Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-01-17; Planning Commission; ; Poinsettia Park WCF (AT&T): A request to install a new wireless communication facility (WCF) within Poinsettia Community ParkMeeting Date: Jan. 17, 2024 Item 1 To: Planning Commission Staff Contact: Subject: Location: Case Numbers: Kyle Van Leeuwen, Associate Planner, 442-339-2611 kyle.vanleeuwen@carlsbadca.gov Poinsettia Park WCF (AT&T): A request to install a new wireless communication facility (WCF) within Poinsettia Community Park 6600 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, CA 92011/ 214-140-13-00/ District 3 CUP 2022-0023 / CDP 2022-0070 (DEV2022-0206) Applicant/Representative: Harold Thomas Jr., MD7, 858-750-1798, hthomasjr@md7.com CEQA Determination: ☐Not a Project ☒ Exempt ☐ IS/ND or IS/MND ☐ EIR Permit Type(s): ☐SDP ☒ CUP ☒ CDP ☐ TM/TPM ☐ GPA ☐ REZ ☐ LCPA CEQA Status: ☐The environmental assessment IS on the Agenda for discussion. ☒A CEQA determination was already issued. That decision is final and IS NOT on the Agenda Commission Action: ☒Decision ☐ Recommendation to City Council ☐ Informational (No Action) Recommended Actions That the Planning Commission Resolution ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution (Exhibit 1 to Agenda Item No. 3 of the Dec. 6, 2023, Planning Commission staff report) APPROVING a Minor Conditional Use Permit CUP 2022-0023 and Coastal Development Permit CDP 2022-0070, based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. Project Background On Dec. 6, 2023, the Planning Commission considered a proposal to construct a Wireless Communication Facility (WCF) consisting of a baseball field light pole, with six panel antennas and nine remote radio units (RRU) at Poinsettia Community Park. The Planning Commission discussed the proposed WCF, including the prosed location of the WCF within the park and the documents provided by the applicant. Planning Commission requested more information regarding the alternative sites analysis, the coverage levels indicated on the provided coverage maps, and why the specific light pole location was chosen over other light pole locations in the park. A detailed staff report was provided to the Planning Commission on Dec. 6, 2023 (Exhibit 1). The commission voted to continue the item from Dec. 6, 2023 to Jan. 17, 2024 to allow the applicant time to respond and provide additional information. All new public comments (letters/emails) received are January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 1 of 247 COMMISSION ~ PLANNING ~ Staff Report 0 provided or referenced in Exhibit 2. As of this writing, the applicant has not provided any new information to supplement the original meeting materials. Exhibits 1.Planning Commission Staff Report (December 6, 2023) https://records.carlsbadca.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=7197718&dbid=0&repo=CityofCarlsbad 2.Public Correspondence received after December 6, 2023 January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 2 of 247 Meeting Date: Dec. 6, 2023 Item 3 To: Planning Commission Staff Contact: Kyle Van Leeuwen, Associate Planner, 442-339-2611 kyle.vanleeuwen@carlsbadca.gov Subject: Poinsettia Park WCF (AT&T): A request to install a new wireless communication facility (WCF) within Poinsettia Community Park Location: 6600 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, CA 92011/ 214-140-13-00/ District 3 Case Numbers: CUP 2022-0023 / CDP 2022-0070 (DEV2022-0206) Applicant/Representative: Harold Thomas Jr., MD7, 858-750-1798, hthomasjr@md7.com CEQA Determination: ☐Not a Project ☒ Exempt ☐ IS/ND or IS/MND ☐ EIR Permit Type(s): ☐SDP ☒ CUP ☒ CDP ☐ TM/TPM ☐ GPA ☐ REZ ☐ LCPA CEQA Status: ☐The environmental assessment IS on the Agenda for discussion. ☒A CEQA determination was already issued. That decision is final and IS NOT on the Agenda Commission Action: ☒Decision ☐ Recommendation to City Council ☐ Informational (No Action) Recommended Actions That the Planning Commission Resolution ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution (Exhibit 1) APPROVING a Minor Conditional Use Permit CUP 2022-0023 and Coastal Development Permit CDP 2022-0070, based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. Existing Conditions & Project Description Existing Setting The subject site consists of a 30-acre parcel within a 42- acre public park at 6600 Hidden Valley Road (Exhibit 2). The park contains a variety of sports facilities including tennis courts, pickleball courts, softball/baseball fields, soccer fields, a multi-sport area, and basketball courts, as well as playgrounds, restrooms, picnic areas, and dog- park. The parcel is largely flat, containing some slopes and lower elevations along the west portion of the property and some elevation changes between sports fields. Primary access to the park is provided via Hidden Valley Road to the east. The project site is within the Zone 20 Site Map Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 1 of 138 PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report 0 Exhibit 1 Specific Plan (SP 203) and is zoned Open Space (OS). A public park is a permitted use within the Open Space zone. Table “A” below includes the General Plan designations, zoning and current land uses of the subject site and surrounding properties. Also refer to Exhibit 2 for a larger map. TABLE A – SITE AND SURROUNDING LAND USE Location General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Current Land Use Site Open Space (OS) Open Space (OS) Public Park North Residential, 4-8 dwelling units (R-8) One-Family Residential, Qualified Development Overlay (R-1-Q) Single-Family Dwellings South Residential, 4-8 dwelling units (R-8) Planned Community (P-C) Single-Family Dwellings East Residential, 4-8 dwelling units (R-8) Residential Density- Multiple, Qualified Development Overlay (RD-M-Q) Single-Family Dwellings / Preschool Facility West Open Space (OS) Open Space (OS) Public Park Ball Field / Natural Resource Preservation General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Proposed Project The project consists of the installation, operation, and maintenance of a wireless communication facility (WCF) consisting of a baseball field light pole, with six panel antennas, nine remote radio units (RRU), and three surge protectors installed on the pole. The light pole will be 78 feet in total height, with the panel antennas installed between 50 feet and 67 feet high on the pole, and the RRU and surge protectors installed between 37 feet and 49 feet high on the pole. The proposed WCF light pole will replace an existing baseball field light pole, which is consistent with the overall height of the existing Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 2 of 138 light pole, and the equipment installed on the new light pole will be screened from view by a four-foot- diameter, radome cylinder. A ground level equipment enclosure is also proposed. The equipment enclosure will be located on the same footprint of an existing trash enclosure in the northwest portion of the park’s southern parking lot, just east of the proposed light pole. The subject trash enclosure is no longer needed within the park. The method of maintenance of the park was shifted from in-house to a contractual service several years ago. With that shift, the maintenance contractor assumed responsibility for the daily removal of trash collected from the park. The other trash enclosure, located in the northern parking lot, will remain in place. The proposed equipment enclosure has been designed to be compatible with the adjacent and remaining park maintenance building, utilizing materials, colors, and textures that will match. The project would also include the installation of an approximately 1,600-foot-long conduit to connect the WCF to existing communication infrastructure located near the park’s vehicle entrance. The WCF is proposed to be approximately 177 feet from the nearest property line to the south, with the equipment enclosure more than 160 feet from the southern property line. The site will be accessed through the existing parking lot and driveway, taking access from Hidden Valley Road. The facility will operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Since the facility is unmanned, it will not generate any traffic. Maintenance of the facility by the carrier is needed no more than once a month, except in cases of emergencies. Scheduled maintenance is subject to CMC Section 8.48.010, construction hours limitations, which does not allow maintenance work: after 6:00 p.m.; before 7:00 a.m. (8:00 a.m. on Saturdays); or any work to take place on Sunday. If an emergency arises, it is expected that maintenance crews will be immediately dispatched to correct the situation. The application is proposing a backup generator, located within the equipment enclosure. Public Outreach & Comment The Developer has completed the Early Public Notice procedures pursuant to City Council Policy No. 84 (Development Project Public Involvement Policy). A notice of project application was mailed on Jan. 23, 2023, to property owners within 600 feet and occupants within 100 feet of the subject property. One, two-foot-tall by three-foot-wide yellow sign was posted at the project site on Jan. 4, 2023, notifying all pass-by traffic of the project, which provides project name, application numbers, description, as well as both Developer and city staff contact information. A total of 361 notifications were mailed to property owners and occupants. Response to Public Comment & Project Issues A total of 28 individuals sent emails to city staff with questions and concerns about the project during the months of January and February. This feedback included: a) concerns about design, height, and visual impact; b) health concerns about radio frequency emission (RF) exposure; c) concerns about potential effects to real estate value; and d) impacts to residence during construction/installation of the facility. While the vast majority of the response to the Early Public Notice was generally not in favor of the project, two emails in support of the project were received, citing inadequate cellphone reception in the adjacent neighborhoods. Correspondence received has been included as Exhibit 14. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 3 of 138 Aesthetic impacts are typically a concern associated with this type of use due to the height of towers, which are used to support communication antennas. The visibility of a tower is a function of its height, design, and its visual exposure in the park and to surrounding properties. In response to concerns about design, height, and visual impact, the applicant worked with the city staff to improve the design of the project and increase screening/stealthing of the equipment on the light pole. The initial proposal of the project included 15 antennas and 24 RRUs placed above the ballfield lights (90-foot overall height) with no screening of the equipment. Planning Division staff shared with the applicant the requirements of City Council Policy 64 (Exhibit 5) for shielding and stealthing requirements. Over the course of six-months, the applicant twice redesigned the project to lower the overall height to be consistent with the height of the existing light poles, reduce the amount of equipment proposed on the light pole, and incorporate adequate screening/stealthing of that mounted equipment. The existing light pole, and the original, intermediate, and final design of the project, is shown in Figure A, right. The WCF is proposed to be approximately 177 feet from the nearest property line to the south. Possible health risks from exposure to the radiofrequency emissions generated by wireless communication facilities have also generated public concern. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requires facilities to comply with radio frequency (RF) exposure guidelines, and is the regulating authority related to radiofrequency exposure limits generated by wireless communication facilities. The city, during its permitting review process, ensures compliance with the FCC rules and regulations. Based on the 1996 Telecommunications Act, a local government city cannot evaluate or deny the project based on perceived health hazards of RF exposure, so long as the project complies with federally set exposure limits. However, Policy 64 requires a submission of a compliance report and the reduction in the number of antenna panels in the revised design also reduced the amount of RF the site would produce. Exhibit 8 contains a RF Electromagnetic Fields Exposure Study prepared by EBI Consulting (Oct. 25, 2023) demonstrating that the cumulative exposure levels from this facility will be below the FCC’s Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) limits for the public. Project Analysis General Plan Consistency The City of Carlsbad General Plan includes several goals and policies that guide development and land use within the city. A discussion of how the project is consistent with the applicable General Plan policies is summarized in Exhibit 3. Zone 20 Specific Plan (SP 203) Figure A: Existing Pole & Project Design Changes Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 4 of 138 The Zone 20 Specific Plan, originally approved in 1993 and last amended in 2010, has no policies, restrictions, or requirements applicable to the request for a wireless communication facility. The project is therefore consistent with the Zone 20 Specific Plan. Municipal Code Consistency The City of Carlsbad Municipal Code, most notably Tile 21 Zoning Code, includes requirements and provisions that guide development and land use within the city, consistent with the General Plan. Specific compliance with these relevant requirements is described in Exhibit 3. Local Coastal Program Consistency The project site is in the Coastal Zone and requires a Coastal Development Permit. The project complies with the Local Coastal Program (Exhibit 3), including all goals and policies of the General Plan and all zoning code standards, as referenced above. Wireless Communication Facilities Policy (City Council Policy Statement No. 64) The project is subject to City Council Policy Statement 64 (Policy 64, Exhibit 5), which sets review and operational guidelines for wireless communication facilities. A discussion of how the project is consistent with Policy 64 is summarized in Exhibit 3. Discretionary Actions & Findings The proposed Project requires approval of two permit types (Minor Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit), each of which is discussed below. Minor Conditional Use Permit (CUP 2022-0023) The proposed project is a use which is allowed in the Open Space (OS) Zone subject to the approval of a minor conditional use permit (MCUP) or conditional use permit (CUP). Pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) Section 21.42.140.B.165.b, a wireless communication facility (WCF) application that complies with both the preferred location and the stealth design guidelines of City Council Policy Statement No. 64 (Policy 64) is processed as a minor conditional use permit (MCUP). The proposed project is located in a preferred location and exhibits “stealth” design techniques. Chapter 21.42 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code requires that four findings be made in order to approve a CUP. All of these findings can be made for this project as discussed below (Exhibit 3). The Minor Conditional Use Permit would normally be acted upon by the City Planner as the final decision- maker. However, the Costal Development Permit requires action by the Planning Commission. Therefore, per CMC Section 21.54.040, Decision-making authority for multiple development permits, both applications require Planning Commission action. Coastal Development Permit (CDP 2021-0031) Approval of a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) is required because the project proposes development within the coastal zone. (CMC Section 21.06.030.) Staff finds that the required findings for this application can be met (Exhibit 3). Environmental Review In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines, the City Planner has determined that the project qualified for an exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15303 – New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. A notice of intended decision regarding the environmental determination was advertised on Oct. 13, 2023 and posted on the city’s website. No Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 5 of 138 comment letters or appeal was received and consistent with Chapter 21.54 (Procedures, Hearings, Notices, and Fees) of the Zoning Ordinance the City Planner’s written decision is final. Refer to Exhibit 11 for additional support and justification. Conclusion Considering the information above and in the referenced attachments, staff has found that the proposed project is consistent with all applicable policies of the General Plan, Local Coastal Program, and City Council Policies, provisions of the Municipal Code and Local Facility Management Zone. All required public improvement and utilities are available to serve the proposed development. In addition, there are no environmental issues associated with the project. The project is conditioned to ensure the proposed project’s compatibility with the surrounding properties and that the public health, safety, and welfare of the community are maintained. The project would be required to comply with all applicable California Building Standards Codes and engineering standards through the standard building permit and civil improvement plan checking process. Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the resolutions, recommending approval of the proposed project described in this staff report. Exhibits 1.Planning Commission Resolution 2.Location Map 3.Project Analysis 4.Disclosure Statement 5.Council Policy Statement No. 64 – Wireless Communications Facilities 6.Alternative Site Analysis 7.Photo Simulations 8.Radio Frequency Study 9.Generator Noise Assessment Letter 10.Reduced Exhibits 11.Notice of CEQA Determination 12.List of Acronyms and Abbreviations 13.Full Size Exhibits “A” – “K” dated Dec. 6, 2023 (on file in the office of the City Clerk) 14.Public Correspondence Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 6 of 138 .,., PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO 7504 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW THE INSTALLATION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY CONSISTING OF SIX (6) PANEL ANTENNAS MOUNTED WITHIN A 48 INCH RADOME CYLINDER ON A NEW 78-FOOT LIGHT POLE THAT WILL REPLACE AN EXISTING LIGHT POLE AND ASSOCIATED GROUND EQUIPMENT WITHIN AN EIGHT-FOOT TALL ENCLOSURE EAST OF THE SOUTHERN PARKING LOT OF POINSETTIA COMMUNITY PARK GENERALLY LOCATED AT 6600 HIDDEN VALLEY ROAD IN THE MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE CERTIFIED LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 20. CASE NAME: POINSETTIA PARK WCF (AT&T) CASE NO.: CUP 2022-0023/CDP 2022-0070 (DEV2022-0206) WHEREAS, AT&T Wireless, "Developer", has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as THAT PORTION OF THE WEST HALF OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 12 SOUTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT SURVEY. ("the Property"); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit as shown on Exhibit(s) "A" -"K" dated Dec. 6, 2023, on file in the Planning Division, CUP 2022-0023/ CDP 2022-0070 {DEV2022-0206) -POINSETTIA PARK WCF {AT&T), as provided by Chapter 21.42 and Chapter 21.201.030 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Division studied the Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit application and performed the necessary investigations to determine if the HI D D E N V A L L E Y R D PA S EO DE L N O RTE P L UM T REE RD TURNSTONE RD CAMINO DE LAS ONDAS G OLDENEYE V W L O N I C E R A S T TO P M A S T D R RU S S E L I A C T T E A T R E E S T BEACON BAY DR MA R I N E R S T M ARIPOS A RD R OBI N E A D R ABELIA AV MO N T I A C T BL U E P O I N T D R LIGHTHOUSE RD SC A U P S T BELLEFLOWER RD RE D K N O T S T C L O V E R C T S EA W I N D C T SEAHORSE CT WIN D D R I F T D R LANDS END CT SNIPE CT E L C AMINO R E A L LA COSTA AV A L G A R D C A R L S B A D B L DEV 2022-0206 POINSETTIA PARK WCF SITE MAP J SITE!"^ Map generated on: 10/19/2023 Exhibit 2 Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 19 of 138 PROJECT ANALYSIS Exhibit 3 (GENERAL PLAN, MUNICIPAL CODE, AND OTHER REGULATIONS) PROJECT ANALYSIS The project is subject to the following regulations: A.Open Space (OS) General Plan Land Use Designation B.Open Space (OS) Zone (CMC Chapter 21.33) and Minor Conditional Use Permits and Conditional Use Permits (21.42) C.Local Coastal Program (Mello II Segment) D.Wireless Communication Facilities Policy (City Council Policy Statement No. 64) The recommendation for approval of this project was developed by analyzing the project’s consistency with the applicable regulations and policies. The project’s compliance with each of the above regulations is discussed in detail within the sections below. A.General Plan Open Space (VC) Land Use Designation The project site is designated Open Space (OS) on the city’s General Plan Land Use Map. The proposed WCF is consistent with the OS General Plan Land Use designation in that the OS Land Use designation does not preclude the use of WCF’s. Furthermore, a Public Park is a permitted land use within the OS designation, and WCFs are allowed with permits in public parks. The proposed use will serve and benefit the residential and business community and region as a whole, including emergency service providers. Therefore, the proposed WCF use is consistent with the OS General Plan Land Use designation. The project also complies with the noise exposure limits of the Noise Element of the General Plan and Noise Guidelines Manual. Residential use areas are limited to 60 decibels (dB) of exterior exposure, and the Generator Noise Assessment Letter provided by the applicant (EBI Consulting, Oct. 28, 2022) calculates 53.8 dBs of noise will be generated as measured from the adjacent residential property line. Additionally, the study does not include any noise attenuation of the generator noise due to the equipment being located within a walled enclosure, or that the proposed generator will only run for routine cycling/testing for a duration of no more than 15 minutes one time per week during daytime hours, or in the event of a loss of power. B.Open Space (OS) Zone (Chapter 21.20); and Minor Conditional Use Permits and Conditional Use Permits (Chapter 21.42) The proposed WCF consisting of a 78-foot tall, baseball field light pole, with six panel antennas, nine remote radio units (RRU), and three surge protectors installed on a the light pole is located within Open Space (OS) zone, which allows for a stealth wireless communication facilities (WCFs) subject to approval of a minor conditional use permit (CUP), if consistent with the preferred location and the stealth design review and approval guidelines of city council policy statement No. 64. The project is required to comply with the development standards of the O-S zone. The Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 20 of 138 PROJECT ANALYSIS (GENERAL PLAN, MUNICIPAL CODE, AND OTHER REGULATIONS) O-S zone does not specify any setbacks, lot coverage or lot size requirements. It does, however, specify that structures shall not exceed 25 feet tall unless a higher elevation is approved by a minor conditional use permit issued by the City Planner. The proposed project is a use which is allowed in the Open Space Zone subject to the approval of a minor conditional use permit (MCUP) or conditional use permit (CUP). Chapter 21.42 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code requires that four findings be made in order to approve a CUP. All of these findings can be made for this project as discussed below. Conditional uses such as Wireless Communications Facilities (WCF) possess unique and special characteristics that make it impractical to include them as permitted uses “by right” in any of the various zoning classifications (i.e. residential, commercial, office, industrial, and open space). The authority for the location and operation of these uses is subject to City Council Policy Statement No. 64 – Wireless Communication Facilities Policy (see discussion D below) and the issuance of a MCUP or CUP. Staff has reviewed the proposed project and found that all of the necessary findings can be made to approve the MCUP. The required findings and satisfaction of these findings are provided below. 