. Head Units 92008 -3 Directional GPS Applicants: Clear Wireless LLC. Danielle Goldman (619) 972-4944 • Panel Site: Remax Realtors 1265 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad Ca Frank Violi {760) 434-1400 We, the citizens of the city of Carlsbad, have serious concerns over the proposed project and are requesting this applicant to pay for and hire a private company selected by the undersigned to do a study, or offer a property buy-out, or locate a more suitable location or ultimately deny this project for the attached reasons given to the planning director. Name Wwhttf;w,/ j) (},.,\<.\ ~~ u \ Cl.l'e{ ~~ ~~ ' ' Et2AB ~V( HICJ<e'l I'ltME""S bl RGHE~ Address I tf, R tMk &Ue lib£ DfJk !}{e. II(;;,,£ OAK AU£ ~~rv-d&'])owJ€"\ \\'t."( <:D~Av-e Signature () Cb~ (lA\.Jau< b_~ I I ::Yl DfJt{ --=~--f"<------'-'--=- <?s>:'\ ~?J's~·'\M~rl \\ S \? O•\__ II.~ ~H ~~~""t~v\~ ,,s~ ~~"'-~\s~\~~~~ • Facts of the proposed Project -6 Cellular Panel Antenna's -6 D.A.P. Head Units 92008 -3 Directional GPS Applicants: Clear Wireless LLC. Danielle Goldman (619) 972-4944 • Panel Site: Remax Realtors 1265 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad Ca Frank Violi (760) 434-1400 We, the citizens of the city of Carlsbad, have serious concerns over the proposed project and are requesting this applicant to pay for and hire a private company selected by the undersigned to do a study, or offer a property buy-out, or locate a more suitable location or ultimately deny this project for the attached reasons given to the planning director. Name Address Sv-e.,. f'h~if l220 oa.\<.. Av fvt/il. ([L... Y\Ao:UFA 1.3 9/ 04-[L... 1; t' ( (J ""1\..v::.e.Yj \lolly~. 1 3 6a en k:-At -e _ -J(-+--1[-UW-.l.-""-L....S:...,...JI..j..ll.""'" I<}-04~c:tb (),UQ.' ~~-=--- ~~~~~~·~'~~~o~~~~~o~~~k~A~~~~~~~~~-- I J_OL! j) ilit A \I rn ~ fl1u.A1 ekt /};vr D ,L. J(ltJwW ke.-v: \ll Cg ~I d!r )p fl. 4 }A /J 114 IJ. t2 Ot+ C 1'!££ rz 1'C... till-~ Ave: I~ zo Clc1k Ave I 2"'] o 4 K !l v c: _..l,...L....:..__...g.~~- • Facts of the proposed Project -6 Cellular Panel Antenna's -6 O.A.P. Head Units 92008 -3 Directional GPS Applicants: Clear Wireless LLC. Danielle Goldman (619) 972 -4944 • Panel Site: Remax Realtors 1265 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad Ca Frank Violi (760) 434-1400 We, the citizens of the city of Carlsbad, have serious concerns over the proposed project and are requesting this applicant to pay for and hire a private company selected by the undersigned to do a study, or offer a property buy-out, or locate a more suitable location or ultimately deny this project for the attached reasons given to the planning director. /U,;.;t ro.r-c.-~ rrl,c:.-~,~t=: LEvv 5!LL·~~ I 8,-"+t Ke. \\ y \::::.\ N\ Ll+oN~ Address I I 7 3 Ollf:-f\:vc~ rl?~<a.,.K. ~ )v.Jt }jlqH IAfJt/Y [lft ()M-k Signature -- ~~~-------------------------- • Facts of the proposed Project -6 Cellular Panel Antenna's -6 D.A.P. Head Units 92008 -3 Directional GPS Applicants: Clear Wireless LLC. Danielle Goldman (619) 972-4944 • Panel Site: Remax Realtors 1265 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad Ca Frank Violi (760) 434-1400 We, the citizens of the city of Carlsbad, have serious concerns over the proposed project and are requesting this applicant to pay for and hire a private company selected by the undersigned to do a study, or offer a property buy-out, or locate a more suitable location or ultimately deny this project for the attached reasons given to the planning director. Name A~ t0)J\ bAt'rll\ lbr~ ttr:n pay\ «6 llJ\ Address c::nature /t:::: / City of Carlsbad CA-SDG5657 Marja Acres MCUP 10-07 N A 0 150 300 600 ---====------Feet Map created by the City of Carlsbad GIS. Portions of the DERIVED PRODUCT contain geographic information copyrighted by SanGIS. All Rights Reserved • • NOT TO SCALE CA-SDG5657 Marja Acres MCUP 10-07 Publ, Comments Received • MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. MCUP 10-07 Name Address Phone Number Comment Provided 1 I Max Perez 1173 Oak Avenue Opposed due to health concern "":> 2 Elizabeth Hynicky 1168 Oak Avenue 949-648-61 14 Opposed due to health concern Concerned about facility and requested for 3 Jennifer Taylor Library/ School District 760-434-6440 information to be sent to 1 her regarding proposed ~ facility ij ~\I~ katty Barna 1218 Oak Avenue 760-434-5494 Opposed due to health concern 4 5 Candy Sevadon 1202 Oak Avenue 760-458-6760 Opposed to project due to health concerns ' J 6 Margarit Boudain . 