1. That the requested use is necessary or desirable for the development of the community, and is in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the general plan, including, if applicable, the certified local coastal program, specific plan or master plan. The use is consistent with the General Plan in that the Open Space Land Use designation does not preclude the provision of WCF uses. Within the Open Space (O-S) zone, CMC Chapter 21.33; WCFs are conditionally permitted uses. The proposed project has been designed and conditioned to comply with all applicable zoning regulations and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) standards for radio frequency (RF) exposure. The WCF is proposed to be installed on a structure that already exists, which will reduce its visibility and will be the least disruptive to the appearance of the park. The WCF will not be located on an exposed ridgeline and is satisfactorily screened and disguised by being located on a structure, which will light an athletic field. The new antennas will be mounted as close to the light pole as technologically feasible within a four-foot diameter radome. The radome will be painted to match the color of the light pole, thereby minimizing visual impacts. City Council Policy No. 64 – Wireless Communication Facilities Guidelines indicate that there is a need to accommodate new communication technology and must be balanced with the need to minimize the number of new tower structures, thus reducing the impacts towers can have on the surrounding community. According to the applicant’s response to the Wireless Communication Facility Guidelines, the applicant examined the search for co-location opportunities and did not locate any existing freestanding co-locatable wireless towers within the search area that would provide the required height. Per the applicant, the entirety of the targeted search area is located within residentially zoned parcels or open spaces; therefore, Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 21 of 138 PROJECT ANALYSIS (GENERAL PLAN, MUNICIPAL CODE, AND OTHER REGULATIONS) more favorably zoned parcels, such as commercial or industrial, were infeasible. No co-location opportunities were available. All of this resulted in the subject proposal for a new telecommunication facility. The proposed project would help alleviate an area of poor coverage and overloaded capacity within this service area, which causes reoccurring lost calls, ineffective service, and slow data speeds. The requested WCF is necessary for the development of the community because of the benefit and demand for digital communications and data transmissions for businesses, residences, individuals, public agencies and emergency service systems in this part of the city. Federal and California law require cities provide access to telecommunications infrastructure as outlined in the restrictions contained within Policy 64. The use is consistent with the General Plan in that the Open Space Land Use designation does not preclude the provision of WCF uses. The use is in harmony with objectives that seek to maintain and enhance Carlsbad’s appearance in that the WCF is integrated into a light pole; is designed so that the antennas will be attached as close to the light pole as possible with a concealing radome; and associated equipment is located within an enclosure designed to be compatible with the adjacent maintenance building, utilizing materials, colors, and textures that will match the maintenance building. 2. That the requested use is not detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is to be located in. The antennas are proposed to be mounted to a replacement light pole that is the same height as the existing light pole, and antennas are mounted as close to the light pole as technology will allow, thus reducing an outward noticeable appearance and minimizing visual impacts. The Telecommunication Act of 1996 preempts local governments from regulating the "placement, construction and modification of wireless communication facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of RF emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the FCC standards for such emissions." The proposed project would be consistent with the FCC's regulations for wireless facilities. The project complies with the FCC RF Exposure Guidelines. The project complies with the FCC Radio Frequency (RF) Exposure Guidelines as detailed in Exhibit 8. Lastly, a Generator Noise Assessment Letter was prepared by EBI Consulting (October 28, 2022) in accordance with the City of Carlsbad’s Noise Element of the General Plan and Noise Guidelines. The analysis, detailed in Exhibit 9, concludes that the noise produced from operation of the proposed emergency back-up generator will comply with the Carlsbad Exterior Noise Limits at all receiving property lines. While the Noise Element does not establish a community park as a noise-sensitive land use, the provided study does indicate that the level of noise from the generator would be compliant with daytime and nighttime limits at a distance of 21 feet from the generator (65 dB). Additionally, the study does not include any noise attenuation of the generator noise due to the equipment being located within a walled enclosure, or that the proposed generator will only run for routine cycling/testing for a duration Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 22 of 138 PROJECT ANALYSIS (GENERAL PLAN, MUNICIPAL CODE, AND OTHER REGULATIONS) of no more than 15 minutes one time per week during daytime hours, or in the event of a loss of power. 3. That the site for the proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, parking, loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping and other development features prescribed in this code and required by the City Planner, planning commission or City Council, in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. The light pole on which the proposed antennas are to be located is the same height as the existing pole; the associated equipment is proposed to be located within an enclosure designed to be compatible with the adjacent maintenance building, utilizing materials, colors, and textures that will match the remaining maintenance building; the light pole and equipment are not within any required front, rear or side yard setbacks; and the proposed pole and equipment enclosure are located more than 160 feet from the nearest adjacent residential property. 4. That the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic generated by the proposed use. The unmanned WCF will require, on average, only monthly maintenance visits and occasional visits in response to operational issues. The existing street system is adequate to properly handle any traffic generated by the use. Construction is not expected to generate or impact the circulation network and will be coordinated to avoid impacts to any events within the park. C. Conformance with the Coastal Development Regulations for the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program (CMC Chapter 21.201) and the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone (CMC Chapter 21.203) The project site is located within the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program and is not in the appeal jurisdiction. The site is also located within and subject to the Coastal Resources Protection Overlay Zone. The project’s compliance with each of these programs and ordinances is discussed below: 1. Mello II Segment of the Certified Local Coastal Program and all applicable policies The proposed site is in the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program (LCP) and is not within the appealable jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission. The proposed WCF use is not precluded by Local Coastal Program. Furthermore, staff finds the proposed project to be consistent with the Mello II segment of the Local Coastal Program in that the site is designated for non-residential uses and is already developed with athletic fields with field lights and other park amenities. The project consists of replacing one of the existing Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 23 of 138 PROJECT ANALYSIS (GENERAL PLAN, MUNICIPAL CODE, AND OTHER REGULATIONS) field light poles with a new pole that is the same height as the existing and installing an unmanned WCF on the light pole. The WCF will not obstruct views of the coastline as seen from public lands or the public right-of-way, nor otherwise damage the visual beauty of the coastal zone. No agricultural activities, sensitive resources, geological instability, flood hazard or vertical coastal access opportunities exist onsite. Furthermore, the WCF facility is not in an area of known geologic instability or flood hazards. 2. Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone The development is subject to the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone (CMC Chapter 21.203). The Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone identifies areas of protection: a) preservation of steep slopes and vegetation; b) drainage, erosion, sedimentation, habitat; c) seismic hazards, landslides, and slope instability; and d) floodplain development. The project’s compliance with each of these areas of concern is discussed below: a. Preservation of Steep Slopes and Vegetation. Slopes greater than 25% and possessing endangered plant/animal species and/or coastal sage scrub and chaparral plant communities are considered “dual criteria” slopes and are protected in the Coastal Zone. The project does not support any “dual criteria” slopes. b. Drainage, Erosion, Sedimentation, Habitat. The project will adhere to the city’s Master Drainage Plan, Grading Ordinance, Storm Water Ordinance, BMP Design Manual and Jurisdictional Runoff Management Program (JRMP) to avoid increased urban run-off, pollutants, and soil erosion. c. Seismic Hazards, Landslides and Slope Instability. The site is not located in an area prone to landslides, or susceptible to accelerated erosion, floods or liquefaction. d. Flood Plain Development. No structures or fill are being proposed within a one-hundred- year floodplain area as identified by the FEMA Flood Map Service Center. D. Wireless Communication Facilities Policy (City Council Policy Statement No. 64) The City Council adopted Policy No. 64, Wireless Communication Facilities, on Dec. 14, 2021, establishing review and approval guidelines for WCFs. The project is consistent with City Council Policy No. 64 in that the proposed location, a public park in a residential area, is a “preferred” location. The WCF is proposed to be installed on a structure that already exists, which will reduce its visibility and will be the least disruptive to the appearance of the park. The WCF will not be located on an exposed ridgeline and is satisfactorily screened and disguised by being located on a structure, which will light an athletic field. The new antennas will be mounted as close to the light pole as technologically feasible within a four-foot diameter Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 24 of 138 PROJECT ANALYSIS (GENERAL PLAN, MUNICIPAL CODE, AND OTHER REGULATIONS) radome. The radome will be painted to match the color of the light pole, thereby minimizing visual impacts. The proposed ground mounted equipment will be located within an enclosure, which is designed and treated to match and compliment the adjacent maintenance building. The proposed light pole is consistent with the height requirements of the Open Space zone and will be the same height as the existing light pole to be replaced and the other existing light poles for the baseball field. The proposed installation is more than 160 feet away from the adjacent residentially zoned properties, which is more than double the 78-foot setback called for by the policy. Site selection information was provided that indicates other locations are not feasible. Color photo-simulations have been provided to show that the project will not substantially alter views to the site from surrounding viewpoints. All aspects of the proposed WCF, including the supports, antennas, screening methods, and equipment feature “stealth” design techniques so they visually blend into the background or the surface on which they are mounted. The applicant examined the search for co-location opportunities and did not locate any existing freestanding co-locatable wireless towers within the search area that would provide the required height. Per the applicant, the entirety of the targeted search area is located within residentially zoned parcels or open spaces; therefore, more favorably zoned parcels, such as commercial or industrial, were infeasible. No co-location opportunities were available. All of this resulted in the subject proposal for a new telecommunication facility. The FCC, which regulates the wireless communications industry, has referenced prior studies concluding that RF emission exposure levels associated with this type of facility have been determined to be safe. RF emissions generated from the proposed WCF would be below the FCC accepted guidelines/standards. Pursuant to federal law, a local government agency may not regulate the placement and modification of a WCF based on the environmental or health effects of RF emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with federal law concerning emissions. To ensure that the FCC standards are being met, a condition has been added to the permit that requires that the applicant submit a RF study to demonstrate compliance with the applicable FCC regulations. Therefore, staff does not anticipate concerns regarding RF emissions as it relates to the park or residential development in the area. A Generator Noise Assessment Letter was prepared by EBI Consulting (October 28, 2022) in accordance with the City of Carlsbad’s Noise Element of the General Plana and Noise Guidelines. The analysis concludes that the noise produced from operation of the proposed emergency back-up generator will comply with the Carlsbad Exterior Noise Limits at all receiving property lines. E. Growth Management Plan The proposed Wireless Communications Facility (WCF) is located in Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 20. Installation of the WCF on the existing site and monthly facility maintenance visits Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 25 of 138 PROJECT ANALYSIS (GENERAL PLAN, MUNICIPAL CODE, AND OTHER REGULATIONS) will not result in increased public facilities demands; therefore, the proposal will not exceed performance standards for public facilities. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 26 of 138 ( Ccityof Carlsbad DISCLOSURE STATEMENT P- 1 (A) Development Services Planning Division 1635 Faraday Avenue (442) 339-2610 www.carlsbadca.gov Applicant's statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board, Commission or Committee. The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project cannot be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print. •Note: Person is defined as "AnV individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternalorganization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, in this and any other county, city and county,city municipalify, district or other-political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit." Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name· and entity of the applicant and property ownermust be provided below. 1.APPLICANT (Not the applicant's agent)Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having afinancial interest in the application. If the applicant includes a corporation or partnership, include the names, titles, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of theshares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publicly-owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Person ------------Corp/Part AT&T Wireless Title ____________ _ Title ______________ _ Address __________ _ Address 7337 Trade Street, San Diego, CA 92121 2.OWNER (Not the owner's agent) P-1(A) Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (i.e., partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a corporation or partnership, include the names, titles, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORETHAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THESPACE BELOW. If a publicly-owned corporation, include the names, titles, andaddresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Person � �Jt,,, Corp/Part �C�it�y�of_C�a�r �ls�ba�d _______ _ Title Real Estate M� -Title --------------- Address 3096 Harding Street Address 3096 Harding Street, Carlsbad, CA 92008 Page 1 of 2 Revised 3/22 Exhibit 4 Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 27 of 138 Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 28 of 138 ( 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 NIA 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? D Yes ~ 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. Signature of owner/date Print or type name of owner Digitally signed by Harold Thomas Jr Ha ro I d Th Om a S J r DN: cn=Harold Thomas Jr, o=MD7, LLC, ou, ema1l=hthomasJr@md7.com, c=US Date: 2022.11.02 10:16:51 -07'00' Signature of applicant/date Harold Thomas Jr Print or type name of applicant Signature of owner/applicant's agent if applicable/date Print or type name of owner/applicant's agent P-1(A) Page 2 of2 Revised 3/22 Dec. 14, 2021 Item #16 Page 11 of 252 Exhibit 5 Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 29 of 138 {city of Carlsbad Council Policy Statement Category: WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES Policy No. Date Issued: Effective Date: Resolution No. Cancellation Date: 64 9/26/2017 . 12/14/2021 2021-289 Supersedes No. 64 04/10/12 Specific Subject: Review and Operation Guidelines for Wireless Communication Facilities PURPOSE: Wireless communication facilities, or WCFs, refer to the many facilities with antennas and supporting equipment that receive and transmit signals and together enable mobile or other "wire-free" communication and information services. Unlike wireline communications, such as the land-based telephone system, wireless communication technologies, by their operational nature, require a network of antennas mounted at various heights and attached typically to buildings, structures and poles. A common name for a WCF is "cell site." WCF proposals to the city became commonplace in the mid-1990s. Since then, Carlsbad has processed dozens of new WCF applications and numerous permit renewals for existing. facilities, all without benefit of specific review criteria. As the city's population and the popularity and variety of wireless services grow, providers are expected to install more facilities to improve coverage and gain user capacity. The following Review and Operation Guidelines (Guidelines) have been developed to supplement and clarify the requirements of Carlsbad Municipal and Zoning codes, including chapter 21.42 of the Carlsbad Zoning Code. These requirements are meant to provide a general overview of the procedures and requirements for installation of WCFs, while accommodating and supporting deployment of WCFs to provide adequate coverage and capacity throughout the city. They also outline definitions that are quantifiable and measurable and detail development standards and design requirements which the city will use to review proposed facilities. This policy's purpose is to guide the public, applicants, boards and commissions, and staff in reviewing the placement, construction, and modification of WCFs. The goal is to assure WCFs in Carlsbad: • Are reviewed and provided within the parameters of law. • Protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public to the extent permitted by applicable laws. • Are encouraged to locate away from residential and other sensitive areas, except as allowed by Sections A, B and C of this policy. • Represent the fewest possible facilities necessary to complete a network without discriminating against providers of functionally equivalent services or prohibiting the provision of wireless services. • Use, as much as possible, "stealth" techniques so they are not seen or easily noticed. • Operate consistent with Carlsbad's quality of life. Page 1 of 18 This policy applies to all commercial providers of wireless communication services. It does not apply to amateur (HAM) radio antennas, dish antennas, collocations and/or modifications covered under Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations at 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.6100 et seq. (implementing Section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act (codified as 47 C.F.R. § 1455(a)) for non-substantial modifications to existing wireless towers and base stations)1 and other antennas installed on a residence for an individual’s private use. The Guidelines shall not relieve a person from the responsibility of complying with all other applicable regulations of any other local, state, or federal agencies. These Guidelines supplement existing regulations and provide clear standards and guidelines for all wireless infrastructure deployments unless specifically prohibited by applicable law. The standards and procedures contained in these Guidelines are intended to, and should be applied to, protect and promote public health, safety and welfare, and balance the benefits that flow from robust, advanced wireless services with the city’s local values. Except as expressly provided otherwise, these Guidelines shall be applicable to all applications and requests for authorization to construct, install, attach, operate, collocate, modify, reconstruct, replace, relocate or otherwise deploy WCFs, inclusive of applications which affect existing facilities. These Guidelines are also intended to establish clear procedures for application intake and completeness review. Conditional use permit applications for WCFs that were denied shall follow the process in Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.54.130 for reapplication of a new CUP. Building permit and ROW permit applications for facilities that were denied may be submitted to the Community Development Department as new applications at any time, without prejudice. Said new application will be processed as a completely separate application, with new submittal materials and fees required, and shall demonstrate compliance with these Guidelines. BACKGROUND: To secure the right to provide personal wireless services to a region, companies often must obtain airwave licenses that are auctioned by the FCC, the federal agency that regulates the communications industry. For radio services that use license spectrum, the FCC mandates the licensees establish their service networks as quickly as possible. In Carlsbad, there are three common types of WCF systems: Cellular, PCS (Personal Communications Services), and ESMR (Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio). POLICY: REVIEW RESTRICTIONS: The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TCA) preserves the city’s ability to regulate the placement, construction, and modification of wireless communication facilities subject to the following restrictions. 1 If the city determines that an application submitted for approval pursuant to Section 6409(a) is, in fact, not covered by the applicable federal regulations, the applicant may resubmit the request for approval pursuant to the applicable provisions in this policy. Dec. 14, 2021 Item #16 Page 12 of 252Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 30 of 138 • The city may not favor any carrier. Regulations may not unreasonably discriminate among functionally equivalent service providers. A “functionally equivalent provider” means a competitor. • The city may not prevent completion of a network. Regulations may not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. According to the FCC’s recent order in 2018, the denial of a single permit application may cause an effective prohibition if it “materially inhibits or limits the ability of any competitor or potential competitor to compete in a fair and balanced legal and regulatory environment.” Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order, WT Docket No. 17-79, WC Docket No. 17-84, 33 FCC Rcd. 9088 at ¶ 37 (2018) (Small Cell Order). In addition, local aesthetic requirements may be prohibitory unless they are reasonable and published in advance. Small Cell Order at ¶ 40, rev’d in part, City of Portland v. United States, 969 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2020). • Applications are to be processed in a reasonable time. A city must act on an application for WCFs within a “reasonable” amount of time, which the FCC generally defines as either 60, 90, or 150 days from the time an application is submitted and depending on the nature and scope of the proposed wireless facility. • Failure to approve or deny applications may result in automatic approvals and court orders. Under California Government Code 65964.1, an application for a wireless facility may be “deemed approved” if a city or county fails to act within the presumptively reasonable timeframes established by the FCC. This provision contains some exceptions but generally applies to new facilities and very large modifications to existing facilities both on private property and in the public rights-of-way. The FCC’s regulations contain a similar “deemed granted” remedy for less- than substantial collocations and modifications to existing facilities. In addition, the Small Cell Order establishes that a permitting agency’s failure to act within the referenced timeframes will amount to a presumptive prohibition on the provision of personal wireless services, the remedy for which may be a court injunction. • The city cannot deny an application because of perceived radio frequency health hazards. If federal standards are met, cities may not deny permits on the grounds that radio frequency emissions (RF) are harmful to the environment or to the health of residents. However, local governments may require wireless carriers to prove compliance with the standards. The FCC has established procedures to enforce compliance with its rules. • The city cannot deny, and shall approve, any eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station (Section 6409(a) non-substantial modifications). The FCC promulgated detailed regulations for this restriction, including a definition for “substantial change” and procedural rules for processing these applications, which can be found at 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.6100 et seq. • Certain collocation facilities are not subject to discretionary permit requirements. Under California Government Code section 65850.6, a collocation facility (where two or more wireless operators have located their antennas at a common location) shall be a permitted use not subject to discretionary permit requirements if it satisfies the requirements of that statute. • A decision to deny an application must be supported by substantial evidence. A decision to deny a WCF application must be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. The reasons for the denial must also be contained in a written record contemporaneously available with the written denial notice and must be clear enough to enable judicial review. Dec. 14, 2021 Item #16 Page 13 of 252Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 31 of 138 HEALTH CONCERNS & SAFEGUARDS: Possible health risks from exposure to the RF electromagnetic fields generated by WCFs are a significant community concern. Accordingly, the FCC requires facilities to comply with RF exposure guidelines published in the Code of Federal Regulations (see 47 CFR § 1.1307 and 47 CFR §1.1310). The limits of exposure established by the guidelines are designed to protect the public health with a very large margin of safety as they are approximately 50 times below the levels that generally are accepted as having the potential to cause a measurable change in human physiology. Both the Environmental Protection Agency and Food and Drug Administration have endorsed the FCC’s exposure limits, and courts have upheld the FCC rules requiring compliance with the limits. Most WCFs create maximum exposures that are only a small fraction of the limits. Furthermore, because the antennas in a PCS, cellular, or other wireless network operate more efficiently when in a line of sight arrangement to effectively transmit, their power is focused on the horizon instead of toward the sky or ground. Generally, unless a person is physically next to and at the same height as an antenna, it is not possible to be exposed to RF emissions that exceed the maximum permissible exposure. The FCC requires providers, upon license application, renewal, or modification, to demonstrate compliance with RF exposure guidelines. Where two or more wireless operators have located their antennas at a common location (called “collocation”), the total exposure from all antennas taken together must be within FCC guidelines. Many facilities are exempt from routine e compliance demonstrations under FCC guidelines, however, because their low power generation or height above ground level is highly unlikely to cause exposures that exceed the guidelines in areas accessible by people. PERMIT PROCESS: Wireless communication facilities (WCFs) are defined in Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.04.379. Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.42.140(B)(165) allows WCFs in all zones with the approval of a minor conditional use permit (MCUP) or a conditional use permit (CUP) and subject to this policy. New WCFs are allowed in the public right-of-way of roads (ROW) subject to the requirements of this policy and the processing requirements of Table A below. Small wireless facilities (SWFs) are WCFs that also meet the definition in FCC regulations at 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.6002(l). For WCFs and SWFs to be located in the public right-of-way of roads, which generally is not zoned, a right-of-way permit pursuant to Title 11 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code may be used as outlined in Table A – WCF and SWF Processing Requirements. Dec. 14, 2021 Item #16 Page 14 of 252Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 32 of 138 Table A – WCF and SWF Processing Requirements Category Code reference/ definition Application Review Process Coastal Zone and Coastal Development Permit (CDP) requirements Applicable Policy 64 Guidelines New WCFs on public or private property Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) Section 21.04.379 CUP or Minor CUP 1 CDP or Minor CDP required per CMC Chap. 21.201 unless specifically exempted A, B, D, and E New WCFs in the public right-of-way of roads CMC Section 21.04.379 ROW permit2, Minor CUP3 or CUP4 Exempt per CMC Section 21.201.B.115 A, B, D and E Existing WCF – Section 6409(a) eligible facilities request CMC Section 21.04.379 and 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a) Section 6409(a) worksheets Exempt per CMC Section 21.201.B.115 N/A – Policy 64 does not apply Existing WCF – Emergency Generators CMC Section 21.04.379 and Government Code Section 65850.75 Building Permit Exempt per CMC Section 21.201.B.115 N/A – Policy 64 does not apply Small Wireless Facilities (SWF) CMC Section 21.04.379 and the definition in FCC regulations at 47 C.F.R. § 1.6002(l) Within the public right- of-way of roads: Right-of- way Permit Exempt per CMC Section 21.201.B.115 C, D, and E Outside the public right- of-way of roads: MCUP Minor CDP required per CMC Chap. 21.201 unless specifically exempted5 B, C, D, and E Notes: 1. These guidelines apply in the review of CUPs or Minor CUPs for new WCFs. 2. A right of way permit shall be required instead of a CUP for a WCF that is (i) to be located on an existing or replacement pole, (ii) is consistent with the preferred locations in Location Guideline A.1 (or if in a discouraged location in Location Guideline A.2, has all equipment underground), and (iii) is consistent with Design Guidelines for WCFs in the Public Right- of-Way C 3. A minor CUP by Process 1 shall be required for a WCF that is (i) to be located on an existing or replacement pole, (ii) is in a discouraged location in Section A with above-ground equipment, and (iii) is consistent with Design Guidelines for WCFs in the Public Right-of-Way C 4. A CUP by Process 2 shall be required for all other WCFs not meeting the criteria for approval subject to a right of way permit or a minor CUP by process 1 5. When located within the city’s jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone. Dec. 14, 2021 Item #16 Page 15 of 252Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 33 of 138 REVIEW AND APPROVAL GUIDELINES A. Location Guidelines for Placement of WCFs (excluding SWFs) 1. Preferred Locations – WCFs are encouraged to locate on existing buildings and structures. In addition, WCFs should be located in the following zones and areas, which are listed in order of descending preference: a. Industrial zones. b. Commercial zones. c. Other non-residential zones, except open space. d. Public right-of-way of roads adjacent to industrial and commercial zones and identified on the map attached as Exhibit A. e. Public property (e.g., city facilities) not in residential areas. f. Major power transmission towers in non-residential zones or areas. g. Public and private utility installations (not publicly accessible) in residential and open space zones (e.g., water tanks, reservoirs, or the existing communication towers near Maerkle Reservoir). h. Parks and community facilities (e.g., places of worship, community centers) in residential zones or areas. i. Public right-of-way of roads adjacent to residential zones and identified on the map attached as Exhibit A. 2. Discouraged Locations – WCFs should not locate in any of the following zones or areas unless the applicant demonstrates that alternatives in more-preferred locations are not technically feasible or potentially available as required by Application and Review Guideline E.3. a. Open space zones and lots (except as noted in Location Guideline A.1.). b. Residential zones or areas (except as noted in Location Guideline A.1). c. Major power transmission towers in corridors located in/or next to a residential zone or area. d. Environmentally sensitive habitat. e. Public right-of-way of roads not identified on the map attached as Exhibit A. f. On vacant land. 3. Visibility to the Public – In all areas, WCFs should be located where least visible to the public and where least disruptive to the appearance of the host property. Furthermore, no WCF should be installed on an exposed ridgeline or in a location readily visible from a public place, recreation area, scenic area or residential area unless it is satisfactorily located and/or screened so it is hidden or disguised. 4. Collocation – Collocating with existing or other planned wireless communication facilities is recommended whenever feasible and appropriate. Service providers are also encouraged to collocate with water tanks, major power transmission and distribution towers, and other utility structures when in compliance with these guidelines. The city must approve collocation applications unless the expansion adds significantly to the height or width of a facility. Dec. 14, 2021 Item #16 Page 16 of 252Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 34 of 138 5. Monopoles – No new ground-mounted WCF monopoles should be permitted unless the applicant demonstrates no existing monopole, building, or structure can accommodate the applicant’s proposed antenna as required by Application and Review Guideline E.4. B. Design Guidelines for WCFs and SWFs Outside the Public Right-Of-Way of Roads 1. Stealth Design – All aspects of WCFs and SWFs, including the supports, antennas, screening methods, and equipment should exhibit “stealth” design techniques so they visually blend into the background or the surface on which they are mounted. Subject to city approval, developers should use false architectural elements (e.g., cupolas, bell towers, dormers, and chimneys), architectural treatments (e.g., colors, textures and materials), elements replicating natural features (e.g., trees and rocks), landscaping, and other creative means to hide or disguise the facilities. Stealth can also refer to facilities completely hidden by existing improvements, such as parapet walls. 2. Equipment – Equipment should be located within existing buildings to the extent feasible. If equipment must be located outside, it should be screened with walls and plants. If small outbuildings or extensions to existing structures are constructed specifically to house equipment, they should be designed and treated to match nearby architecture or the surrounding landscape. 3. Collocation – Whenever feasible and appropriate, design and placement should promote and enable collocation. 4. Height – facilities should adhere to the existing height limitations of the zone in which they are located. When installed on an existing structure, new facilities and collocations should not exceed the height of the existing/replacement structure on which they are being installed. 5. Setbacks – WCFs and SWFs, including all equipment and improvements, should adhere to the building setback requirements of the zone in which they are located, with the following clarifications: a. If on a site next to a residential zone, a setback should be maintained from the residential zone boundary a minimum distance equal to the above-ground height of the overall support structure’s height. b. If in a residential zone and in a public utility installation, park, or community facility, a setback should be maintained from the property boundaries of the utility installation, park, or community facility a minimum distance equal to the above-ground height of the overall support structure’s height. c. The decision-maker for WCFs may decrease or increase these setbacks if it finds such changes would improve the overall compatibility of the WCF based on the factors contained in Application and Review Guideline E.4. 6. Building or Structure-Mounted WCFs and SWFs – a. Antennas and their associated mountings should generally not project outward more than 24 inches from the face of the building. b. Roof-mounted antennas should be located as far away as possible from the outer edge of a building or structure and should not be placed on roof peaks. Dec. 14, 2021 Item #16 Page 17 of 252Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 35 of 138 c. If permitted, WCFs and SWFs on residential buildings should only be allowed if disguised as a typical residential feature (e.g., a chimney, a dormer) and if all equipment is located inside, not outside, the building. 7. Ground-mounted Monopole WCFs – a. All antennas should be mounted as close as possible to the monopole to improve facility appearance. b. The placement, screening, and disguise of the monopole should fit with the surrounding site design, architecture, and landscaping. Tree disguises, such as a “mono-palm,” may be acceptable depending on their quality and compatibility with landscaping nearby. c. Landscaping should be provided as necessary to screen, complement, or add realism to a monopole. Landscaping should include mature shrubs and trees. Some of the trees should be tall enough to screen at least three-quarters of the height of the monopole at the time of planting. Sometimes, landscaping may not be needed because of the monopole’s location or vegetation already nearby. d. When possible and in compliance with these guidelines, monopoles should be placed next to tall buildings, structures, or tall trees. 8. Pole mounted SWFs shall comply with the Design Guidelines in section C.2 of this policy as applicable, including height limits. 9. Lattice Towers – New lattice towers should not be permitted in the city. On existing lattice towers: a. All antennas should be mounted as close as possible to the tower so they are less noticeable, and should match the color of the tower. b. Wiring must be concealed in conduit that is flush-mounted to the tower. The conduit and mounting hardware shall match the color of the tower. c. Non-antenna equipment mounted on the tower should be placed behind the antennas to conceal them from view, and should be enclosed in a cabinet that matches the color and finish of the structures on which they are mounted. Ground mounted equipment shall comply with B.2 above. 10. Undergrounding – All utilities should be placed underground. 11. Regulatory Compliance – WCFs should comply with all FCC, FAA (Federal Aviation Administration), CPUC (California Public Utilities Commission) and local zoning and building code requirements. C. Design Guidelines for WCFs and SWFs in the Public Right-of-Way of Roads The general intent of these design and development standards is to preserve the character of the city’s neighborhoods and corridors by requiring WCFs and SWFs to utilize the least intrusive design available with regard to appearance, size, and location, and to blend into the existing streetscape as much as possible. They also seek to prevent conflict with existing and planned roadway, utility, and storm drain improvements. 1. Support pole installation preferences for the right-of-way of roads Dec. 14, 2021 Item #16 Page 18 of 252Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 36 of 138 a. The city prefers WCFs and SWFs to be installed on support poles in the public rights-of- way of roads, ordered from most preferred to least preferred, as follows: (1) Existing or replacement streetlight poles. (2) Existing or replacement wood utility poles. (3) Existing or replacement traffic signal poles. (4) New, non-replacement streetlight poles. (5) New, non-replacement poles (not wood). b. The city prohibits WCFs and SWFs facilities to be installed on the following support poles or structures: (1) Signs. (2) Any utility pole scheduled for removal or relocation within 12 months from the time the approval authority acts on the small wireless facility application. (3) New, non-replacement wood poles. (4) Pieces of public art, structures placed in the in the right-of-way through charitable donations, commemorative memorial structures or archways over roads and pedestrian walkways, or other similar structures as determined by the engineering manager. c. The engineering manager shall determine whether an application for a WCF or SWF utilizes the least intrusive design available or if there is a more preferred support pole type within 500 feet of the proposed location. For purposes of these guidelines, least intrusive design available means the most preferred design or development standard as provided in these Guidelines that is technically feasible. For individual antennas, shrouds/radomes, accessory equipment, mounting brackets/attachments and any other physical aspect of a facility, the city strongly prefers the smallest such item that is technically feasible. If the application does not propose the least intrusive design, or if there is a more preferred support pole within 500 feet, the application shall provide written evidence of the following: (1) A clearly defined technical service objective (2) A technical analysis that includes the factual reasons why the least intrusive design or a more preferred support pole type within 500 feet of the proposed location is not technically feasible. 2. Requirements applicable to all WCFs and SWFs in the public right-of-way of roads a. Overall height. WCFs and SWFs mounted to existing poles shall not exceed the height of a support pole by more than five feet measured from the top of the pole, except as necessary to comply with CPUC General Order 95 relating to utility poles. Replacement poles and new non-replacement poles shall not exceed the city height standards for streetlight poles or traffic signal poles, as applicable, by more than ten percent, plus five feet for the antenna. Replacement utility poles shall not exceed ten percent of the height of the existing utility pole, plus five feet for the antenna. b. Antenna stealth/concealment. The antenna(s) associated with the installation shall be stealth to the maximum extent feasible and concealed with a radome(s), shroud(s) or other cover(s) that also conceals the cable connections, antenna mount, and other hardware. The radome, shroud or other cover must be a flat, non-reflective color to match the underlying support structure. Dec. 14, 2021 Item #16 Page 19 of 252Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 37 of 138 c. Antenna size. (1) Each antenna shall not exceed 3 cubic feet in volume. (2) Top-mount antennas (including the shroud) shall be no more than 16 inches wide when placed on light poles, and shall not exceed the width of any wooden utility pole on which they are mounted. (3) Any top-mounted antennas which are wider than the light pole on which they are mounted shall be tapered to match the width of the pole at the point of attachment to the pole. d. Equipment location. Accessory equipment may be both pole mounted and non- pole mounted. Pole mounted limits are described in Section C.2.e , the balance located according to the following preference: (1) underground, (2) above ground and screened consistent with Section C.2.f. The city’s preferences is for non-pole mounted equipment to be placed underground to the extent possible, unless the applicant demonstrates that it is technically infeasible or there are conflicts with other utilities, obstructions or it is otherwise not feasible, as determined by the engineering manager. If undergrounding is not feasible, the city prefers the equipment to be pole-mounted. e. Pole mounted equipment. (1) Design and stealth/concealment. Accessory equipment must be stealth to the maximum extent feasible and/or concealed within a cabinet or shroud, and should be flush mounted and centered on the pole, except to the extent necessary to comply with CPUC General Order 95 for wood utility poles. The installation should be designed to minimize the overall visual profile, and installations that are partially or completely wrapped around the pole are encouraged. All equipment cabinets or shrouds shall be painted to match the color of the surface of the pole on which they are attached to reduce their visibility. Equipment may be installed behind street, traffic or other signs (between the pole and sign) to the extent that the installation complies with applicable regulations. All cables and conduits associated with the equipment shall be concealed from view within the same shroud or other cover and routed directly through the pole when feasible. Microwave or other wireless backhaul shall not have a separate and unconcealed antenna. (2) Size limits. All non-antenna equipment mounted to the pole is included in the equipment volume limit. Electric meters and disconnect switches that are mounted on the pole are not included in the equipment volume limit. All pole mounted non-antenna equipment, including cabinets, shall not exceed: (a). A width of 24 inches; and (b). Nine (9) cubic feet in volume if installed within or adjacent to a residential district or within 500 feet from any structure approved for a residential use; or (c). Seventeen (17) cubic feet in volume if installed within or adjacent to a non-residential district. f. Ground mounted equipment. If underground equipment is not feasible because there are conflicts with other utilities, obstructions or it is otherwise not technically feasible, as determined by the engineering manager per section (d) above, then all above ground equipment shall be: (1) placed in a ground-mounted Dec. 14, 2021 Item #16 Page 20 of 252Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 38 of 138 equipment shroud or cabinet that contains all equipment associated with the small wireless facility other than the antenna; and (2) set back at least 2.5 feet from the back of the curb and within the parkway or greenway or 2.5 feet back from the edge of the sidewalk when it is contiguous to the curb. All cables and conduits associated with the equipment shall be concealed from view, routed directly through the pole, and placed underground between the pole and the ground-mounted cabinet. All ground mounted equipment shall be stealth and/or screened completely, unless it is disguised to the satisfaction of the engineering manager. Volume limits for ground-mounted equipment shall be the same as applicable to pole-mounted equipment. The engineering manager may elect to waive volumetric limits for equipment that is installed or placed underground. g. All equipment associated with the WCF or SWF shall be located so as to avoid impacts to pedestrian access and vehicular site distance and safety. Pole mounted equipment should be mounted a minimum of eight feet above grade. h. To reduce clutter and deter vandalism, excess fiber optic or coaxial cables shall not be spooled, coiled, or otherwise stored on the pole unless concealed within a cabinet. i. If the proposed WCF or SWF would damage or displace any street trees or trees on public property, the applicant shall comply with CMC Chapter 11.12 and City Council Policy No. 4 and will be responsible for planting replacement trees to the satisfaction of the Parks & Recreation Director or designee. j. If an applicant proposes to replace a streetlight pole, the replacement pole should be substantially similar to the existing pole and comply with city standards and specifications for streetlight poles. 