1199 Oake Avenue 858-651-4380 Requested to see exhibits 7 Pat Zocone 1158 Oake Avenue 619-855-5561 Opposed to project 8 Alyx Garill Coastal News 760-650-2599 Informed me that she will attend hearing 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Shelley Glennon From: Sent: To: Subject: Shelley: 716/10 Patty Barna 1215 Oak Ave. Carlsbad, CA, 92008 • Patty Barna [pattybarna@yahoo.com] Friday, July 16, 2010 10:06 PM Shelley Glennon Wireless Com. Facility • As a neighbor here on Oak Ave. for 30 years, 1 strongly object to a wireless communication facility being so close to a neighborhood where people spend most of their daily life. I worked for an Environmental Company called ET& T. This company was aware the many dangers that these facilities and frequency damage can cause. To say this will not affect us now would be premature as we have discovered many hazards from our new technological equipment, No, do not put it in our neighborhood. Patty Barna 1 Shelley Glennon From: Sent: To: Cc: • Marguriette Bowden [mbowden@qualcomm.com] Tuesday, July 27, 2010 9:59AM Shelley Glennon w_bowden@yahoo.com • Subject: Re: REMAX BUILDING Wireless Communication Facility (MCUP 10-07) Tue July 29 2010 9:55am Hi Shelly Thank you for sending us all the drawings. We would like to voice our opposition to the permit. Can you kindly advise all parties on our behalf or do we need to leave work today to attend the informal hearing today at I :30p. Can you kindly let me know. thanks very much. Marguriette and William Bowden 1199 Oak Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008 760-729-1316 At 10:57 AM 7/21/2010, Shelley Glennon wrote: Hello Maragrit, Per your request, please see the attached documents regarding the proposed Wireless Communication Facility located on the REMAX building at 1265 Carlsbad Village Drive. If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know. Thank you, Shelley 1ii ,>: ~ CARLSBAD Shelley E. Glennon 1 Assistant Planner Planning Department City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 http://www.carlsbadca.gov/planning P: 760-602-4625 F: 760-602-8559 shelley.glennon@carlsbadca.gov Thank you, • Tweet Bowden Senior Project Analyst Qualcomm Internet Services (858) 651-4380 2 • J • RECEIVED • M&M Telecom, Inc. WIRELESS CONSULTANTS Danielle Goldman -Zoning Specialist 6886 Mimosa Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009 Cell phone: (619) 972-4944 Email: danielle.goldman@mmtelecominc.com City of Carlsbad JUN 03 2010 Cb~NONF CARLSBAD lNG DEPT Planning Department 1635 ~araday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Subject: 1" Review of MCUP10-07 (CA-SOG5664 REMAX Building, 1265 Carlsbad Village Drive) June 2, 2010 To Mrs. Glennon: Thank you for reviewing our application to construct a wireless communication facility at the REMAX Building. We appreciate the City's policy of sharing concerns regarding design. Jz. ~ 3. Please submit an Authorization Resolution or Certificate of Secretary which gives permission for the signee, Frank Violi, to sign on behalf of the carlsbad Village Investors, LLC. Please see the attached sample Authorization Resolution and Certificate of Secretary for reference. Please see the attached documentation of signing authority for Frank Violi on behalf of Carlsbad Village Investors, LLC. Pursuant to City Council Policy No. 64 (B3) -Wireless Communications Facility (WCF) Equipment Criteria, the proposed WCF equipment shall be fully screened with walls. As proposed, the top of the equipment cabinet is exposed above the existing parapet wall. Therefore, please redesign or nelocate the equipment cabinet so that it is fully screened from public view. Please see the revised plan sets included with this letter, which show the relocation of the proposed equipment cabinet behind the proposed screening mechanism. The equipment cabinet will be completely screened from all viewpoints. Staff supports the proposed location of the WCF as it is proposed on a preferred non-residential building as listed within City Council Policy No. 64. However, staff does not support the design of the proposed WCF. As currently designed, the RF screen wall located on the southwest corner appears to be an obvious "attachment" or "add-on" to the architecture of the recently constructed building. This is due to its proposed height, which is 4 feet above the entire building. To mitigate this undesirable add-on appearance and unnecessary height addition, redesign the facility to be better integrated into the existing architectural design of the building. The objective is to have the proposed WCF appear as an integral part of the building design. As a possible option, Staff recommends the relocation of the proposed antennas behind the existing parapet or building wall where it will be fully screened. If this is not a viable solution, please provide a justification as well as an alternative stealth design. The revised plan sets and photo simulations show two major design changes that address this concern from the City: 1) We have changed the proposed screening material to a stucco finish that is painted to match the rest of the building (previously proposed as rock veneer finish) and • • • 2) We have added a roof to the structure in accordance with the determination that you related to me via phone conversation after staff had discussed the design concerns for this project. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to call or email me. Thank you, once again, for taking the time to discuss the design issues and help us to arrive at the best possible proposal. Respectfully, ~:A~L Danielle Goldman M&M Telecom, Inc. ('~CITY OF ~~~CARLSBAD Planning Department April7, 2010 M&M Telecom Inc. Attn: Danielle Goldman PO Box 55 Poway, CA 92074 • • SUBJECT: 1st REVIEW FOR MCUP 10-07-CA SDG5664 REMAX BUILDING FfLE COF'f www.carlsbadca.gov Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Department has reviewed your Minor Conditional Use Permit, application no. MCUP 10-07, as to its completeness for processing. The application is complete, as submitted. Although the initial processing of your application may have already begun, the technical acceptance date is acknowledged by the date of this communication. The City may, in the course of processing the application, request that you clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise supplement the basic information required for the application. In addition, you should also be aware that various design issues may exist. These issues must be addressed before this application can be scheduled for a hearing. The Planning Department will begin processing your application as of the date of this communication. At this time, the City asks that you provide 3 complete sets of the development plans so that the project can continue to be reviewed. In order to expedite the processing of your application, you are strongly encouraged to contact your Staff Planner, Shelley Glennon, at the phone number listed below to discuss or to schedule a meeting to discuss your application and to completely understand this letter. You may also contact each commenting department individually as follows: • Planning Department comments: 6 ]j 211111181i,•Assistant Planner, at (760) 602-4625 • Engineering Department comments: Tecla Levy-Engineering Development Services, at (760) 602-2733 • Fire Department comments: James Weigand, Fire Inspections, at (760) 602-4661 • Building Department comments: Will Foss, Building Department Manager, at (760) 602-2716 Sincerely, ~QCnio CHRIS DeCERBO Principal Planner CD:SG:sm c: Carlsbad Village Drive Investors, LLC, Attn: Frank Violi, 1241 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008 Don Neu, Planning Director Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner Tecla Levy, Project Engineer File Copy Data Entry Attachments: Sample Authorization Resolution and Sample Certificate of Secretary 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T (760) 602-4600 F (760) 602-8559 ....... ----~-------­ MCUP 10-07-CA S~664 REMAX BUILDING April?, 2010 Page 2 ISSUES OF CONCERN Planning: • 1. Please submit an Authorization Resolution or Certificate of Secretary which gives permission for the signee, Frank Violi, to sign on behalf of the Carlsbad Village Investors, LLC. Please see the attached sample Authorization Resolution and Certificate of Secretary for reference. 2. Pursuant to City Council Policy No. 64 (83) -Wireless Communications Facility (WCF) Equipment Criteria, the proposed WCF equipment shall be fully screened with walls. As proposed, the top of the equipment cabinet is exposed above the existing parapet wall. Therefore, please redesign or relocate the equipment cabinet so that it is fully screened from ·public view. 3. Staff supports the proposed location of the WCF as it is proposed on a preferred non- residential building as listed within City Council Policy No. 64. However, staff does not support the design of the proposed WCF. As currently designed, the RF screen wall located on the southwest corner appears to be an obvious "attachment" or "add-on" to the architecture of the recently constructed building. This is due to its proposed height, which is 4 feet above the entire building. To mitigate this undesirable add-on appearance and unnecessary height addition, redesign the facility to be better integrated into the existing architectural design of the building. The objective is to have the proposed WCF appear as an integral part of the building design. As a possible option, Staff recommends the relocation of the proposed antennas behind the existing parapet or building wall where it will be fully screened. If this is not a viable solution, please provide a justification as well as an alternative stealth design. Engineering: No Comment. Building: No Comment. Fire: No Comment. Police: No Comment. clear w·reless CA-SDG5664 SITE PRIOR TO INSTALLATION VICINITY MAP RECEIVED REMAX BUILDING JUN 0 3 ~010 1265 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR. CITY OF CARLSBAD CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PLANNING DEPT LOOKING EAST TOWARD SUBJECT SITE SITE AFI'ER INSTALLATION M &M TELECOM, INC. (619) 9724944 c1ear w re1ess CA-SDG5664 SITE PRIOR TO INSTALLATION \~ NO SCALE VICINITY MAP LOOKING WEST TOWARD SUBJECT SITE PROPOSED ANTENNAS AND EQUIPMENT BEHIND FRP SCREENING (COLORED AND TEXTURED TO ~ATCH EXISTING SITE AFTER INSTALLATION STUCCO FINISH) PROPOSED ANTENNAS BEHIND FRP SCREENING (COLORED AND TEXTURED TO MATCH EXISTING)\ REMAX BUILDING 1265 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR. CARLSBAD, CA 92008 M &M TELECOM, INC. (619) 972-4944