3. Supplemental requirements for WCFs and SWFs on New Poles for the right-of-way of roads a. All WCFs on new poles require a CUP by Process 2. b. Any new pole and/or equipment and other improvements associated with a new pole or an existing pole must be set back from intersections, alleys, and driveways and placed in locations where it will not obstruct motorists’ sight lines or pedestrian access. In general, there is a presumption of no obstruction where a new pole and/or equipment is set back at least: i. A minimum of 50-feet from the extension of the curb of the intersecting street at intersections. Distances of less than 50-feet may be allowed through approval of the engineering manager and the city traffic engineer; ii. Six feet from any driveway cut or alley entrance or exit; iii. Six feet from any permanent object or existing lawfully-permitted encroachment in the public right-of-way, including without limitation bicycle racks, traffic signs and signals, trees, open tree wells, benches or other street furniture, streetlights, door swings, gate swings, or sidewalk café enclosures. c. The city may, in its discretion, require an additional setback for a specific pole when the city determines that the presumptively acceptable setback would obstruct motorists’ sight lines or pedestrian access. d. The city may require the applicant to install a stealth pole, which may include without limitation functional streetlights and/or banners when technically feasible and the city determines that such additions would enhance the overall appearance and usefulness of the new pole. Dec. 14, 2021 Item #16 Page 21 of 252Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 39 of 138 e. The city will consider new pole designs proposed by an applicant if they meet the intent of this policy for stealth and attractive designs that adequately conceal equipment, as determined by the engineering manager. If a new pole without a streetlight is proposed, antennas and all equipment not installed underground must be concealed and integrated into the overall design of the pole, no exterior equipment boxes or shrouds attached to the pole will be permitted. 4. Areas with decorative streetlight poles. a. Replacement poles and new non-replacement poles installed within the following areas shall be substantially similar in color, style and design to the existing decorative streetlights, as determined by the engineering manager in consultation with the city planner. Poles in each area shall use a single consistent design theme to maintain the existing character established by existing streetlights: (1) Carlsbad Village (2) Villages of La Costa Master Plan (3) Bressi Ranch Master Plan (4) La Costa Master Plan (MP 149) (5) Various roads including El Camino Real and Aviara Parkway that utilize the mission bell streetlight design (6) Any other areas as determined by the city planner or engineering manager 5. Supplemental requirements for WCFs and SWFs on existing wood utility poles. a. All antennas must be installed within a radome, shroud or other cover mounted to the pole at the top, side, or on a stand-off bracket or extension arm that is attached to the pole. The city’s preference is for side-mounted antennas located in the communications space below the electric lines.2 b. All cables, wires and other connectors must be concealed within the antenna shroud, stand-off bracket/extension arm and conduit that is flush-mounted to the pole to the maximum extent feasible and of the smallest diameter and shortest length necessary to serve the facility. No loose, exposed, or dangling wiring or cables shall be allowed. c. All shrouds, conduit or other items stealth/concealing antennas, equipment and wires shall be painted to match the color of the pole. D. Performance Guidelines 1. Noise – All equipment, such as emergency generators and air conditioners, should be designed and operated consistent with the city noise standards. 2. Maintenance – All facilities, related equipment, and landscaping should be maintained in good condition and free from trash, debris, graffiti, and any form of vandalism. All required landscaping should be automatically irrigated. Damaged equipment and 2 Strand-mount antennas are also considered a preferred installation type. Dec. 14, 2021 Item #16 Page 22 of 252Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 40 of 138 damaged, dead, or decaying landscaping should be replaced promptly. Replacement of landscaping that provides facility screening should be, as much as possible, of similar size (including height), type, and screening capability at the time of planting as the plant(s) being replaced. 3. Maintenance Hours – Except in an emergency posing an immediate public health and safety threat, maintenance activities in or within 100 feet of a residential zone should only occur between 7 AM (8 AM on Saturdays) and sunset. Maintenance should not take place on Sundays or holidays. 4. Lighting – Security lighting should be kept to a minimum and should only be triggered by a motion detector where practical. 5. Compliance with laws and FCC RF Exposure Guidelines – The permittee shall maintain compliance at all times with all federal, state and local statutes, regulations, orders or other rules that carry the force of law (“laws”) applicable to the permittee, the subject property, the WCR, SWF or other infrastructure deployment or any use or activities in connection with the use authorized by a required permit, which includes without limitation any laws applicable to human exposure to RF emissions and any standards, specifications or other requirements identified by the city planner or engineering manager (such as, without limitation, those requirements affixed to a required permit). If the city planner or engineering manager finds good cause to believe that the facility is not in compliance with any laws applicable to human exposure to RF emissions, the city planner or engineering manager may require the permittee to submit a written report certified by a qualified radio frequency engineer familiar with the facility that certifies that the facility is in compliance with all such laws. The city planner or engineering manager may order the facility to be powered down if, based on objective evidence, the city planner or engineering manager finds that the facility is in fact not in compliance with any laws applicable to human exposure to RF emissions until such time that the permittee demonstrates actual compliance with such laws. The permittee expressly acknowledges and agrees that this obligation is intended to be broadly construed and that no other specific requirements in these conditions are intended to reduce, relieve or otherwise lessen the permittee’s obligations to maintain compliance with all laws. No failure or omission by the City to timely notice, prompt or enforce compliance with any applicable provision in the Carlsbad Municipal Code, this Policy, any permit, any permit condition or any applicable law or regulation, shall be deemed to relieve, waive or lessen the permittee’s obligation to comply in all respects with all applicable provisions in the Carlsbad Municipal Code, this Policy, any permit, any permit condition or any applicable law or regulation. . 6. Abandonment of antennas and equipment- Any WCF or SWF that is not operated for a continuous period of 180 days will be considered abandoned. Within 90 days of receipt of notice from the city notifying the owner of such abandonment, the facility owner must remove the facility and restore the site, as much as is reasonable and practical, to its prior condition. If such facility is not removed within the 90 days, the facility will be considered a nuisance and in addition to any other available remedy, will be subject to abatement under Chapter 6.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. If there are two or more users of a single WCF, then this provision will not become effective until all users stop using the Dec. 14, 2021 Item #16 Page 23 of 252Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 41 of 138 WCF. The provider or owner must give notice to the city of the intent to discontinue use of any facility before discontinuing the use. E. Application and Review Guidelines 1. Application requirements for WCFs. In addition to the typical submittal requirements for a CUP or Minor CUP (see Planning Division Form P-2), right-of-way permit or building permit (including plans, landscape details, and color and material samples, as appropriate), all WCF applications shall include the following items: a. A description of the site selection process undertaken for the WCF proposed. Technical service objectives and the reasons for selecting the proposed site and rejecting other sites should be provided. b. A description or map of the applicant’s existing and other proposed sites. c. A description of the wireless system proposed (e.g., cellular, PCS, etc.) and its consumer features (e.g., voice, video, and data transmissions). d. Verification that the proposed WCF will either comply with the FCC’s guidelines for human exposure to RF electromagnetic fields or will be categorically excluded from having to determine compliance with the guidelines per 47 CFR §1.1307(b)(1). If WCFs are proposed for collocation, the verification must show the total exposure from all facilities taken together meets the FCC guidelines. The applicant shall submit an RF exposure compliance report that certifies that the proposed facility, both individually and cumulatively as applicable under 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(b)(5), will comply with applicable federal RF exposure standards and exposure limits. e. Color photo-simulation exhibits, prepared to scale, of the proposed WCF to show what the project would look like at its proposed location and from surrounding viewpoints. The city planner or engineering manager may waive the requirement to provide the exhibits if he/she determines they are unnecessary. f. Provide confirmation that an environmental assessment, or other application determination, has been completed by or on behalf of the FCC for any facility proposed in a location identified in 47 C.F.R. 1.307 (including a floodplain) or as otherwise required by National Environmental Policy Act or the National Historic Preservation Act. 2. Application requirements for SWFs. In addition to the typical submittal requirements for a right-of-way permit or building permit (including plans, landscape details, and color and material samples, as appropriate), all SWF applications shall include the following items: a. A description of the wireless system proposed (e.g., cellular, PCS, etc.) and its consumer features (e.g., voice, video, and data transmissions). b. For new poles that are least preferred, a description of the site selection process undertaken for the proposed SWF. A technical service objective and the reasons for selecting the proposed site and rejecting other sites should be provided. c. Verification that the proposed SWF will either comply with the FCC’s guidelines for human exposure to RF electromagnetic fields or will be categorically excluded from having to determine compliance with the guidelines per 47 CFR §1.1307(b)(1). The applicant shall submit an RF exposure compliance report that certifies that the proposed facility, both individually and cumulatively as Dec. 14, 2021 Item #16 Page 24 of 252Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 42 of 138 applicable under 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(b)(5), will comply with applicable federal RF exposure standards and exposure limits. d. Color photo-simulation exhibits, prepared to scale, of the proposed WCF to show what the project would look like at its proposed location and from surrounding viewpoints. The city planner or engineering manager may waive the requirement to provide the exhibits if he/she determines they are unnecessary. e. Environmental impact assessment form to determine whether the proposed project is categorically exempt under Article 19 of the CEQA Guidelines, or whether the proposed project will require a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report. In addition, provide confirmation that an environmental assessment, or other application determination, has been completed by or on behalf of the FCC for any facility proposed in a location identified in 47 C.F.R. 1.307 (including a floodplain) or as otherwise required by National Environmental Policy Act or the National Historic Preservation Act. 3. For WCFs proposed in a zone or area that is a discouraged WCF location as listed in Location Guideline A.2., the applicant shall provide evidence that no location in a preferred zone or area as listed in Location Guideline A.1. is technically feasible or potentially available to accommodate the applicant’s proposed facility. Evidence should document that preferred zone or area locations do not meet engineering, coverage, location, or height requirements, or have other unsuitable limitations. 4. For proposed new ground-mounted monopole WCFs, the applicant shall also provide evidence to the city’s satisfaction that no existing monopole, building, structure, or WCF site (“existing facility”) could accommodate the proposal. Evidence should demonstrate any of the following: a. No existing facility is located within the geographic area or provides the height or structural strength needed to meet the applicant’s engineering requirements. b. The applicant’s proposed WCF would cause electromagnetic interference with the existing antennae array or vice versa. c. The fees, costs, or contractual provisions required by the owner to locate on an existing facility or to modify the same to enable location are unreasonable. Costs exceeding new monopole development are presumed to be unreasonable. d. The applicant demonstrates to the decision-maker’s (Planning Commission or city planner) satisfaction that there are other limiting factors that render an existing facility unsuitable. 5. In approving a WCF or SWF, the decision-maker (Planning Commission, city planner or engineering manager) shall make the findings in Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.42.020 if applicable, and shall give consideration to the following factors: a. Compliance with these guidelines. b. Height and setbacks. c. Proximity to residential uses. d. The nature of uses on adjacent and nearby properties. e. Surrounding topography and landscaping. f. Quality and compatibility of design and screening. g. Impacts on public views and the visual quality of the surrounding area. Dec. 14, 2021 Item #16 Page 25 of 252Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 43 of 138 h. Availability of other facilities and buildings for collocation. 6. Conditional Use Permits (CUPs)/Minor CUPs for WCFs shall be granted for a period not to exceed ten years unless public safety reasons and/or substantial land use reasons justify a shorter term. A WCF that is decommissioned, discontinued, or otherwise abandoned by the owner or operator for a continuous one-year period is subject to revocation under Section 21.42.120 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Upon a request for either an extension or an amendment of a CUP or Minor CUP, the WCF will be reevaluated to assess the impact of the facility on adjacent properties, the record of maintenance and performance with reference to the conditions of approval, and consistency with these guidelines. Additionally, the city will review the appropriateness of the existing facility’s design, and that the applicant documented that the WCF maintains the design that is the smallest, most efficient, and least visible and that there are not now more appropriate and available locations for the facility, such as the opportunity to collocate or relocate to an existing building. 7. Collocation for WCFs. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65850.6, qualifying collocation facilities for WCFs shall not be approved with a conditional use permit or conditional use permit amendment. This section does not apply to SWFs. a. For the purposes of collocation, the following definitions apply: (1) “Collocation facility” means the placement or installation of WCFs, including antennas, and related equipment, on or immediately adjacent to, a wireless telecommunications collocation facility. (2) “Wireless telecommunications facility” means equipment and network emergency power systems that are integral to providing wireless telecommunications services. (3) “Wireless telecommunications collocation facility” or “WTCF” means a wireless telecommunications facility that includes Collocation facilities. b. A building permit shall be required for a proposed WCF Collocation facility which will be placed on a previously approved WTCF provided that: (1) The new WCF Collocation facility is consistent with requirements for the existing WTCF installation; and (2) The modification of an existing wireless tower or base station does not physically change the dimensions of such tower or base station. c. Approval of an application to construct or reconstruct a WCF wireless facility shall not require an escrow deposit for removal of the WCF Collocation facility or any component thereof. d. Notwithstanding subsection (b) above, the city may require a performance bond or other surety or another form of security if the amount required is rationally related to the cost of removal. 8. Applications from a single provider of wireless communication services for up to 10 SWF permits may be batched and processed together. A single provider may not submit more than one batch of applications at one time. Batched applications will only be accepted prior to 4:00pm Monday through Thursday. Dec. 14, 2021 Item #16 Page 26 of 252Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 44 of 138 9. Applications must be submitted in-person and with an appointment. Application materials delivered by U.S. mail or other delivery service will not be processed and do not constitute a submitted and duly filed application. An application is not considered duly filed and submitted unless it is provided in-person to a representative of the Community Development Department and assigned a case number or permit number as appropriate. 10. SWFs that propose to use an existing pole, replacement pole or other existing structure shall be required to provide authorization from the pole or structure owner. Authorization may include signatures, letters, agreements or other similar methods acceptable to the city planner or engineering manager. Authorization from the owner in connection with joint utility poles may be evidenced by documentation that shows that authorization has been granted in accordance with the joint pole committee’s rules, which may include authorization deemed granted by lapse of time. 11. Exceptions to this policy. The city may grant an exception to the requirements of this policy but only to the extent necessary to avoid conflict with applicable federal or state law. When the applicant requests an exception, the approval authority shall consider the findings in subsection (a) of this section. Each exception is specific to the facts and circumstances in connection with each application. An exception granted in one instance shall not be deemed to create a presumption or expectation that an exception will be granted in any other instance. a. The decision maker may grant an exception to any provision or requirement in this policy only if the decision maker finds that: (1) A denial based on the application’s noncompliance with a specific provision or requirement would violate federal law, state law or both; or (2) A provision in this policy, as applied to the applicant, would violate any rights or privileges conferred on the applicant by federal or state law. b. If the decision maker finds that an exception should be granted, the exception shall be narrowly tailored so that the exception deviates from this policy to least extent necessary for compliance with federal or state law. c. The applicant shall have the burden to prove to the decision maker that an exception should be granted pursuant to this section. The standard of evidence shall be the same as required by applicable federal or state law for the issue raised in the applicant’s request for an exception. 12. Pre-Application Meetings. Federal laws and policies establish time limitations (referred to as a “shot clock”) related to processing of all types of WCFs and SWFs permits. The city is required to act on a WCF or SWF permit within the established shot clock timeframes. Pre-application meetings are strongly encouraged in order to ensure that proposed facilities comply with the requirements of these Guidelines and that application materials include adequate and accurate information. A pre-application meeting is voluntary and is intended to streamline the review process through informal discussion between the potential applicant and staff that includes, without limitation, the appropriate project classification and review process; any latent issues in connection with the proposed project, including compliance with generally applicable rules for public health and safety; potential concealment issues or concerns (if applicable); coordination with other city Dec. 14, 2021 Item #16 Page 27 of 252Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 45 of 138 departments responsible for application review; and any foreseen application completeness issues. 13. Pre-approved designs. To expedite the review process, encourage collaborative designs among applicants and the city, and ensure cohesive and high-quality designs for new or replacement poles in areas such as those with decorative streetlights, the engineering manager in consultation with the city planner, may designate one or more pre-approved designs for small wireless facilities and other infrastructure deployments. a. Any applicant may propose a design for consideration as a pre-approved design. The city may, in its discretion, establish a pre-approved design when the proposed pre-approved design exceeds the design guidelines in this policy. b. The city may modify or repeal any pre-approved design by written notice to any applicants who have used the pre-approved design, and by posting the notice at the Land Use Engineering counter. The modification or repeal shall be effective immediately. c. Any applicant may propose to use any pre-approved design whether the applicant initially requested that the city adopt such pre-approved design or not. The city’s decision to adopt a preapproved design expresses no preference or requirement that applicants use the specific vendor or manufacturer that fabricated the design depicted in the pre-approved plans. Any other vendor or manufacturer that fabricates a facility to the standards and specifications in the pre-approved design with like materials, finishes and overall quality shall be acceptable as a pre-approved design. 14. A master license agreement or other authorization is required prior to permit submittals for WCF or SWF installations that will locate on city-owned property or facilities. 15. At the time of filing the application, the applicant shall pay all applicable fees contained in the most recent fee schedule adopted by the city council. 16. An applicant may voluntarily elect to defer submittal of any permit or agreement which is otherwise required as part of a whole application. The voluntary deferral of any such permit or agreement shall toll the shot clock on that item. Once the voluntarily deferred item is received, the city will provide comments on any deferred submittal in the same manner as if it was a new application. The city will continue to process all other permits and agreements that are not deferred. SEVERABILITY: If any sections, subsections, sentence, clause, or phrase of the policy is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision or legislation of any court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of preemptive legislation, such decision or legislation shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the policy. The City Council declares that it would have approved this policy, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more of the sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases thereof is declared invalid or unconstitutional. These Guidelines have been adopted, and may be amended, by resolution of the City Council. Revisions to address clerical errors may be made administratively by the Director of Community Development. Dec. 14, 2021 Item #16 Page 28 of 252Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 46 of 138 10590 WEST OCEAN AIR DRIVE / SUITE 300 / SAN DIEGO, CA 92130 May 1, 2023 To: From: City of Carlsbad Harold Thomas Jr, MD7,LLC Planning Development Services obo. AT&T Wireless Department 10590 W. Ocean Air Drive, Suite 250 1635 Faraday Ave., San Diego, CA 92130 Carlsbad, CA 92008 (858) 750- 1798 hthomasjr@md7.com Alterna�ve Site Analysis Report Development Approval for a New Wireless Telecommunica�on Facility Project Descrip�on: AT&T is seeking Development Approval to allow for the construc�on of a new Telecommunica�ons facility to be located at 6600 Hidden Valley Rd., Carlsbad, CA 92011. The APN for the address is 214-140-13-00 and within an OS zone in the Hidden Valley Road Community. The proposed facility will be a 78-foot-tall light pole that will replace the (e) light pole C3. AT&T aims to establish compliance by insta�ng en�tlements for this facility following the guidelines outlined by the city. This proposed facility will also meet all guidelines and regula�ons that the FCC has outlined for telecommunica�ons facili�es. AT&T has also looked for viable alterna�ves in both design and loca�on to ensure that the facility best supports the community. We will be installing the 78-foot-tall tower along with an 8- foot-high CMU wall equipment enclosure. As well as the installa�on of: (2) panel antennas per sector for a total of (6), (9) Remote Radio Units, (3) surge protectors at the antenna area, (2) surge protectors in equipment enclosure area, (1) VERTIV DC Power Cabinet, (2) Purcell Cabinets, (1) GPS Antenna, (1) Generator, (2) Fiber Cable Trunks and (9) DC power cable trunks. Along with the installa�on of a Telco / Fiber Service, and a 200A Electrical Power Service. Candidate #1 - Industrial When evalua�ng poten�al candidates to build a cell tower, AT&T sought to establish a tower within one of the City of Carlsbad’s preferred zones. Beginning with an industrial zone, as the primary target. However, as we were researching thorough the city’s, city map, we were unable to locate an industrial zone where our tower would be suitable. This is largely because, loca�ons in industrial zones had dependable coverage. As a result, we were unable to proceed further with the establishment of a cell site. Exhibit 6 Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 47 of 138 MD7 10590 WEST OCEAN AIR DRIVE / SUITE 300 / SAN DIEGO, CA 92130 Candidate #2 - Commercial AT&T had considered a site located at 901 Palomar Airport Road. With the site being in a C-T-Q zone, AT&T would be within one of the ci�es preferred zones for wireless telecommunica�on facili�es. The proximity of the freeway along with the local businesses were appealing, as the facility would be able to provide them with dependable coverage. However, upon further review of the site the loca�on of the project was no longer feasible. There was no feasible loca�on as to where we could have placed our facility due to there being no room on the site. A roo�op facility was also proposed as an op�on for the site, however the property owner ul�mately declined. In addi�on, when comparing differences in eleva�on, this site would have been lower than the proposed site by 73 feet. This would compromise and strain the coverage even further. A�er much discussion, AT&T withdrew interest in proceeding forward with the site. Candidate #3 - Other non-residential zones, except open space AT&T had also considered, when establishing a cell site would have been at the Carlsbad Car Rental Center at 6030 Avenida Encinas Suite E. As we looked at this site, it looked promising as it was s�ll within the top sites that the city would prefer for a cell site to be located. During our outreach we proposed our ini�al idea to the property owner. However, despite nego�a�ons they property owner was not interested in having a cell site on their property. In addi�on to the coverage report maps, produced by our RF engineer, establishing a site at this loca�on would not have been the best use of resources. As this loca�on had a fair amount of exis�ng coverage. Thereby adding a site here would have, done litle to improve an already fair amount of coverage. In turn, having a cell site established for the sake of having a site. Candidate #4 – Public right-of-way of roads adjacent to industrial and commercial zones The next site that AT&T was considering was located at parcel number 214-010-95-00. With the site being located within a P.U. (public u�lity) zone, AT&T would be within one of the ci�es preferred zones for wireless telecommunica�ons facili�es. Similar to the previous site this loca�on, this site would have been located near the San Diego Freeway. Unlike the previous candidate, this loca�on provided various places to where we would be able to construct our standalone structure. As a result, we brought our proposal to the property owner. However, we were unable to proceed with the candidate. The property owner declined our proposal as they were uninterested in having a cell tower at their site. Candidate #5 – Public Property (i.e City Facilities) not in residential areas AT&T had also considered placing a facility at Aviara Community Park as a poten�al candidate for the cell tower. Like the loca�on that we are proposing, this park is a city owned property. While this site garnered some interest, we were unable to pursue this site as a viable candidate. Upon review of our coverage maps as provided by the RF engineer, this area was already doing fairly well in coverage. Therefore, if we were to proceed to establish a site here it would not be mee�ng any objec�ve in assis�ng the community. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 48 of 138 MD7 Candidate #6 - Major power transmission towers in non-resident AT&T had also sought to collocate onto an exis�ng facility located at 5800 The Crossings Dr. The site would have been located within a preferred zone and would have been a city owned property as well. However, like the previous sites, the site would have been in a site that was doing well in coverage. This site would have been located outside of the Target Area that AT&T had established when determining viable candidate op�ons. As a result we were unable to proceed with this site as a viable op�on. Candidate #7 – Public and private utility installations (not publicly accessible) in residential and open spaces (i.e water tanks, reservoirs, or the existing communication towers near Maerkle River AT&T had also sought opportuni�es to locate onto a private u�lity installa�on located at 705 Palomar Airport Rd. Similar to candidate 4 this site would have been located near the I-5 Freeway. The site was located towards the edges of the desired Target search area; however, it was a viable candidate for a cell tower. However, upon further review of the site, we were unable to proceed with the site as a viable candidate. Given how close the site would have been to the shoreline, there would have been an eleva�onal disadvantage than the proposed site loca�on. Where Poinse�a Park has an eleva�on of 175 feet, this loca�on has an eleva�on of roughly 63-feet. With a significant eleva�onal disadvantage of a litle over half, we were unable to proceed with this site as a viable candidate. Alternate Site #8 – Public right-of-way of roads adjacent to residential zones AT&T had also sought opportuni�es to locate onto a public right-of-way road, along Paseo El Norte. This loca�on would have closer within the target area. However, this site would not have been a viable op�on as the loca�on also presented eleva�onal disadvantage. The proposed site has an elevation of 168 compared to the 63-foot elevation that we would have if we moved to the roadway along Paseo El Norte. Leading to a 105 foot disadvantage. Therefore we were unable to proceed with this location. Conclusion AT&T chose the site at 6600 Hidden Valley Road for numerous factors. The proposed site was located within an open space zone. This site also provided the possibility of a stealth design; an aspect that was not easily available with the previous sites. With every proposed site AT&T wanted to ensure that any structure they produced, would serve to its maximum poten�al. That whatever height was proposed, it would be to a height that would integrate to the exis�ng landscape to avoid distrac�on and serve to its poten�al, and not for greed. As we evaluated the area, we no�ced the exis�ng light poles and sought a design that would integrate with the exis�ng features in the area. Before we decided to proceed with this candidate, we contacted City of Carlsbad to present our proposal. As we presented our proposal, and how it would be beneficial to the community. In addi�on, the tower would implement a stealth design. The Na�onal Ins�tute of Health’s Wireless Subs�tu�on Report for the second half of 2020 es�mates that 65.3% of adults and 75.5% of children live in wireless- only homes (htps://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/wireless202108-508.pdf), and it is es�mated that in many areas of the US, 80% or more of 911 calls are made from a wireless device (htps://www.nena.org/page/911Sta�s�cs). Enhanced wireless also allows businesses to flourish, from being able to have a media presence to person-to-person sales and banking apps that are common on smartphones. While AT&T prides itself on providing dependable 10590 WEST OCEAN AIR DRIVE / SUITE 300 / SAN DIEGO, CA 92130 Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 49 of 138 MD7 10590 WEST OCEAN AIR DRIVE / SUITE 300 / SAN DIEGO, CA 92130 connec�vity, in a manner that respects the landscape and is beneficial for residents. Our site will be able to best serve: the neighboring residences, Poinse�a Kinder Care and Pacific Rim Elementary School, Carlsbad Fire Sta�on 4, and nearby local businesses. Our site will allow people to work remotely from home because it can enhance connec�vity through phone hotspots if service is dependable. This is less �me on the road, greater flexibility, and a consistent connec�ve source. When we created our coverage map, our priority was to ensure that the height and loca�on we chose, will be following the exis�ng standards governing health safety, and welfare. The facility will be engineered and constructed in accordance the standards in effect at the �me of building permit applica�on, including current building, fire, energy, mechanical and structural codes. The city will have the opportunity to review plans and verify the correct standards are applied. Candidate(s) Loca�on Site Map Coverage Map Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 50 of 138 • \;C::a::.n::d::id::a::te:..:#:.:3:.._---1 ·,"."" 9 l i'btt, (:Ul•(J'Tl~M/'"f•l'I~ ' lfGOLl!,J,jCCll!orlll~ MD7 • <c---iCandidate #6 J i \~ C~•~C~~~lo 9 /(Jf'.o,<'I ~·ichP~ :,o 1,.... ._; AVIARA ~t•Ln ,,.,., ~ 9 PA<III.Oll~s ~ McClel ~-(J c·~1t)' ~._.,i.t., ' Candidate #5 10590 WEST OCEAN AIR DRIVE / SUITE 300 / SAN DIEGO, CA 92130 Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 51 of 138 MD7 CAL01850 Existing Coverage Existing coverage with project at 56 ft • • CAL01850 Existing Coverage Single site coverage 56 ft \ \ 10590 WEST OCEAN AIR DRIVE / SUITE 300 / SAN DIEGO, CA 92130 Please let me know if you have any ques�ons or concerns. Best, Harold Thomas Jr Land Use-I hthomasjr@md7.com (858) 750-1798 Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 52 of 138 MD7 Solutions Done RightSolutions Done Right 6600 "A" HIDDEN VALLEY RD., CARLSBAD, CA 92011 CAL01850 POINSETTIA PARK SITESITE LOCATION Hi d d e n v a l l e y R d VIEW 1 VIEW 4 VIEW 2 VIEW 3 Beacon Bay Dr Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 53 of 138 Exh ibmt 7 ~ MDr TELECOM MANAGEMENT GROUP SOUTHEAST VIEW LOOKING NORTHWEST (E) ±78'-0" HIGH LIGHT POLE TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED (E) LIGHTING FIXTURES TO BE RELOCATED (E) TRASH ENCLOSURE TO BE REMOVED Solutions Done RightSolutions Done Right 6600 "A" HIDDEN VALLEY RD., CARLSBAD, CA 92011 CAL01850 POINSETTIA PARK VIEW 1 EXISTING PROPOSED (N) AT&T PANEL ANTENNAS WITHIN THE (N) 4'-0"Ø CYLINDRICAL SHROUD, MOUNTED TO THE (N) POLE RELOCATED (E) LIGHTING FIXTURES (N) ±78'-0" HIGH LIGHT POLE (N) AT&T 8'-0" HIGH CMU WALL ENCLOSURE, COLOR AND TEXTURE MATCHING THE ADJACENT (E) MAINTENANCE BUILDING Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 54 of 138 MD? ~at&t SOUTH VIEW LOOKING NORTH Solutions Done RightSolutions Done Right 6600 "A" HIDDEN VALLEY RD., CARLSBAD, CA 92011 CAL01850 POINSETTIA PARK VIEW 2 EXISTING PROPOSED (E) LIGHTING FIXTURES TO BE RELOCATED RELOCATED (E) LIGHTING FIXTURES (N) ±78'-0" HIGH LIGHT POLE (N) AT&T 8'-0" HIGH CMU WALL ENCLOSURE, COLOR AND TEXTURE MATCHING THE ADJACENT (E) MAINTENANCE BUILDING (N) AT&T PANEL ANTENNAS WITHIN THE (N) 4'-0"Ø CYLINDRICAL SHROUD, MOUNTED TO THE (N) POLE (E) ±78'-0" HIGH LIGHT POLE TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED (E) TRASH ENCLOSURE TO BE REMOVED Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 55 of 138 MD? ~at&t WEST VIEW LOOKING EAST Solutions Done RightSolutions Done Right 6600 "A" HIDDEN VALLEY RD., CARLSBAD, CA 92011 CAL01850 POINSETTIA PARK VIEW 3 EXISTING PROPOSED (E) LIGHTING FIXTURES TO BE RELOCATED RELOCATED (E) LIGHTING FIXTURES (N) ±78'-0" HIGH LIGHT POLE (N) AT&T PANEL ANTENNAS WITHIN THE (N) 4'-0"Ø CYLINDRICAL SHROUD, MOUNTED TO THE (N) POLE (E) ±78'-0" HIGH LIGHT POLE TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 56 of 138 MD? ~at&t -r=------=-----=-----=----=--~-======-=-==============---=---=---=----=----==___., EAST VIEW LOOKING WEST Solutions Done RightSolutions Done Right 6600 "A" HIDDEN VALLEY RD., CARLSBAD, CA 92011 CAL01850 POINSETTIA PARK VIEW 4 EXISTING PROPOSED (E) LIGHTING FIXTURES TO BE RELOCATED RELOCATED (E) LIGHTING FIXTURES (N) ±78'-0" HIGH LIGHT POLE (N) AT&T 8'-0" HIGH CMU WALL ENCLOSURE, COLOR AND TEXTURE MATCHING THE ADJACENT (E) MAINTENANCE BUILDING (N) AT&T PANEL ANTENNAS WITHIN THE (N) 4'-0"Ø CYLINDRICAL SHROUD, MOUNTED TO THE (N) POLE (E) ±78'-0" HIGH LIGHT POLE TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED (E) TRASH ENCLOSURE TO BE REMOVED Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 57 of 138 MD? ~at&t cs 7 4 Radio Frequency – Electromagnetic Energy (RF-EME) Jurisdictional Report Site Name: FA#: USID: Site ID: Address: Latitude: Longitude: Structure Type: RFDS ID: RFDS Technology: EBI Project Number: Report Date: Pace Job: Poinsettia Park 14292179 321857 CAL01850 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Road Carlsbad, California 92011 San Diego County 33.11390200 NAD83 -117.30756700 NAD83 Light Pole 5662803 eNode B 6222005431 October 25, 2023 MRSDL022412, MRSDL028406, MRSDL028395, MRSDL022409, MRSDL018605, MRSDL040392, MRSDL040393 The proposed AT&T installation will be in compliance with FCC regulations upon proper installation of recommended signage. Prepared for: AT&T Mobility, LLC c/o MD7, LLC 10590 West Ocean Air Drive, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92130 Prepared by: Exhibit 8 Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 58 of 138 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 321857 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 i TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.0 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (FCC) REQUIREMENTS ................................... 3 2.0 AT&T RF EXPOSURE POLICY REQUIREMENTS .................................................................... 5 3.0 WORST-CASE PREDICTIVE MODELING ................................................................................. 5 4.0 RECOMMENDED SIGNAGE/COMPLIANCE PLAN .................................................................... 7 5.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................. 8 6.0 LIMITATIONS ......................................................................................................................... 8 APPENDICES Appendix A Personnel Certifications Appendix B Compliance/Signage Plan Appendix C Antenna Inventory Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 59 of 138 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 321857 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Purpose of Report EnviroBusiness Inc. (dba EBI Consulting) has been contracted by AT&T Mobility, LLC to conduct radio frequency electromagnetic (RF-EME) modeling for AT&T Site CAL01850 located at 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Road in Carlsbad, California to determine RF-EME exposure levels from proposed AT&T wireless communications equipment at this site. As described in greater detail in Section 1.0 of this report, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has developed Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) Limits for general public exposures and occupational exposures. This report summarizes the results of RF-EME modeling in relation to relevant FCC RF-EME compliance standards for limiting human exposure to RF-EME fields. This report contains the RF EME analysis for the site, including the following: ▪ Site Plan with antenna locations ▪ Graphical representation of theoretical MPE fields based on modeling ▪ Graphical representation of recommended signage and/or barriers This document addresses the compliance of AT&T’s transmitting facilities independently and in relation to all collocated facilities at the site. Statement of Compliance A site is considered out of compliance with FCC regulations if there are areas that exceed the FCC exposure limits and there are no RF hazard mitigation measures in place. Any carrier which has an installation that contributes more than 5% of the applicable MPE must participate in mitigating these RF hazards. As presented in the sections below, based on worst-case predictive modeling, there are no modeled exposures on any accessible light fixture level and ground walking/working surface related to ATT’s proposed antennas that exceed the FCC’s occupational and/or general public exposure limits at this site. As such, the proposed AT&T installation is in compliance with FCC regulations upon proper installation of recommended signage and/or barriers. AT&T Recommended Signage/Compliance Plan AT&T’s RF Exposure: Responsibilities, Procedures & Guidelines document, dated October 28, 2014, requires that: 1. All sites must be analyzed for RF exposure compliance; 2. All sites must have that analysis documented; and 3. All sites must have any necessary signage and barriers installed. Site compliance recommendations have been developed based upon protocols presented in AT&T’s RF Exposure: Responsibilities, Procedures & Guidelines document, dated October 28, 2014, additional guidance provided by AT&T, EBI’s understanding of FCC and OSHA requirements, and common industry practice. Barrier locations have been identified (when required) based on guidance presented in AT&T’s RF Exposure: Responsibilities, Procedures & Guidelines document, dated October 28, 2014. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 60 of 138 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 321857 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 2 The following signage is recommended at this site: ▪ Yellow 7 by 7 inch CAUTION signs on opposite sides of the light pole, 6 feet below the bottom of the antennas. Signs should denote a stay-back distance of 44 feet from the face of the antennas. The signage proposed for installation at this site complies with AT&T’s RF Exposure: Responsibilities, Procedures & Guidelines document and therefore complies with FCC and OSHA requirements. Barriers are not recommended on this site. To reduce the risk of exposure and/or injury, EBI recommends that access to the light pole or areas associated with the active antenna installation be restricted and secured where possible. More detailed information concerning site compliance recommendations is presented in Section 4.0 and Appendix B of this report. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 61 of 138 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 321857 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 3 1.0 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (FCC) REQUIREMENTS The FCC has established Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) limits for human exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic (RF-EME) energy fields, based on exposure limits recommended by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) and, over a wide range of frequencies, the exposure limits developed by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) and adopted by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) to replace the 1982 ANSI guidelines. Limits for localized absorption are based on recommendations of both ANSI/IEEE and NCRP. The FCC guidelines incorporate two separate tiers of exposure limits that are based upon occupational/controlled exposure limits (for workers) and general public/uncontrolled exposure limits for members of the general public. Occupational/controlled exposure limits apply to situations in which persons are exposed as a consequence of their employment and in which those persons who are exposed have been made fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over their exposure. Occupational/ controlled exposure limits also apply where exposure is of a transient nature as a result of incidental passage through a location where exposure levels may be above general public/uncontrolled limits (see below), as long as the exposed person has been made fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over his or her exposure by leaving the area or by some other appropriate means. General public/uncontrolled exposure limits apply to situations in which the general public may be exposed or in which persons who are exposed as a consequence of their employment may not be made fully aware of the potential for exposure or cannot exercise control over their exposure. Therefore, members of the general public would always be considered under this category when exposure is not employment-related, for example, in the case of a telecommunications tower that exposes persons in a nearby residential area. Table 1 and Figure 1 (below), which are included within the FCC’s OET Bulletin 65, summarize the MPE limits for RF emissions. These limits are designed to provide a substantial margin of safety. They vary by frequency to take into account the different types of equipment that may be in operation at a particular facility and are “time-averaged” limits to reflect different durations resulting from controlled and uncontrolled exposures. The FCC’s MPEs are measured in terms of power (mW) over a unit surface area (cm2). Known as the power density, the FCC has established an occupational MPE of 5 milliwatts per square centimeter (mW/cm2) and an uncontrolled MPE of 1 mW/cm2 for equipment operating in the 1900 MHz frequency range. For the AT&T equipment operating at 850 MHz, the FCC’s occupational MPE is 2.83 mW/cm2 and an uncontrolled MPE of 0.57 mW/cm2. For the AT&T equipment operating at 700 MHz, the FCC’s occupational MPE is 2.33 mW/cm2 and an uncontrolled MPE of 0.47 mW/cm2. These limits are considered protective of these populations. Table 1: Limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) (A) Limits for Occupational/Controlled Exposure Frequency Range (MHz) Electric Field Strength (E) (V/m) Magnetic Field Strength (H) (A/m) Power Density (S) (mW/cm2) Averaging Time [E]2, [H]2, or S (minutes) 0.3-3.0 614 1.63 (100)* 6 3.0-30 1842/f 4.89/f (900/f2)* 6 30-300 61.4 0.163 1.0 6 300-I,500 -- -- f/300 6 1,500-100,000 -- -- 5 6 Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 62 of 138 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 321857 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 4 (B) Limits for General Public/Uncontrolled Exposure Frequency Range (MHz) Electric Field Strength (E) (V/m) Magnetic Field Strength (H) (A/m) Power Density (S) (mW/cm2) Averaging Time [E]2, [H]2, or S (minutes) 0.3-1.34 614 1.63 (100)* 30 1.34-30 824/f 2.19/f (180/f2)* 30 30-300 27.5 0.073 0.2 30 300-I,500 -- -- f/1,500 30 1,500-100,000 -- -- 1.0 30 f = Frequency in (MHz) * Plane-wave equivalent power density Based on the above, the most restrictive thresholds for exposures of unlimited duration to RF energy for several personal wireless services are summarized below: Personal Wireless Service Approximate Frequency Occupational MPE Public MPE Microwave (Point-to-Point) 5,000 - 80,000 MHz 5.00 mW/cm2 1.00 mW/cm2 Broadband Radio (BRS) 2,600 MHz 5.00 mW/cm2 1.00 mW/cm2 Wireless Communication (WCS) 2,300 MHz 5.00 mW/cm2 1.00 mW/cm2 Advanced Wireless (AWS) 2,100 MHz 5.00 mW/cm2 1.00 mW/cm2 Personal Communication (PCS) 1,950 MHz 5.00 mW/cm2 1.00 mW/cm2 Cellular Telephone 870 MHz 2.90 mW/cm2 0.58 mW/cm2 Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) 855 MHz 2.85 mW/cm2 0.57 mW/cm2 Long Term Evolution (LTE) 700 MHz 2.33 mW/cm2 0.47 mW/cm2 Most Restrictive Frequency Range 30-300 MHz 1.00 mW/cm2 0.20 mW/cm2 MPE limits are designed to provide a substantial margin of safety. These limits apply for continuous exposures and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. Po w e r D e n s i t y ( m W / c m 2) Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 63 of 138 Figure 1. FCC Limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) Plane-wave Equivalent Power Density '/00 10 5 0.2 \ -Occupational/Controlled Exposure - - - -General Population/Uncontrolled Exposure \ \ / \_ - - -_,I' / / / _,,.-- - --- ---- 0_'/~---~--~~---~---~--~~----~-~~ 0.03 0-3 1 3 1.34 30 300 Frequency (MHz) r 3,000 '1,500 30,000 i 300,000 '/00,000 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 321857 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 5 Personal Communication (PCS) facilities used by AT&T in this area operate within a frequency range of 700-1900 MHz. Facilities typically consist of: 1) electronic transceivers (the radios or cabinets) connected to wired telephone lines; and 2) antennas that send the wireless signals created by the transceivers to be received by individual subscriber units (PCS telephones). Transceivers are typically connected to antennas by coaxial cables. Because of the short wavelength of PCS services, the antennas require line-of-site paths for good propagation, and are typically installed above ground level. Antennas are constructed to concentrate energy towards the horizon, with as little energy as possible scattered towards the ground or the sky. This design, combined with the low power of PCS facilities, generally results in no possibility for exposure to approach Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) levels, with the exception of areas directly in front of the antennas. 2.0 AT&T RF EXPOSURE POLICY REQUIREMENTS AT&T’s RF Exposure: Responsibilities, Procedures & Guidelines document, dated October 28, 2014, requires that: 1. All sites must be analyzed for RF exposure compliance; 2. All sites must have that analysis documented; and 3. All sites must have any necessary signage and barriers installed. Pursuant to this guidance, worst-case predictive modeling was performed for the site. This modeling is described below in Section 3.0. Lastly, based on the modeling and survey data, EBI has produced a Compliance Plan for this site that outlines the recommended signage and barriers. The recommended Compliance Plan for this site is described in Section 4.0. 3.0 WORST-CASE PREDICTIVE MODELING In accordance with AT&T’s RF Exposure policy, EBI performed theoretical modeling using RoofMaster™ software to estimate the worst-case power density at the site light fixture level and ground-level and/or nearby rooftops resulting from operation of the antennas. RoofMaster™ is a widely-used predictive modeling program that has been developed to predict RF power density values for rooftop and tower telecommunications sites produced by vertical collinear antennas that are typically used in the cellular, PCS, paging and other communications services. Using the computational methods set forth in Federal Communications (FCC) Office of Engineering & Technology (OET) Bulletin 65, “Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields” (OET-65), RoofMaster™ calculates predicted power density in a scalable grid based on the contributions of all RF sources characterized in the study scenario. At each grid location, the cumulative power density is expressed as a percentage of the FCC limits. Manufacturer antenna pattern data is utilized in these calculations. RoofMaster™ models consist of the Far Field model as specified in OET-65 and an implementation of the OET-65 Cylindrical Model (Sula9). The models utilize several operational specifications for different types of antennas to produce a plot of spatially-averaged power densities that can be expressed as a percentage of the applicable exposure limit. A statistical power factor may be applied to the antenna system based on guidance from the carrier and system manufacturers. For this report, EBI utilized antenna and power data provided by AT&T and compared the resultant worst-case MPE levels to the FCC’s occupational/controlled exposure limits outlined in OET Bulletin 65. The assumptions used in the modeling are based upon information provided by AT&T and information gathered from other sources. There are no other wireless carriers with equipment installed at this site. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 64 of 138 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 321857 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 6 Based on worst-case predictive modeling, there are no modeled exposures on any accessible light fixture level and ground walking/working surface related to ATT’s proposed antennas that exceed the FCC’s occupational and/or general public exposure limits at this site. Modeling indicates that the worst-case emitted power density may exceed the FCC’s general public limit within approximately 44 feet of the antenna face and the occupational limit within approximately 19 feet of the antenna face. Modeling also indicates that the worst-case emitted power density may exceed the FCC’s general population limit within approximately 6 feet below the bottom of the AT&T antennas and the occupational limit within approximately 5 feet below the bottom of the AT&T antennas. At the nearest walking/working surfaces to the AT&T antennas on the light fixture level, the maximum power density generated by the AT&T antennas is approximately 51.62 percent of the FCC’s general public limit (10.32 percent of the FCC’s occupational limit). The composite exposure level from all carriers on this site is approximately 51.62 percent of the FCC’s general public limit (10.32 percent of the FCC’s occupational limit) at the nearest walking/working surface to each antenna. It should be noted that percentage of MPE is based on spatially-averaged power densities over a height of six feet, with the height of the light fixture being centered within that spatial range. Based on worst-case predictive modeling, there are no areas at ground/street level related to the proposed AT&T antennas that exceed the FCC’s occupational or general public exposure limits at this site. At ground/street level, the maximum power density generated by the antennas is approximately 4.04 percent of the FCC’s general public limit (0.808 percent of the FCC’s occupational limit). A graphical representation of the RoofMaster™ modeling results is presented in Appendix B. Microwave dish antennas are designed for point-to-point operations at the elevations of the installed equipment rather than ground-level coverage. Based on AT&T’s RF Exposure: Responsibilities, Procedures & Guidelines document, dated October 28, 2014, microwave antennas are considered compliant if they are higher than 20 feet above any accessible walking/working surface. There are no microwaves installed at this site. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 65 of 138 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 321857 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 7 4.0 RECOMMENDED SIGNAGE/COMPLIANCE PLAN Signs are the primary means for control of access to areas where RF exposure levels may potentially exceed the MPE. As presented in the AT&T guidance document, the signs must: ▪ Be posted at a conspicuous point; ▪ Be posted at the appropriate locations; ▪ Be readily visible; and ▪ Make the reader aware of the potential risks prior to entering the affected area. The table below presents the signs that may be used for AT&T installations. CRAN / HETNET Small Cell Decals / Signs Alerting Signs NOTICE DECAL TRILINGUAL NOTICE NOTICE 2 NOTICE SIGN CAUTION 2 – ROOFTOP CAUTION 2A CAUTION DECAL CAUTION 2B - TOWER CAUTION 2C - PARAPETS CAUTION SIGN WARNING 1B WARNING 2A Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 66 of 138 NOTICE (C .. )} RF energy emitted by this antenna may excttdthe FCC's exposure limits for the general population. Stay at least 1 feet away from the antenna. Call AT&T at 800-638-2822, option 9 then 3, for help if you need access within feet. rr ltoUSC RD1W NOTICE (Oj>) AT&T operates antennas al lhis structure. lhb point you are entering an area where radio fr&quency (RF, Heida may excNd the FCC G1n1rII Population exposure limits. Follow safety guidelines for working In an RF environment KHp ft. IWIY from lht fronll of the antennas. Contact AT&T •1800-638-2822. opL 9, 3 and follow their Instructions prior to performing any maintenance or repairs above this point. This Is AT&T Site us,o ___ _ A CAUTION ~ RF energy emitted by this antenna may exceed the FCC's occupational exposure llmlts. Stay at least 1 feet away from the antenna. Call AT&T at 800-638-2822, opUon 9 then 3, for help If you need access within 1 feet. IJONOCJUM:Ro. A CAUTION & AT&T operatH antennas It this structure. th'-polnt you are entering an Irea whe<t radio frequency (RFI Heldt may txcH<l t"-FCC OccupItlonal exposure llmlts. Follow saltly guldellnu tor working In an RF environment. KHp 11. owoy from the llonts of t"- 1ntennn.. Contact AT&T at 800431-2822, opt. 9, 3 tnd follow their IMINClionl priO< to performing any malntanance or ,..pairs 1boveth polnL cen She usro ___ _ _,11,e • _ _;.____~. ~~.ll=:-=!:. ·----- 0ACAUTION° M Al"tflfUlftMIIIMH,tMW. lqtMflfs,...IJllftfflU!ilglllMU WNft'GdllheqleltJ(lf)ltids-,mff4at f((Ocn,lbOHIC.,.,.L.nib. folowwilCJi,uidtlilffllirwwtilf~•• --~.U&1,tllJM3l.2lU,option9nl), adW..UlfirltstnctlcnplloflD,ninlilt IMlllantoi~~1'hpolllL A CAUTION. M Ont~hlowtr: RMll~IIIIQ(lf)lifUs-MIIH..,_ -,UttHtMKC~blpoJlltUmh c..tbcl.UITMaoMJl..2122,epllOlltillld),Md lol!Mt.ir~pri,rltpdning IUlltfMl<t111-.nt>t,M1t1npo1,n1. l'ffiorrwldlllbl119tll5i-~MlfllnM i.-.1111J~nltw•,rnon,I Rf-lta'lf~IINIX11¥tllllfmn. ,,,_,..,.,)llllftfflf&11t111Mll ..._liil,~IIIFlitlfsfMfffdw "'---Fit.JtltflfMwftr,911dtlmflr~ •••~Glddnlt~ffflt•ll\ln ClftMIAllfalC0-()1.2121.tplllntlldl. \ ~~MMQ~td~ j NOTICE Ar&Tlpft~MfflUUIIMl* fqondrliJ,,...JOIMtflltMlgMMH MIMr~bfftqll'-,(llf)lltidJ•IJ'mft'd lfltf((Gtftft,t fllllullb£.-,LW!.. r..~gtkltljllrib-tnJ•..iRr -· UIIIIOOAl&T~80l).6Jl-21ll,o,t»n9M:13, nli:llowdlft'IMINClloflSp,lollo~Mr INUll~•~Dftlhll- A CAUTION M Al&IIP'!HftMlltlUlilldlisillt.. MBISt1¥HAtttJlll',l¥tffltffll9J1¥t• whfftrHioflfqlffl(J(lf}irids..,acffllthf KC0m1p,tioul[xposartliai!1. followwfttygaicltlille11orwor\ingil•Rf -ContKtAT&lM800,..6ll-2lll,opti1119Mldl, llllllollowthd,llmNC!lotsprlo!topfflOnlliDg NillfMIKf•ff!lfflwithinthtltriptdllN. 0ACAUTION° ~ ,..,..,Ws,.tJlll',IMtffitfflll9111.m ~AdielRqMtKJ(lf}trids..,scttllht KCOcnp.liH• U,.W1t lhitJ. ftilowMitl:ypltilltslor1'0JtilglnMlf tffiflllltlll Call.K1Al&TclDMJl•11ll.opdon9IIICIJ, ,adlollow1HiriMtrwrtiom,nof10Pffl'Ol'11ilt nwillttJ1ntor~"'7olld011Spolnl ·- Mu.,_. ...... * •11f~llilfll)'Ol11tffClflflljl••ra llft('ltqdll~IIIF)l.-kcrr:P#lht JU:Omp,,illlN(.llpCIHl'fU* ... 111W.WMt9'-'tilnlwNtiftt 11-,•~coildinllll•1~11-tw, (aautt.&rl111•'31lllll.11Pb1111t..i1. Mdldkowttwi'IIIAllctiW,.ia .. ~ ~t-~wtltl-ft_flll ... J RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 321857 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 8 Based upon protocols presented in AT&T’s RF Exposure: Responsibilities, Procedures & Guidelines document, dated October 28, 2014, and additional guidance provided by AT&T, the following signage is recommended on the site: ▪ Yellow 7 by 7 inch CAUTION signs on opposite sides of the light pole, 6 feet below the bottom of the antennas. Signs should denote a stay-back distance of 44 feet from the face of the antennas. No barriers are required for this site. The signage is graphically represented in the Signage Plan presented in Appendix B. 5.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS EBI has prepared this Radiofrequency Emissions Compliance Report for the proposed AT&T telecommunications equipment at the site located at 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Road in Carlsbad, California. EBI has conducted theoretical modeling to estimate the worst-case power density from AT&T antennas to document potential MPE levels at this location and ensure that site control measures are adequate to meet FCC and OSHA requirements, as well as AT&T’s corporate RF safety policies. As presented in the preceding sections, based on worst-case predictive modeling, there are no modeled exposures on any accessible light fixture level and ground walking/working surface related to ATT’s proposed antennas that exceed the FCC’s occupational and/or general public exposure limits at this site. To reduce the risk of exposure and/or injury, EBI recommends that access to the light pole or areas associated with the active antenna installation be restricted and secured where possible. Signage is recommended at the site as presented in Section 4.0 and Appendix B. Posting of the signage brings the site into compliance with FCC rules and regulations and AT&T’s corporate RF safety policies. 6.0 LIMITATIONS This report was prepared for the use of AT&T Mobility, LLC to meet requirements outlined in AT&T’s corporate RF safety guidelines. It was performed in accordance with generally accepted practices of other consultants undertaking similar studies at the same time and in the same locale under like circumstances. The conclusions provided by EBI and its partners are based solely on information supplied by AT&T, including modeling instructions, inputs, parameters and methods. Calculations, data, and modeling methodologies for C Band equipment Include a statistical factor reducing the power to 32% of maximum theoretical power to account for spatial distribution of users, network utilization, time division duplexing, and scheduling time. AT&T recommends the use of this factor based on a combination of guidance from its antenna system manufacturers, supporting international industry standards, industry publications, and its extensive experience. The observations in this report are valid on the date of the investigation. Any additional information that becomes available concerning the site should be provided to EBI so that our conclusions may be revised and modified, if necessary. This report has been prepared in accordance with Standard Conditions for Engagement and authorized proposal, both of which are integral parts of this report. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 67 of 138 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 321857 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 9 Appendix A Personnel Certifications Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 68 of 138 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 321857 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 10 Preparer Certification I, Lindsey Dutton, state that: ▪ I am an employee of EnviroBusiness Inc. (d/b/a EBI Consulting), which provides RF-EME safety and compliance services to the wireless communications industry. ▪ I have successfully completed RF-EME safety training, and I am aware of the potential hazards from RF-EME and would be classified “occupational” under the FCC regulations. ▪ I am fully aware of and familiar with the Rules and Regulations of both the Federal Communications Commissions (FCC) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) with regard to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Radiation. ▪ I have been trained in on the procedures outlined in AT&T’s RF Exposure: Responsibilities, Procedures & Guidelines document (dated October 28, 2014) and on RF-EME modeling using RoofMaster™ modeling software. ▪ I have reviewed the data provided by the client and incorporated it into this Site Compliance Report such that the information contained in this report is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 69 of 138 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 321857 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 11 Appendix B Compliance/Signage Plan Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 70 of 138 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 321857 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 12 Elevation Simulation Existing Sign Proposed Sign Installed Sign Yellow 7 by 7 inch CAUTION signs on opposite sides of the light pole, 6 feet below the bottom of the antennas. Signs should denote a stay-back distance of 44 feet from the face of the antennas. 44’ 6’ Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 71 of 138 ......... • •m £ CAllTlON £ ■ ::?.:fS=.....: : • :0::.::::.:-"'_ .. _ . --,----+---a.=-.. --... -· ... --.......... • --. . . . • __. . . . . I ■■ D ............. . . . . , .......... ~ ,. - - - I I - - -■I : ::--:i .... .:?~ : ■ ■ ■ ■\i"11111oi -~ ■ • • • . . • • • . •• Percent M PE Legend □ 0% -100% □ 100% -500% □ 500% -5000% ■ 5000% + General Population Lrmrts Sula 09 Vertical Duty Cycle Enabled 1 0 foot grid size Mid Zone Avg Carrier Color Code IO ATT SIGN IDENTIFICATION LEGEND ·•CAUTIOII AT&T NOTICE 2 Sign ~ AT&T CAUTION 2-Rooftop Sign ~--··"""' AT&T WARNING I Band 2A Signs ;!,._ AT&T CAUTION 2B -T ewer Sign -·•c.usno■" AT&T NOTICE Small Cell Signs ~ AT&T CAUTION 2C-Parapet Sign ~- AT&T CAUTION Small Cell Signs AT&T TRILINGUAL NOTICE Sign RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 321857 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 13 Light Fixture Level Simulation Existing Sign Proposed Sign Installed Sign Yellow 7 by 7 inch CAUTION signs on opposite sides of the light pole, 6 feet below the bottom of the antennas. Signs should denote a stay-back distance of 44 feet from the face of the antennas. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 72 of 138 \ \ \ -----'" 1 \ ·, I\ \ I\ \ "" h , ~~ ~( ~ =-~---i-1>---+----+-----+·/~ -A+-~-G-+-R □-UN---+D L-EVE-L=O+-' _---+-_, l. \ \' ~ " l__j__l -i=~-,::::~,, ""F-" ~4----+-I -+-I \ J)l rl L-~ • J) 1 l ' _,; " j Percent M PE Legend \ r:--I O 0%-100% ---+---+----+----+----+----+----+----+---+---+---+-;, r -•• L ~ 100% -500% l r / ( ~ __JI _I ! _____ .:1,c'\< )• D 500% -5000% I I bt>II 1' I ■ 5000%+ j ADJ LIGHT POLf:25' -J,;-·11 --r----;faa=--I==~ General Population Limits j , \ I... 't>-· tt----1--[ ,_ Sula 09 "-" -I Duty Cycle Enabled I '"" • ! I'-} II---+--I ~OUND T cO·-+---+----+----+----+,------+-_-_--+-+---i --+-'-' I r ---+--_t 1 0 foot grid size [Avg: 70.25 to 76.25 Feet) Carrier Color Code IO ATT SIGN IDENTIFICATION LEGEND m.ill ... CAUT ... D ............. . . .,. AT&T NOTICE 2 Sign A AT&T CAUTION 2 -Rooftop Sign ; ===-.==:::= ·•CAUTIDli ...... AT&TWARNING IBand2ASigns A AT&T CAUTION 2B-Tower Sign --~ ~;;;;;: !==-=': . . . . . . ............ ■ r - - -I I ---.. 'ACAUTijj'' AT&T NOTICE Small Cell Signs A AT&T CAUTION 2C-Parapet Sign --~- .A AT&T CAUTION Small Cell Signs = AT&T TRILINGUAL NOTICE Sign ~ RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 321857 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 14 Maintenance Building Level Simulation Existing Sign Proposed Sign Installed Sign Yellow 7 by 7 inch CAUTION signs on opposite sides of the light pole, 6 feet below the bottom of the antennas. Signs should denote a stay-back distance of 44 feet from the face of the antennas. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 73 of 138 m GRdUND LEVEL=O' >---- .•••••••• V \~ I\~--+-'·"J • .,.,!-~!!-.: ' \ l :s.::=.f~ ;:..,.•/!C..4--+---+--+--\"-+;,+ \\l-'\H-l\'-s--"ic------J~----r------1"-T1--+----+--+----+--t-------i----;--------i---1 1----+---+----+---------l-i■=-·-·· ., ' I\\\\ \ I"-. I I :~-i~_--:-~=-.:.~:. · .. -.. =-+--+--+----+ __ \_~~\:\ \~X· ~\ii~~s~j:,, "---=ii~ "...:.i:--==-::! -+~--=---,·il:-"i-.I _1---f==='r-==-~EVEL=□• -----1-.-.-.-.-+-•• -. -•• -1.-.-.-.-1,, ......... i".............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. , \ ~ r--:.""---r i I / I : ; ~ \ \\l ~r---~J T,_.L-+='~i+~''>s;le<r/2.=r=t;::~~-L-+-I ,-~ ~ \ : ~1 l d L-~ P~rcent MPE Legend ·-: : l ' ,.,.) "I □ 0%-100% " " \ r' ---I □ 100%-500% • ~ ; 1 r -··L □ 5oox-5ooox -;■■■i11 ■■■1 •••••••••••••••••••••••••• --.--1----+-II I I -'11 J ! !,'l~, ■ 5000%+ \ I "'I "t" i . -~ I General Population Limits I ADJ LIGHT POLE • 25' J, I Farfield ·) , \ I\. <t,: --1-,I,', II DutJ CJcle Enabled I " '' 1 II Reflection 11.61 I '~ .! 4 -=•UNO T001··--1--+---+---+----+r-----t--__ -I-+ -_i -+""-}_-I 11--1---r -+---r-~ i 1 0 foot grid size (Avg: 15 to 21 Feet] Carrier Color Code IO ATT SIGN IDENTIFICATION LEGEND m.ill ... CAUT ... D ............. . . .,. AT&T NOTICE 2 Sign A AT&T CAUTION 2 -Rooftop Sign ; -.=-..:.- ·•CAUTIDli ...... AT&T WARNING IBand2ASigns A AT&T CAUTION 2B-Tower Sign --~ ~;;;;;: !==-=': : : ~--········: r - - -I I ---.. 'ACAUTijj'' AT&T NOTICE Small Cell Signs A AT&T CAUTION 2C-Parapet Sign --~-.A AT&T TRILINGUAL NOTICE Sign AT&T CAUTION Small Cell Signs = ~ RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 321857 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 15 Appendix C Antenna Inventory Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 74 of 138 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 321857 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 16 Antenna # Operator Frequency (MHz) Azimuth (Degrees) Power Input (Watts) Transmitter Count Total ERP (Watts) Total EIRP (Watts) 1 ATT 700 50 40 4 2239.34 3672.52 1 ATT 850 50 40 4 2323.38 3810.34 1 ATT 1900 50 40 4 4910.44 8053.11 1 ATT 3500 50 30 4 9530.59 15630.17 2 ATT 700 50 40 4 2239.34 3672.52 2 ATT 2100 50 40 4 5560.58 9119.35 2 ATT 3700 50 30 8 23886.36 39173.63 3 ATT 700 170 40 4 2239.34 3672.52 3 ATT 850 170 40 4 2323.38 3810.34 3 ATT 1900 170 40 4 4910.44 8053.11 3 ATT 3500 170 30 4 9530.59 15630.17 4 ATT 700 170 40 4 2239.34 3672.52 4 ATT 2100 170 40 4 5560.58 9119.35 4 ATT 3700 170 30 8 23886.36 39173.63 5 ATT 700 280 40 4 2239.34 3672.52 5 ATT 850 280 40 4 2323.38 3810.34 5 ATT 1900 280 40 4 4910.44 8053.11 5 ATT 3500 280 30 4 9530.59 15630.17 6 ATT 700 280 40 4 2239.34 3672.52 6 ATT 2100 280 40 4 5560.58 9119.35 6 ATT 3700 280 30 8 23886.36 39173.63 • Note there are 2 AT&T panel antennas per sector at this site. For clarity, the different frequencies for each antenna are entered on separate lines. • A 75% duty cycle was applied to NR technologies. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 75 of 138 Generator Noise Assessment Letter for AT&T Site Number: CAL01850 Site Name: Poinsetta Park Address: 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Rd. Carlsbad, California October 28, 2022 1.Site Description: Site CAL01850 includes a proposed Wireless Facility monopole located in Carlsbad, California. This project involves the installation of one emergency back-up generator inside a ground level equipment compound, located at 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Rd. in Carlsbad, California. 2.Purpose: This letter provides calculated sound pressure levels from the proposed emergency back-up generator when measured at identified receiving property lines. Calculations were performed using site drawings dated September 6, 2022, information provided by MD7, and data from the equipment manufacturer, per the calculation methodology shown in Appendix A. Subsequent changes to the site design may yield changes in the projected post construction noise levels or compliance with applicable regulations and guidelines. 3.Regulatory Setting The City of Carlsbad limits noise in residential use areas to 60 dBA CNEL (Community Noise Exposure Limit). The CNEL applies penalty factors to noise occurring during certain times of the evening and/or nighttime. A 5 dB penalty is added to noise occurring during the evening (7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and a 10 dB penalty is added for noise occurring during nighttime hours between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Table 1 – Carlsbad Exterior Noise Limits* Receiving Land Use Category Exterior Noise Standard Residential 60 dBA CNEL *Adapted from the Carlsbad Noise Guidelines Manual, July 2013. Exhibit 9 Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 76 of 138 Generator Noise Assessment Letter Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222006408 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Rd., Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 4. Relevant Proposed Equipment The proposed site design includes installation of one (1) emergency back-up generator. Calculations were performed to project the noise contribution of the generator when operating at full load at the nearest receiving property line identified through review of the site drawings and aerial photographs. Noise properties of the proposed generator are described in Table 2. Receiving property line locations and calculated generator noise levels are described in Table 3. The following generator is proposed for installation at this site: Table 2 – Proposed Equipment Quantity Description Manufacturer Model Number Sound Pressure Level (dBA) Distance (feet) 1 20 kW Diesel Emergency Back-up Generator Generac SDC020 2.2L 65 21 *Manufacturer acoustic data specifies an average sound pressure level per each unit when measured at a distance of seven (7) meters. See Appendix B. Available specifications and product information were reviewed for the equipment listed in Table 2. Any other equipment that may be proposed such as equipment cabinets, air conditioners, RRUs, antennas, coaxial cables and battery cabinets, are excluded from this study. Other exclusions include ambient noise, existing equipment, fencing, walls, landscaping, topography and property line setbacks. The proposed generator will only run for routine cycling/testing for a duration of no more than fifteen (15) minutes one (1) time per week during daytime hours, or in the event of a loss of power. For the purposes of this study, the generator was assumed to be running at full-load 24-hours per day in order to simulate a worst-case scenario. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 77 of 138 Generator Noise Assessment Letter Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222006408 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Rd., Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 5.Calculated Sound Levels. Sound level propagation calculations were performed to determine the sound pressure level of the proposed generator when measured at the distances referenced below. The source and receiver were assumed to be at the same reference height in order to account for balconies, open windows and changes in elevation at adjacent properties. All calculations shown in Table 3 assume a free-field environment with no ground absorption, reflecting surfaces, barriers, or other obstructions. Actual results may vary due to field and environmental conditions. Table 3 – Calculated Sound Pressure Levels Generac SDC020 2.2L / 20 kW Diesel Emergency Back-up Generator Receiving Land Use Category Property Line Direction from Proposed Generator Estimated Distance to Proposed Generator (feet) Calculated Generator Contribution at Property Line (dBA CNEL) Lowest Applicable Noise Limit (dBA CNEL) Residential* South 180 53.8 60 *All other property lines receivers are located considerably farther away from the proposed generator. 6.Statement of Compliance Based on the results of this analysis, and as presented in Table 3, EBI concludes that the noise produced from operation of the proposed emergency back-up generator will comply with the Carlsbad Exterior Noise Limits at all receiving property line locations. 7.Limitations This report was prepared for the use of MD7 and AT&T. It was performed in accordance with generally accepted practices of other consultants undertaking similar studies at the same time and in the same locale under like circumstances. The conclusions provided by EBI are based solely on the information provided by the client. The observations in this report are valid on the date of the investigation. Calculations contained in this report should be considered accurate to within one decibel. Any additional information that becomes available concerning the site should be provided to EBI so that our conclusions may be revised and modified, if necessary. This report has been prepared in accordance with Standard Conditions for Engagement and authorized proposal, both of which are integral parts of this report. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 78 of 138 Generator Noise Assessment Letter Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222006408 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Rd., Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 Appendix A Calculation Methodology Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 79 of 138 Generator Noise Assessment Letter Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222006408 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Rd., Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 NOISE CALCULATION METHODOLOGY All sounds originate from a source. The sound energy, produced by a source, creates variations in air pressure which travel in all directions much like a wave ripples across the water. The “loudness” or intensity of a sound is a function of the sound pressure level, defined as the ratio of two pressures: the measured sound pressure from the source divided by a reference pressure (i.e. threshold of human hearing). Sound level measurements are most commonly expressed using the decibel (dB) scale. The decibel scale is logarithmic to accommodate the wide range of sound intensities to which the human ear is capable of responding. On this scale, the threshold of human hearing is equal to 0 dB, while levels above 140 dB can cause immediate hearing damage. One property of the decibel scale is that the combined sound pressure level of separate sound sources is not simply the sum of the contributing sources. For example, if the sound of one source of 70 dB is added to another source of 70 dB, the total is only 73 dB, not a doubling to 140 dB. In terms of human perception of sound, a 3 dB difference is the minimum perceptible change for broadband sounds (i.e. sounds that include all frequencies). A difference of 10 dB represents a perceived halving or doubling of loudness. Environmental sound is commonly expressed in terms of the A-weighted sound level (dBA). The A- weighting is a standard filter to make measured sound levels more nearly approximate the frequency response of the human ear. Table 1 and Figure 1 show the adjustments made at each octave band frequency to contour un-weighted sound levels (dB) to A-weighted sound levels (dBA). This frequency response is defined in the American National Standards Institute Standard No. 5.1 and most other relevant standards related to measurement of noise levels. Table 1 A-Weighted Octave Band Adjustment (+/- dB) Octave Band Center Frequency (Hz) 32 64 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 16000 A-weighting Adjustment (±dB) -39.4 -26.2 -16.1 -8.6 -3.6 0.0 +1.2 +1.0 -1.1 -6.6 Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 80 of 138 +20 +10 rn1 .nw 0 -30 not defined)\ -40 -50 10 100 1000 10k 100k A-welghllng (blue), 8 (yellow), C (red), and 0-weighting (blk) Generator Noise Assessment Letter Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222006408 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Rd., Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 FIGURE 1 - WEIGHTED OCTAVE BAND ADJUSTMENTS (±dB) Environmental sound varies depending on environmental conditions. Some sounds are sharp impulses lasting for short periods, while others rise and fall over longer periods. There are various measures (metrics) of sound pressure designed for different purposes. The Leq, or equivalent sound level, is the steady-state sound level over a period of time that has the same acoustic energy as the fluctuating sound that was measured over the same period. The Leq is commonly referred to as the average sound level and is calculated automatically by the sound level meter using methods defined in ANSI S1.4-19831. Manufacturer-provided data for noise-generating equipment typically includes a measured sound pressure level (Lp), expressed in A-weighted decibels, taken at a specific distance from the equipment, known as a reference distance. For the purposes of this report, L1 refers to the measured sound level, and r1 refers to the reference distance from the source. Sound varies inversely as the square of the distance from the source increases. This property of sound propagation is used to determine the sound levels at various distances from the source when L1 and r1 have been provided. In an unobstructed free-field environment, without any barriers or reflecting surfaces, sounds pressure drops by 6 dBA with each doubling of distance. This relationship is expressed in the following equation: 𝐿𝐿2 =𝐿𝐿1 −|20 ∗log �𝑟𝑟1𝑟𝑟2�| Where r2 refers to the distance at distance 2 and L2 refers to the sound level in dBA at distance 2. When multiple sound sources are combined, the LP values for each source must first be converted to sound power (LW). 𝐿𝐿𝑊𝑊=𝐿𝐿𝑃𝑃+ |10 ∗log �𝑄𝑄4𝜋𝜋 ∗ 𝑟𝑟2�| In this report, EBI has assumed Q (directionality) is equal to 1 to represent full-sphere propagation. The resultant LW values are then added together, using logarithmic decibel addition, where 𝐿𝐿∑refers to the total level, and L1, L2, etc. refer to the sound power of different individual sources. 𝐿𝐿∑=10 ∗ 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙10 �10𝐿𝐿110 +10𝐿𝐿210 +⋯10𝐿𝐿𝑛𝑛10�𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 1 American National Standards Institute, ANSI S1-4-1983, American National Standard Specification for Sound Level Meters, 1983 Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 81 of 138 Generator Noise Assessment Letter Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222006408 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Rd., Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 Appendix B Equipment Specifications Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 82 of 138 Part No. A0001352186 Rev. A 2/17/21 SOUND ATTENUATED ENCLOSURE D2.2, Generac SDC020 SO U N D D A T A 1 of 1 Generac Power Systems, Inc. | P.O. Box 8 | Waukesha, WI 53187 P: (262) 544-4811 © 2021 Generac Power Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. All specifications are subject to change without notice. NO-LOAD, dB(A)DISTANCE: 7 METERS MICROPHONE LOCATION OCTAVE BAND CENTER FREQUENCY (Hz) 31.5 63 125 250 500 1,000 2,000 4,000 8,000 dB(A) FRONT 20 40 53 50 50 50 46 44 35 56 2 19 43 50 50 55 51 48 44 38 57 RIGHT 18 50 47 51 56 50 48 46 37 58 4 21 56 49 50 53 53 50 46 38 59 REAR 21 56 51 51 50 50 46 44 35 58 6 20 56 49 50 54 54 48 43 35 60 LEFT 18 53 47 52 59 53 50 47 39 61 8 19 43 54 52 55 54 48 44 38 59 AVERAGE 20 50 50 51 54 52 48 45 37 59 FULL-LOAD, dB(A)DISTANCE: 7 METERS MICROPHONE LOCATION OCTAVE BAND CENTER FREQUENCY (Hz) 31.5 63 125 250 500 1,000 2,000 4,000 8,000 dB(A) FRONT 21 57 65 52 55 53 50 50 40 66 2 19 59 61 52 57 55 51 51 43 65 RIGHT 19 59 59 54 57 54 52 52 44 64 4 21 60 58 54 55 54 52 51 42 64 REAR 23 58 59 52 53 52 49 49 38 62 6 21 60 55 53 57 55 52 49 39 64 LEFT 19 62 58 55 60 55 53 51 43 66 8 19 60 64 55 57 56 52 51 44 67 AVERAGE 20 59 60 53 57 54 51 51 42 65 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 FRONT 2 RIGHT 4 REAR 6 LEFT 8 dB ( A ) • All positions at 23 feet (7 meters) from side faces of generator set. • Test conducted on a 100 foot diameter asphalt surface. • Sound pressure levels are subject to instrumentation, installation and testing conditions. • Sound levels are ±2 dB(A). FRONT REAR RIGHT LEFT 2 4 6 8 Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 83 of 138 GENERAc· 11NcusTRIAL I POWER DRIVING DIRECTIONS FROM AT&T OFFICE VICINITY MAP GENERAL NOTES DRAWING INDEX APPROVALSCAL01850 POINSETTIA PARK NEW SITE BUILD FA NUMBER: 14292179 6600 "A" HIDDEN VALLEY RD., CARLSBAD, CA 92011 Sheet No: Drawn by: Sh e e t T i t l e : Checked by: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION So l u t i o n s D o n e R i g h t DescriptionRev.Date: 90% ZD0 08-05-22 100% ZD1 09-06-22 100% ZD2 10-31-22RF CHANGES 100% ZD3 12-15-22CITY COMMENTS 100% ZD4 03-21-23CITY COMMENTS 58 5 5 C O P L E Y D R . S T E 1 0 0 , SA N D I E G O , C A 9 2 1 1 1 07-31-235100% ZD CITY COMMENTS 10-16-236100% ZD ENCL. TRELLIS www.cbyd.com SI5& SITE INFORMATION PROJECT TEAM PROJECT DESCRIPTION CODE COMPLIANCE · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · TI T L E S H E E T T1 CUP 2022-0023/CDP 2022-0070 Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 84 of 138 2022 OOFORNIA AOMINISTRATWE CODE, C.C.R., TITLE 24, PART 1 2022 OOFORNIA BUILDING CODE, C.C.R., TITlE 24, PART 2, VOLUMES 1 &: 2 2022 OOFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE, C.C.R., TITlE 24, PART 3 2022 OOFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE, C.C.R., TITLE 24, PART 4 2022 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE, C.C.R., TITLE 24, PART 5 2022 OOFORNIA ENERGY CODE, C.C.R., TITLE 24, PART 6 2022 OOFORNIA FIRE CODE, C.C.R., TITLE 24, PART 9 2022 CALIFORNIA REFERENCED STANDARDS CODE, C.C.R., TITLE 24, PART 12 TIA-222, REVISION H IN THE EVENT OF CONFLICT, THE 1.tosr RESTRICTIVE CODE SHALL PREVAIL AT&T WIRELESS PROPOSES TO BUILD A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILflY. THE SCOPE CONSISTS OF THE FOLLOWING: REMOVAL OF (E) 78' -o• TALL LIGHT POLE C3 REMOVAL OF (E) TRASH ENCLOSURE CONSTRUCTION OF 78' -o• TALL LIGHT POLE AS REPLACEMENT TO TIHE (E) LIGHT POLE C3 TO BE REMOVED CONSTRUCTION OF 8' -o• HIGH CMU WALL EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE AS REPLACEMENT TO THE (E) TRASH ENCLOSURE TO BE REMOVED INSTALLATION OF CYLINDRICAL FRP SHROUD FOR THE ANTENNAS AND PERFORATED CYLINDRICAL METAL SHROUD FOR THE RRUs AND SURGE PROTECTORS INSTALLATION OF (2) PAINEL AINTENNAS PER SECTOR. TOTAL OF (6) INSTALLATION OF (9) REMOTE RADIO UNITS (RRU) INSTALLATION OF (3) SURGE PROTECTORS AT TIHE ANTENNA AREA INSTALLATION OF (2) SURGE PROTECTORS AT TIHE EQUIPMENT AREA INSTALLATION OF (1) VERTIV DC POWER PLANT INSTALLATION OF (2) PURCELL CABINET INSTALLATION OF (1) GPS ANTENNA INSTALLATION OF (1) GENERATOR INSTALLATION OF (2) FIBER CABLE TRUNKS AND (9) DC POWER CABLE TRUNKS. INSTALLATION OF TELCO / FIBER SERVICE INSTALLATION OF A NEW 200A AC ELECTRICAL SERVICE PROPERlY OWNER: CllY OF CARLSBAD APPLICANT: AT&T WIRELESS 5855 COPLEY DR. STE 100, SAN DIEGO, CA 92111 APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE: MD7 10590 W. OCEAN AIR DRIVE, STE. 250 SAN DIEGO, CA 92130 ZONING JURISDICTION: CllY OF CARLSBAD ZONING DISTRICT: CllY OF CARLSBAD LATITUDE (NAD 83): 33" 6' 50.D472" N LONGITUDE (NAD 83): 117 18' 27.2412" W PARCEL#: 214-140-13-00 OCCUPANCY GROUP: LI-UNMANNED CONSTRUCTION TYPE: V-8 POWER COMPANY: SDG&E TELEPHONE COMPANY: AT&T PROJECT MANAGER: MD7 10590 W. OCEAIN AIR DRIVE, STE. 250 SAN DIEGO, CA 92130 PHONE: (858) 799-7850 MD7.COM ZONING / SITE ACQUISITION: MD7 10590 W. OCEAIN AIR DRIVE, STE. 250 SAN DIEGO, CA 92130 PHONE: (858) 799-7850 MD7.COM RF ENGINEER: JORGE MELCHOR AT&T 5855 COPLEY DR. STE 100, SAN DIEGO, CA 92111 PHONE: (858) 762-2161 EMAIL: JM934@ATT.COM ENGINEERING: TELECOM MAINAGEMENT GROUP 302 WASHINGTON ST. # 150-6850 SAIN DIEGO, CA 92103 PHONE: (858) 248-7678 EMAIL: EDGAR.ORTIZ@TELECOMMG.COM CONSTRUCTION: BECHTEL INFRASTRUCTURE AND POWER CORPORATION 1 6808 ARMSTRCONG AVE., STE. 225 IRVINE, CA 92606 PHONE: (949) 212-4644 EMAIL: SGKINDRE@BECHTEL.COM Costco Gas s1ation Q Meats Q ,eapointe Resort Po·sche Carlsbad 9 t laEJ > tlrtJitt0ne Rd Po1nsen,a K1ndercare ,' Polnset11a Park i ii' ~ C "" -ii! ~ .. ~ 8ll!'II0001 8-:, Dr q MAJ>C ProJ cl · Laurel Tree .Apar mems \ Exhibit 10 Jam s G org & The ft Bm,sh Real Estate Team "" \ f Ale~ander & Sons ii .. l vi ... • \ ; '2 9 Abella Ave !l. C BelleflOYr'et g:d North Coast Calvary Chapel H1non cansoaa T ~ Fa1rf1elcl Inn & T Suites by Mamon San FASHIONPHILE B Showroom Y !\! Tnton SI Ii- Carlsbad Photo· San ft , Diego Wedding and "" f .. ... ~ ,. 'II ~ .., ' ,;. \ " \ • <!l "), f 9 coast Kids Preschool • ~ ,0 Pacific Rim "" Elementary School # CM'lln.o Ile L-o.• ~ ~ 0: ~ ! 0 ~ ~ ;:, ,! !5 ~ .9l .. ;,. ~ [ Ii' Darold Dft Pieper, At orney T C0rh1 Orchidle AVIARA 11arbor Pomte C, i-,,.t ~ S <'~en Uncoln, Lincoln Realty Group q --' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' , ' ' ' ' ' ' ' DIRECTIONS FROM AT&T OFFICE: -MO 16 lalleook,"IJ c r:h1ttlm A mPn m Carlsbad Fire staUon 4 9 • Hotels g g !'. m ~ 1>0\l'set\il• 1.11 \ custom Floor Designs 9 Lotus Susta,nables C, /•, . ' / ' ' ' : .. ) I l1t ( y Euc ' ' ' • • ' ' ' ' ' ' ' r ... 0 ~ .,, 0 i 0 ~ .., ;J I/ Yl)tUS Grov Trail ..... ~ ~ ,_o 6-s-,.~ .# ' ' ' I ' ' I ' q Fara's ', • I Hom ,, I GET ON 1-805 N FROM COPLJEY DR, HICKMAN FIELD DR AND CONVOY CT. HEAD SOUTHWEST TOWARD COPLEY DR. RESTRICTED USAGE ROAD. TURN LEFT ONTO COPLEY DR. TURN RIGHT ONTO HICKMAN FIELD DR. TURN LEFT ONTO CONVOY CT. TURN RIGHT ONTO SHAWLINE ST. USE THE RIGHT LANE TO TURN RIGHT AFTER ARBY'S (ON THE LEFT). USE THE RIGHT LANE TO TAKE THE RAMP ONTO 1-805 N. TAKE 1-5 N TO POINSETTIA LN IN CARLSBAD. TAKE EXIT 45 FROM 1-5 N. MERGE ONTO 1-805 N. MERGE ONTO 1-5 N. TAKE EXIT 45 FOR POINSETTIA LN TOWARD AVIARA PKWY. TAKE PASEO DEL NORTE AND HIDDEN VALLEY RD TO YOUR DESTINATION. TURN RIGHT ONTO POINSETTIA UN. USE THE LEFT 2 LANES TO TURN LEFT ONTO PASEO DEL NORTE. TURN RIGHT ONTO CAMINO DE LAS ONDAS. TURN LEFT ONTO HIDDEN VALLEY RD. TURN LEFT ONTO PLUM TREE RD. TURN LEFT. DESTINATION WILL BE ON THE LEFT. 0 THE FACILITY IS UNMANNED AND NOT FOR HUMAN HABITATION. A TECHNICIAN WILL VISIT THE SITE AS REQUIRED FOR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE. THE PROJECT WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT DISTURBANCE OR EFFECT ON DRAINAGE; NO SANITARY SEWER SERVICE, POTABLE WATER, OR TRASH DISPOSAL IS REQUIRED AND NO COMMERCIAL SIGNAGE IS PROPOSED. THE FOLLOWING PARTIES HEREBY APPROVE AND ACCEPT THESE DOCUMENTS AND AUTHORIZE THE CONTRACTOR TO PROCEED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION DESCRIBED HEREIN. ALL DOCUMENTS ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE LOCAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND MAY IMPOSE CHANGES OR SITE MODIFICATIONS. AT&T RF ENGINEER: __________________ DATE: AT&T CONSTIRUCTION: __________________ DATE: AT&T PROJECT MGR.: ------------------DATE: CIVIL VENDOR: DATE: ------------------ PLANNER: __________________ DATE: SITE ACQUISITON: __________________ DATE: SITE OWNER: __________________ DATE: SHEET NO: SHEET TITLE T1 21 22 23 24 25 Z6 Z7 28 D1 D2 TITLE SHEET SITE PLAN ENLARGED SITE PLAIN EQUIPMENT PLAN ANTENNA/ RRU PLAN AND SCHEDULE SITE ELJEVATIONS SITE ELJEVATIONS SITE ELJEVATIONS SITE ELEVATIONS SITE DETAILS SITE DETAILS ••• NOTHING FOLLOWS ••• DOW WHAT'S BELOW ALWAYS CALL 811 o BEFORE YOU DIG It's fast. It's free. It"s the law. NOTE: 48 HOURS PRIOR TO DIGGING, CONTRACTOR TO NOTIFY ALL UTILITY COMPANIES TO LOCATE ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. ERO/RP ERO Sheet No: Drawn by: Sh e e t T i t l e : Checked by: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION So l u t i o n s D o n e R i g h t DescriptionRev.Date: 90% ZD0 08-05-22 100% ZD1 09-06-22 100% ZD2 10-31-22RF CHANGES 100% ZD3 12-15-22CITY COMMENTS 100% ZD4 03-21-23CITY COMMENTS 58 5 5 C O P L E Y D R . S T E 1 0 0 , SA N D I E G O , C A 9 2 1 1 1 07-31-235100% ZD CITY COMMENTS 10-16-236100% ZD ENCL. TRELLIS 1" = 70'-0"SITE PLAN 1 SI T E P L A N Z1 LEGEND MONUMENTS SEE ENLARGED SITE PLAN ON SHEET Z2 A.P.N.# 214-140-13-00 BEACON BAY DR. ℄ HI D D E N V A L L E Y R D . ℄ (P) AT&T U/G TELCO FIBER CONDUIT FROM (E) MANHOLE NEAR PARK ENTRANCE TO AT&T EQUIP. ENCLOSURE LOCATION. APPROX. LENGTH ± 1,600 FT (P) AT&T JOINT UTILITY TRENCH WITH U/G ELECTRICAL POWER CONDUIT & CONDUCTORS (APPROX. LENGTH ± 240 FT) JOINED WITH U/G TELCO FIBER CONDUIT. (P) AT&T NON-EXCLUSIVE ACCESS ROUTE (E) TRASH ENCLOSURE TO BE REMOVED (P) AT&T ANTENNAS & RRUS ON (P) 78'-0" TALL LIGHT POLE, SEE PLAN ON SHEET Z4 (P) LIGHT POLE WITH CYLINDRICAL SHROUD "RADOME" Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 85 of 138 -x-x- CENTER LINE PROPERlY LINE EASEMENT LINE CHAIN-LINK FENCE FD. MONUMENT 0• 35' 70' 24"x36" SCALE: 1" = 70' -o· ,. --11 "xl 7" SCALE: 1" = 140' -o· • • 140' -I -O"l CD r---- N n 1,3: 0 0 n n . 0 0 1z I n I LO 0 I fe s 0 0 I ri 18 z WHITESAIL ST. ·-·-·-·-· ·-·-·-·-·-•-·-·- N89"27'00"W 1173.93' ---~ (E) HANDRAIL L ,.---F '----N89'00'19''W 212.01' R = 5 D. O O' L\=89'45'50" L= 78.35' (E) PATHWAY \_(E) BASEBALL FIELD\ ! N88'58'33"W w m -vO -[XJ (E) BUILDING 1170,74' (E) BUILDING w KETCH WY. I C0 ' -r---- FD. MONUMENT W/ BRASS DISC MARKED "LS 5347" SEE CITY OF CARLSBAD TRACT 92-01 COSTA DO SOL MAP NO. 13282 ~o -0 N . -(.() • C0 -'C/-0 z __ _J (E) MANHOLE NEAR SIDEWALK, TELCO FIBER POC (E) LIGHT POLE (E) ELECTRICAL PULLBOX (E) TREE, TYP. -N89'00' 19 "W 752.17' w (E) ACCESS DRIVEWAY I LPLUM TREE ~-17'59"w 22 9.55' I ~~-b~TANDARD STREET WELL I MONUMENT MARKED "R.C.E. 27214 • SEE CARLSBAD TRACT NO. 92-02 (B) MAP NO. 13842 LO r---- N 0) 0 w C- LO N v b 0 1 z w m - (E) CURB AND GUTTC:R, TYP. N00'42'57''E 25.16' I _N :::i' I m en ;' n 0 -0 z N -I _n ::(l 1 FD. MONUMENT W/ BRASS DISC MARKED "LS 5347" SEE CITY OF CARLSBAD TRACT 92-01 COSTA DO SOL MAP NO. 13282 N . 'CJ-LO • r----□-0 z RD. ERO/RP ERO Sheet No: Drawn by: Sh e e t T i t l e : Checked by: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION So l u t i o n s D o n e R i g h t DescriptionRev.Date: 90% ZD0 08-05-22 100% ZD1 09-06-22 100% ZD2 10-31-22RF CHANGES 100% ZD3 12-15-22CITY COMMENTS 100% ZD4 03-21-23CITY COMMENTS 58 5 5 C O P L E Y D R . S T E 1 0 0 , SA N D I E G O , C A 9 2 1 1 1 07-31-235100% ZD CITY COMMENTS 10-16-236100% ZD ENCL. TRELLIS 1" = 20'-0"ENLARGED SITE PLAN 1 EN L A R G E D SI T E P L A N Z2 (E) TRASH ENCLOSURE TO BE REMOVED (E) POLE C3, ±78' HIGH STADIUM LIGHT POLE TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED LEGEND (P) AT&T CMU WALL ENCLOSURE, SEE EQUIPMENT PLAN ON SHEET Z3 (P) AT&T ANTENNAS & RRUS ON (P) 78'-0" TALL LIGHT POLE, SEE PLAN ON SHEET Z4 (P) FIBER/DC POWER TRENCH (APPROX. 45'-0") SEC T O R ' A ' AZIM U T H 5 0 ° SE C T O R ' B ' A Z I M U T H 1 7 0 ° SECTOR ' C ' AZIMUTH 2 8 0 ° (E) GROUND ELEVATION AT THE (P) POLE LOCATION = AMSL (151.60') (P) AT&T U/G TELCO FIBER CONDUIT FROM (E) MANHOLE NEAR PARK ENTRANCE TO AT&T EQUIP. ENCLOSURE LOCATION. APPROX. LENGTH ± 1,600 FT. SEE FULL ROUTE ON SHEET Z1 (P) AT&T JOINT UTILITY TRENCH WITH U/G ELECTRICAL POWER CONDUIT & CONDUCTORS (APPROX. LENGTH ± 240 FT) JOINED WITH U/G TELCO FIBER CONDUIT. (P) AT&T METER PEDESTAL, 200A, 120/208V, 1Φ, 3 WIRE, 5 CLIP, ON CONCRETE PAD (P) U/G ELECTRICAL CONDUIT & CONDUCTORS FROM (E) TRANSFORMER TO (P) AT&T METER PEDESTAL, APPROX. LENGTH 10 FT. PROVIDE (2) BOLLARDS IN FRONT OF METER PEDESTAL FOR PROTECTION Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 86 of 138 CENTER LINE ---PR0PER1Y LINE ---EASEMENT LINE -x-x-CHAIN-LINK FENCE ■------■ CMU WALL ~ (E) SIGNAGE -CATCH BASIN (8 TREE -BUSH Ee) (E) STREET LIGHT 24"x36" SCALE: 1" = 2o:-o: 11 "xl 7" SCALE: 1 • = 40 -0 10· 20· ----40' -I ' .\. '\. '\ .\. • '\ \ . ( ____ _ {Lb.. '\JV TREE \ · . . . . ',., \_BASEBALL FIELD~ -■-·- LIGHT POLE, TY:i. ±30' HIGH TREE ·-·-·- i ■-·-·-·-· _____ .J 0 lri CATCH · TREE, TYP.Y BA~~!Sthe,;;' ~~ SEWER MANHOLE, PATHWAY GUTTER TY:i. LIGf-T POLE, -yp_ CMU WALL I 1 I \_(E) BASEBALL FIELD~ l I (E) CHAIN-LINK~ ! (E) M/\INTEN/\NCE BUILDING FENCE, TYP. ~ (E) CAGED WATER VALVE (E) VALV~ POST (E) ±42' HIGH TREE TAB_E & BENCH, TYP. (E) GATE I I i I I I I ♦ (E) ±35' HIGH TREE ACCESS~ / (E) CONCRETE / f-=::::~::::_::_::_::_::":_it~~s:w;A=L~E=-~=-dr -,, -7 I 1 -'v L,_J I I~ LIGHT POLE, TYP. I I] \DISABL~D LOGO, TYP. (E) PARKING AREA ------"s;-----t---- 0 I I I (E) HANDRAIL l (E) STADIUM LIGHT POLE LIGHT POLE,\ TYP. \, !FF-n---, BLEACHER," TYP. \ 0 0 I I I i i I 1 I i I i I I I I I I (E) DRAIN, TYP. (E) RESTROOM CMU WALL PLANTER \_BASEBALL FIELD~ ACCESS DOOR ·-·-·-·-··--r1·-- 0 El 1~~§~ 0 ~~--:;--0 -------v--'8 i-i-i-i-i-1-1-1-1 1-1-1-1-1-i-1-1-1-1-i-i-l-i 0 ELECTR CAL PULLBOX, TYP. (E) BUILDING CROWN CASTLE PULLBOX (E) AT&T PULLBOX (E) SDGE TRANSFORMER NO. D12L426, 304 (F) BUILDING SIGNAGE, TYP. ± 79' HIGH DRIVEWAY ACCESS \_RCV PULLBOX N88"58'33"W 1170.74' Qj LIGHT POLE 1-i-1 ERO/RP ERO Sheet No: Drawn by: Sh e e t T i t l e : Checked by: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION So l u t i o n s D o n e R i g h t DescriptionRev.Date: 90% ZD0 08-05-22 100% ZD1 09-06-22 100% ZD2 10-31-22RF CHANGES 100% ZD3 12-15-22CITY COMMENTS 100% ZD4 03-21-23CITY COMMENTS 58 5 5 C O P L E Y D R . S T E 1 0 0 , SA N D I E G O , C A 9 2 1 1 1 07-31-235100% ZD CITY COMMENTS 10-16-236100% ZD ENCL. TRELLIS 1/2" = 1'-0"EQUIPMENT PLAN 1 EQ U I P M E N T P L A N Z3 (P) VERTIV DC POWER PLANT CABINET (P) STACKED PURCELL CABINET, TOTAL OF (2) (P) 4"Ø STUB-UP, TYP. (P) TELCO CABINET (P) CIENA (P) DISCONNECT SWITCH (P) AC MAIN PANEL W/ GENERATOR RECEPTACLE (P) GPS ANTENNA (P) 8'-0" TALL CMU WALL ENCLOSURE, COLOR AND TEXTURE TO MATCH (E) MAINTENANCE BUILDING (P) 4"Ø BOLLARD, TYP. OF (5) (P) CURB TO MATCH EXISTING (P) DC-12 SURGE PROTECTOR, STACKED, TOTAL OF (2) (P) 20 kW GENERATOR WORK SPACE DEPTH, 5'-0" WORK SPACE DEPTH, 5'-0" WORK SPACE DEPTH, 5'-0"WO R K SP A C E , 1 6 " (P) 6'-0" WIDE DOUBLE LEAF ACCESS GATE CEC REQ'D WORK SPACE DEPTH, 3'-0" (P) H-FRAME (P) AT&T ENCLOSURE CONCRETE SLAB-ON-GRADE WITH FINISH SURFACE ±6" ABOVE (E) ROAD LEVEL (OR LEVEL TO THE (E) CURB'S TOP FINISH SURFACE). NOTE: THE (E) CONCRETE AND ASPHALT ROAD PAVEMENT WITHIN THE (P) AT&T ENCLOSURE TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH THE NEW CONCRETE SLAB-ON-GRADE (P) H-FRAME (P) METAL TRELLIS, PAINTED GREEN MATCHING THE ROOF COLOR OF THE ADJACENT (E) BUILDING STRUCTURE Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 87 of 138 24"x36" SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" 11"x17" SCALE: 1/4" = ,·-o· O" 1' 2' I'" - --. - V -'ii,-------- / ' 4' -, . . . . ~ =--. --4- <D \ . I ". \ • • 0 I ,. 4' -o" 4'-o" r I \ I I I \ \ I / / . -·1 I ., 4 <I. . <J <l C) 1 () Ll <l 0 <l <J Ll <l . <J <l <J <l <J <J Ll Ll <J ""'----(E) CURB <J <l <l <J <l <l <J <J Ll <J <l <l <l <l r Ll . <J " f 6' -0" <l <J • <J <J <J (P) AT&T LEASE AREA ,,s <l Ll " <J <J <l <J <J "Ll t <l <l <1 (E) CONCRETE <J <l <l <J <l <l <J PAVEMENT ~ Ll <J <l <l <J <l <l <J Ll <J Ll <J <J <l <l <J ' Ll <l <J Ll <l <J <l <J <l zi'.l <J <J <l - ; I \_(E) PATH WALK~ ,___-(E) PARKING STRIPE - \_(E) ASPHALT PAVEMENT ~ i:;S n:: <( w • Ul 0 i:;S I ':.t- _J ~ ~ ~ ~ a.. ._..., ERO/RP ERO Sh e e t N o : Dr a w n b y : Sheet Title:Ch e c k e d b y : NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N Solutions Done Right De s c r i p t i o n Re v . Da t e : 90 % Z D 0 08 - 0 5 - 2 2 10 0 % Z D 1 09 - 0 6 - 2 2 10 0 % Z D 2 10 - 3 1 - 2 2 RF C H A N G E S 10 0 % Z D 3 12 - 1 5 - 2 2 CI T Y C O M M E N T S 10 0 % Z D 4 03 - 2 1 - 2 3 CI T Y C O M M E N T S 5855 COPLEY DR. STE 100, SAN DIEGO, CA 92111 07 - 3 1 - 2 3 5 10 0 % Z D CI T Y C O M M E N T S 10 - 1 6 - 2 3 6 10 0 % Z D EN C L . T R E L L I S 1" = 1 ' - 0 " AN T E N N A P L A N / S C H E D U L E 1 ANTENNA / RRU PLAN AND SCHEDULEZ4 NO T E S : 1. C O N T R A C T O R T O C O N F I R M A N D V E R I F Y T H E R E Q U I R E D R R U S , E Q U I P M E N T M O D E L S , C O A X S I Z E , R F WI R I N G C O N N E C T I O N A N D D E T A I L S W I T H T H E F I N A L R F D S F R O M S A Q M A N A G E R O R A T & T R F E N G R 2. E X I S T I N G L I G H T F I X T U R E N O T S H O W N F O R C L A R I T Y . PR O P O S E D A N T E N N A / R R U S C H E D U L E SE C T O R A N T E N N A M O D E L A Z T I P H E I G H T RA D CE N T E R TE C H N O L O G Y RR U ' s / Q T Y . TM A / M U L T I P L E X E R / FI L T E R TR A N S M I S S I O N T Y P E / LE N G T H Alpha A1 N H H S 4 - 6 5 B - R 3 B 5 0 ° 6 7 ' - 1 1 " 6 4 ' - 1 1 " LT E 7 0 0 / 1 9 0 0 / A W S 5G 8 5 0 / 1 9 0 0 / A W S 44 4 9 B 5 / B 1 2 ( 1 ) | 8 8 4 3 B 2 / B 6 6 A ( 1 ) - FI B E R / ± 1 0 0 ' A2 N H H S 4 - 6 5 B - R 3 B 5 0 ° 5 9 ' - 1 1 " 5 6 ' - 1 1 " F I R S T N E T 44 4 9 B 5 / B 1 2 ( 1 ) - FI B E R / ± 1 0 0 ' A3 - - - - - - - - A4 - - - - - - - - Beta B1 N H H S 4 - 6 5 B - R 3 B 17 0 ° 6 7 ' - 1 1 " 6 4 ' - 1 1 " LT E 7 0 0 / 1 9 0 0 / A W S 5G 8 5 0 / 1 9 0 0 / A W S 44 4 9 B 5 / B 1 2 ( 1 ) | 8 8 4 3 B 2 / B 6 6 A ( 1 ) - FI B E R / ± 1 0 0 ' B2 N H H S 4 - 6 5 B - R 3 B 1 7 0 ° 5 9 ' - 1 1 " 5 6 ' - 1 1 " F I R S T N E T 44 7 8 B 1 4 ( 1 ) - FI B E R / ± 1 0 0 ' B3 - - - - - - - - B4 - - - - - - - - Gamma C1 N H H S 4 - 6 5 B - R 3 B 2 8 0 ° 6 7 ' - 1 1 " 6 4 ' - 1 1 " LT E 7 0 0 / 1 9 0 0 / A W S 5G 8 5 0 / 1 9 0 0 / A W S 44 4 9 B 5 / B 1 2 ( 1 ) | 8 8 4 3 B 2 / B 6 6 A ( 1 ) - FI B E R / ± 1 0 0 ' C2 N H H S 4 - 6 5 B - R 3 B 28 0 ° 5 9 ' - 1 1 " 5 6 ' - 1 1 " FI R S T N E T 44 7 8 B 1 4 ( 1 ) - FI B E R / ± 1 0 0 ' C3 - - - - - - - - C4 - - - - - - - - SE C T O R ' C ' AZ I M U T H 2 8 0 ° AN T E N N A / R R U E L E V A T I O N W I T H I N (P ) C Y L I N D R I C A L S H R O U D ( " R A D O M E " ) S E C T O R ' A ' A Z I M U T H 5 0 ° SECTOR 'B' AZIMUTH 17 0 ° 1S T L E V E L A N T E N N A P L A N 2N D L E V E L A N T E N N A P L A N (P ) A T & T N H H S 4 - 6 5 B - R 3 B , (1 ) P E R S E C T O R , ( 3 ) T O T A L (P ) ( 3 ) 8 8 4 3 R R U s M O U N T E D ON S T E E L P L A T E (P ) 4 ' - 0 " Ø x 1 8 ' - 0 " H FR P S H R O U D (P ) ± 7 8 ' - 0 " T A L L LI G H T P O L E LO W E R L E V E L R R U P L A N UP P E R L E V E L R R U P L A N (P ) 4 ' - 0 " Ø x 1 2 ' - 0 " H PE R F O R A T E D ME T A L S H R O U D (P ) ± 7 8 ' - 0 " T A L L L I G H T P O L E (± 8 " D I A . P E R S T R U C T U R A L ) (P ) 2 " Ø S T D . S T E E L P I P E @ E L E V . 6 7 ' - 3 " TO P O F ( P ) R A D O M E OP E N O N T O P WI T H B I R D S C R E E N (P ) 4 ' - 0 " Ø x 1 8 ' - 0 " H FR P S H R O U D (P ) A T & T N H H S 4 - 6 5 B - R 3 B , (1 ) P E R S E C T O R , ( 3 ) T O T A L (P ) A N T E N N A M O U N T I N G BR A C K E T ( S I T E P R O 1 W I T H PA R T # U T S M - L ) , T Y P . TO P O F ( P ) A N T E N N A S @ E L E V . 6 6 ' - 1 1 " (P ) A T & T N H H S 4 - 6 5 B - R 3 B , (1 ) P E R S E C T O R , ( 3 ) T O T A L (P ) S T A C K E D R R U s A N D S U R G E PR O T E C T O R , ( 3 ) 4 4 4 9 , ( 3 ) 4 4 7 8 AN D ( 3 ) S U R G E P R O T E C T O R S (P ) 4 ' - 0 " Ø x 1 2 ' - 0 " H PE R F O R A T E D ME T A L S H R O U D (P ) A T & T N H H S 4 - 6 5 B - R 3 B , (1 ) P E R S E C T O R , ( 3 ) T O T A L (P ) 4 ' - 0 " Ø x 1 8 ' - 0 " H FR P S H R O U D (P ) ± 7 8 ' - 0 " T A L L LI G H T P O L E @ E L E V . 3 7 ' - 3 " BO T T O M O F ( P ) R A D O M E (P ) 4 ' - 0 " Ø x 1 2 ' - 0 " H PE R F O R A T E D M E T A L S H R O U D (S T A G G E R E D 4 0 % O P E N ) 1/ 2 " = 1 ' - 0 " SC A L E 1" = 1 ' - 0 " SC A L E 1" = 1 ' - 0 " SC A L E 1" = 1 ' - 0 " SC A L E 1" = 1 ' - 0 " SC A L E (P ) ± 7 8 ' - 0 " T A L L LI G H T P O L E (P ) ± 7 8 ' - 0 " T A L L LI G H T P O L E (P ) 1 / 4 " S T E E L P L A T E WI T H P R E H O L E S FO R R R U M O U N T I N G (P ) 2 " Ø X 8 ' H S T D . ST E E L P I P E (P ) ± 7 8 ' - 0 " T A L L L I G H T P O L E (± 8 " D I A . P E R S T R U C T U R A L ) (P ) R R U M O U N T I N G BR A C K E T ( S I T E P R O 1 W I T H PA R T # U T S M - L ) , T Y P . (3 ) 4 4 4 9 R R U (3 ) 8 8 4 3 R R U (3 ) 4 4 7 8 R R U (3 ) D C - 9 S U R G E PR O T E C T O R (P ) 1 / 4 " S T E E L P L A T E WI T H P R E H O L E S FO R R R U M O U N T I N G (P ) D C - 9 S U R G E PR O T E C T O R (P ) R R U s , T Y P . (P ) ± 7 8 ' - 0 " T A L L L I G H T P O L E (± 8 " D I A . P E R S T R U C T U R A L ) RR U M O U N T I N G BR A C K E T , T Y P . RR U M O U N T I N G S E C T I O N 3/ 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " SC A L E De c . 6 , 2 0 2 3 It e m # 3 P a g e 8 8 o f 1 3 8 ~,-., ~~ x 11 x' ~ "' -.J "' • • "' "' ~~ r r r.i r.i ~~ ~ • • II II ~ ~ I I 00 . ' 0 • "' -":. .... -IS- I 0 = .... -IS- I 0 = <, '----- ffi ,t,10irlTH9i fTl fTl :,:, :,:, 0 0 ......_ :,:, -,, \ .... -"': I 0 = .... -"': I 0 = 8, © 0 © © ' © n J © ~ .. Ill Ill Ill Ill I II II I I Ill "' ~ ~ " "' I " I o o I I o " 0 I-' I O r I O r I 0 1-' ~ I I I I I I I I I O I I O I I O I I O I I I I l\ l ±3'-o" i. ±2'-8" i. ±2'-8" (2' MIN. 4' MAX. 1YP.) (2' MIN. 4' MAX. 1YP.) '~ ~~ ~~ ; ---- ---- 30'-o" (P) CYLINDRICAL SHROUD PER STRUCTURAL 12' -o" 18' -o" (P) PERFORATED METAL (P) FRP CYLINDRICAL SHROUD CYLINDRICAL SHROUD 1 • -5" 1 • -2" 1 '-2" 1 • -2'' 5' -o" 2'-o" 4" c:= = =;c = :::JILJ '---nLJnL □LJ □c'----~-~ ~--,--r-------7 -~ 3 ~ 3 ~ '? '-sr---~ '--,--~ I I J erg-;= ~L JI I L J r( -, n , , 1 11 11 .W .....--r n D n L :r:: I ,, lo::;::;:-o:;:+... I -·--~-1 ~ --9 ---,... -I LJ L ----:~ r -~ --- I I~ L 10 - 0 t $ I 3 ' I 3 ' I .J. --17.... r _ ...,__.,,_1 ----a---E -_{_ - --J:=~~~~~:::::::::;;::::;~~;:::::;51'=;!~ - -c-=;~~;:i_;;~~~;...;;~~~~ --~ u~ " " 111 1~0 u~3~3~ 7 I -~-·7 =;=;:ii" ,......._-----, "'·q 1~"~'113,,3, / / 1 I L j l ' n □ n I n u n L n D\~ ~-------,----------' I _,Jf ··~-• I ~aJ \ I ~ ~ 110 \ o JA§.h!!:E~ QM MD~ 10590 WEST OCEAN AIR DRIVE, SUITE 250 SAN DIEGO, CA 92130 ~ »_.1 at&t \:? ~ 7J ~ (/) I ;;a 0 -IS-_ C I 0 0 0 • ~ ~ rrl ;;a Sheet No: Drawn by: Sh e e t T i t l e : Checked by: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION So l u t i o n s D o n e R i g h t DescriptionRev.Date: 90% ZD0 08-05-22 100% ZD1 09-06-22 100% ZD2 10-31-22RF CHANGES 100% ZD3 12-15-22CITY COMMENTS 100% ZD4 03-21-23CITY COMMENTS 58 5 5 C O P L E Y D R . S T E 1 0 0 , SA N D I E G O , C A 9 2 1 1 1 07-31-235100% ZD CITY COMMENTS 10-16-236100% ZD ENCL. TRELLIS 1/8" = 1'-0"(P) NORTH ELEVATION 2 SI T E E L E V A T I O N S Z5 (E) GROUND LEVEL @ ELEV. -0'-10" (151.60' AMSL) (P) DC-9 SURGE PROTECTOR, TOTAL OF (3) TOP OF (E) LIGHT FIXTURES @ ELEV. ±77'-0" (229.41' AMSL) BOTTOM OF (E) LIGHT FIXTURES @ ELEV. ±73'-3" (225.66' AMSL) REFERENCE LINE @ ELEV. 0'-0" (152.41' AMSL) 1/8" = 1'-0"(E) NORTH ELEVATION 1 TOP OF (E) LIGHT POLE @ ELEV. ±78'-0" (230.28' AMSL) (E) GROUND LEVEL @ ELEV. -0'-10" (151.60' AMSL) (P) AT&T 8'-0" TALL CMU WALL ENCLOSURE, COLOR AND TEXTURE TO MATCH (E) MAINTENANCE BUILDING (P) GPS ANTENNA TOP OF (E) LIGHT FIXTURES @ ELEV. ±77'-0" (229.41' AMSL) BOTTOM OF (E) LIGHT FIXTURES @ ELEV. ±73'-3" (225.66' AMSL) REFERENCE LINE @ ELEV. 0'-0" (152.41' AMSL) TOP OF FOUNDATION / TOP OF (P) LIGHT POLE @ ELEV. ±78'-0" (230.28' AMSL) TOP OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 67'-11" RAD CENTER OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 64'-11" TOP OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 59'-11" RAD CENTER OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 56'-11" BOTTOM OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 53'-11" (E) POLE C3, ±78' HIGH STADIUM LIGHT POLE TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED (P) AT&T NHHS4-65B-R3B, (1) PER SECTOR, (3) TOTAL (P) STACKED RRUs, (3) PER SECTOR, TOTAL OF (9) (P) 4'-0"Ø x 30'-0" H CYLINDRICAL SHROUD (P) ±78'-0" HIGH STADIUM LIGHT POLE (E) TRASH ENCLOSURE TO BE REMOVED BOTTOM OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 61'-11" (P) AT&T NHHS4-65B-R3B, (1) PER SECTOR, (3) TOTAL BOTTOM OF (P) SHROUD @ ELEV. 38'-3" (P) METAL TRELLIS, PAINTED GREEN MATCHING THE ROOF COLOR OF THE ADJACENT (E) MAINTENANCE BUILDING Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 89 of 138 24"•36" SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" I 6.. 1 ·-0· 11"x17"SCALE:11 = 24"x36" SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 11 xl 7 SCALE: • '. 1/16"= 1 '-0" 4' -- 4' -- 8' -- 8' -- (E) TREES, TYP. •Q,:. •• :, . . 16' -, \_ I I (E) TREES, TYP. • • • Q ; • N \_ 16' -, = 0 I U"l Cl !t= ::::, • 0 0 e::: I :::c ao V1 ~ a.. e::: LL Cl ::::, 0 b e::: :::c I V1 N _J ~ ~ . (E) LIGHT FIXTURE, TYP. n n I 1 11 1 I I I I U11U n 11n I 1111 I I I I ~-I ILJ ~ l .. (E) MAINTENANCE BUILDING (E) LIGHT FIXTURE, TYP. (E) MAINTENANCE BUILDING r ~~ 0~ u~ w~ ..J~ w~ .... ~ 0 ERO/RP ERO Sheet No: Drawn by: Sh e e t T i t l e : Checked by: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION So l u t i o n s D o n e R i g h t DescriptionRev.Date: 90% ZD0 08-05-22 100% ZD1 09-06-22 100% ZD2 10-31-22RF CHANGES 100% ZD3 12-15-22CITY COMMENTS 100% ZD4 03-21-23CITY COMMENTS 58 5 5 C O P L E Y D R . S T E 1 0 0 , SA N D I E G O , C A 9 2 1 1 1 07-31-235100% ZD CITY COMMENTS 10-16-236100% ZD ENCL. TRELLIS SI T E E L E V A T I O N S Z6 1/8" = 1'-0"(P) EAST ELEVATION 2 (E) GROUND LEVEL @ ELEV. -0'-10" (151.60' AMSL) TOP OF (E) LIGHT FIXTURES @ ELEV. ±77'-0" (229.41' AMSL) BOTTOM OF (E) LIGHT FIXTURES @ ELEV. ±73'-3" (225.66' AMSL) REFERENCE LINE @ ELEV. 0'-0" (152.41' AMSL) 1/8" = 1'-0"(E) EAST ELEVATION 1 TOP OF (E) LIGHT POLE @ ELEV. ±78'-0" (230.28' AMSL) (E) GROUND LEVEL @ ELEV. -0'-10" (151.60' AMSL) REFERENCE LINE @ ELEV. 0'-0" (152.41' AMSL) TOP OF FOUNDATION / (E) POLE C3, ±78' HIGH STADIUM LIGHT POLE TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED (P) AT&T 8'-0" TALL CMU WALL ENCLOSURE, COLOR AND TEXTURE TO MATCH (E) MAINTENANCE BUILDING (P) GPS ANTENNA (P) 4"Ø BOLLARD, TYP. OF (5) (E) TRASH ENCLOSURE TO BE REMOVED (E) BOLLARD TO BE REMOVED (P) DC-9 SURGE PROTECTOR, TOTAL OF (3) TOP OF (E) LIGHT FIXTURES @ ELEV. ±77'-0" (229.41' AMSL) BOTTOM OF (E) LIGHT FIXTURES @ ELEV. ±73'-3" (225.66' AMSL) TOP OF (P) LIGHT POLE @ ELEV. ±78'-0" (230.28' AMSL) (P) AT&T NHHS4-65B-R3B, (1) PER SECTOR, (3) TOTAL (P) STACKED RRUs, (3) PER SECTOR, TOTAL OF (9) (P) 4'-0"Ø x 30'-0" H CYLINDRICAL SHROUD (P) ±78'-0" HIGH STADIUM LIGHT POLE (P) AT&T NHHS4-65B-R3B, (1) PER SECTOR, (3) TOTAL TOP OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 67'-11" RAD CENTER OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 64'-11" TOP OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 59'-11" RAD CENTER OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 56'-11" BOTTOM OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 53'-11" BOTTOM OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 61'-11" BOTTOM OF (P) SHROUD @ ELEV. 38'-3" (P) METAL TRELLIS, PAINTED GREEN MATCHING THE ROOF COLOR OF THE ADJACENT (E) MAINTENANCE BUILDING Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 90 of 138 24"•36" SCA • 11• LE. • 1 7" SCALE: 24"x36" SCALE: 11 "•17" SCALE: 1/8• = 1'-0" 1/16"= 1,_0• 1/8• = 1'-0" 1/16"= 1,_0• 4' -- 4' -- 8' -- 8' -- 16' -, 16' -, \_ • 0 I ll'J • 0 I . co ~ • 0 I N ~ (E) LIGHT FIXTURE , c::::, => 0 a::: ::c en a... a::: LL. c::::, => 0 a::: ::c en TYP. ·1:::,,.,.•, " -;,,: .. ~ " .. • N I N (E) LIGHT FIXTURE, TYP . (E) TREES, TYP. REEN fflL-------@1 l------------1 -----------( E) MAI NTENAN c E BUILDING (E) MAINTENANCE BUILDING - ERO/RP ERO AT&T operates telecommunications antennas at this location. Remain atleast 3 feet away from any antenna and obey all posted signs.Contact the owner(s) of the antenna(s) before working closer than 3 feetfrom the antenna.Contact AT&T at ______________ prior to performing anymaintenance or repHEXs near AT&T antennas. This isSite#____________Contact the management office if this door/hatch/gate is found unlocked. En esta propiedad se ubican antenas de telecomunicationes operadas por AT&T.Favor mantener una distancia de no menos de 3 pies y obedecer todos los avisos.Comuniquese con el propictario o los propicatarios de las antenas antes detrabajar o caminar a una distancia de menos de 3 pies de la antena.Comuniquese con AT&T _______antes de realizar cualquier mantenimiento oreparaciones cerca de la antenas de AT&T.Esta es la estacion base numero_______Favor comunicarse con la oficina de la administracion del edificio si esta puerta ocompuerta se encuentra sin candado. INFORMATION INFORMACION 02 3W Sheet No: Drawn by: Sh e e t T i t l e : Checked by: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION So l u t i o n s D o n e R i g h t DescriptionRev.Date: 90% ZD0 08-05-22 100% ZD1 09-06-22 100% ZD2 10-31-22RF CHANGES 100% ZD3 12-15-22CITY COMMENTS 100% ZD4 03-21-23CITY COMMENTS 58 5 5 C O P L E Y D R . S T E 1 0 0 , SA N D I E G O , C A 9 2 1 1 1 07-31-235100% ZD CITY COMMENTS 10-16-236100% ZD ENCL. TRELLIS SI T E E L E V A T I O N S Z7 1/8" = 1'-0"(P) SOUTH ELEVATION 2 (E) GROUND LEVEL @ ELEV. -0'-10" (151.60' AMSL) TOP OF (E) LIGHT FIXTURES @ ELEV. ±77'-0" (229.41' AMSL) BOTTOM OF (E) LIGHT FIXTURES @ ELEV. ±73'-3" (225.66' AMSL) REFERENCE LINE @ ELEV. 0'-0" (152.41' AMSL) 1/8" = 1'-0"(E) SOUTH ELEVATION 1 TOP OF (E) LIGHT POLE @ ELEV. ±78'-0" (230.28' AMSL) (E) GROUND LEVEL @ ELEV. -0'-10" (151.60' AMSL) REFERENCE LINE @ ELEV. 0'-0" (152.41' AMSL) TOP OF FOUNDATION / (E) POLE C3, ±78' HIGH STADIUM LIGHT POLE TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED (P) AT&T 8'-0" TALL CMU WALL ENCLOSURE, COLOR AND TEXTURE TO MATCH (E) MAINTENANCE BUILDING (P) 6'-0" WIDE DOUBLE LEAF ACCESS GATE (P) GPS ANTENNA (P) 4"Ø BOLLARD, TYP. OF (5) (E) TRASH ENCLOSURE TO BE REMOVED (E) BOLLARDS TO BE REMOVED (P) DC-9 SURGE PROTECTOR, TOTAL OF (3) TOP OF (E) LIGHT FIXTURES @ ELEV. ±77'-0" (229.41' AMSL) BOTTOM OF (E) LIGHT FIXTURES @ ELEV. ±73'-3" (225.66' AMSL) TOP OF (P) LIGHT POLE @ ELEV. ±78'-0" (230.28' AMSL) (P) STACKED RRUs, (3) PER SECTOR, TOTAL OF (9) (P) ±78'-0" HIGH STADIUM LIGHT POLE TOP OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 67'-11" RAD CENTER OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 64'-11" TOP OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 59'-11" RAD CENTER OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 56'-11" BOTTOM OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 53'-11" (P) AT&T NHHS4-65B-R3B, (1) PER SECTOR, (3) TOTAL (P) 4'-0"Ø x 30'-0" H CYLINDRICAL SHROUD BOTTOM OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 61'-11" (P) AT&T NHHS4-65B-R3B, (1) PER SECTOR, (3) TOTAL BOTTOM OF (P) SHROUD @ ELEV. 38'-3" (P) METAL TRELLIS, PAINTED GREEN MATCHING THE ROOF COLOR OF THE ADJACENT (E) MAINTENANCE BUILDING Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 91 of 138 24"•36" SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 11"x17" SCALE: 1/16"= 1•-0• 4' --8' --16' -, (E) MAINTENANCE BUILDING (E) MAINTENANCE BUILDING (E) LIGHT FIXTURE, TYP. • 0 I I{) c:::, => !t= • 0 0 a::: I ::c . Vl co ~ a... a::: LL. c:::, => 0 • a::: 0 ::c I Vl N _J ~ ~ :::;; (E) LIGHT FIXTURE, TYP . n n 11111111 111 II 111~111 u u nttn 111 111 1111111 111 111 utf u . ~irr N >k--!!!!!----- 1 N,-'k--!llll-- • 0 I TREES, TYP. TREES, TYP . \ 1 <:,fl:~ e,(;> ~~:;,;;,,1~:;;;t ··~•"-<c,.~e ~" "<='. g '\ '"!, ... J'IJ ~ e, .. ,;,,;;;;; ', RP ERO/EA Sheet No: Drawn by: Sh e e t T i t l e : Checked by: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION So l u t i o n s D o n e R i g h t DescriptionRev.Date: 90% ZD0 08-05-22 100% ZD1 09-06-22 100% ZD2 10-31-22RF CHANGES 100% ZD3 12-15-22CITY COMMENTS 100% ZD4 03-21-23CITY COMMENTS 58 5 5 C O P L E Y D R . S T E 1 0 0 , SA N D I E G O , C A 9 2 1 1 1 07-31-235100% ZD CITY COMMENTS 10-16-236100% ZD ENCL. TRELLIS SI T E E L E V A T I O N S Z8 1/8" = 1'-0"(P) WEST ELEVATION 2 (E) GROUND LEVEL @ ELEV. -0'-10" (151.60' AMSL) TOP OF (E) LIGHT FIXTURES @ ELEV. ±77'-0" (229.41' AMSL) BOTTOM OF (E) LIGHT FIXTURES @ ELEV. ±73'-3" (225.66' AMSL) REFERENCE LINE @ ELEV. 0'-0" (152.41' AMSL) 1/8" = 1'-0"(E) WEST ELEVATION 1 TOP OF (E) LIGHT POLE @ ELEV. ±78'-0" (230.28' AMSL) (E) GROUND LEVEL @ ELEV. -0'-10" (151.60' AMSL) REFERENCE LINE @ ELEV. 0'-0" (152.41' AMSL) TOP OF FOUNDATION / (P) AT&T 8'-0" TALL CMU WALL ENCLOSURE, COLOR AND TEXTURE TO MATCH (E) MAINTENANCE BUILDING (P) 4"Ø BOLLARD, TYP. OF (5) (E) POLE C3, ±78' HIGH STADIUM LIGHT POLE TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED (E) TRASH ENCLOSURE TO BE REMOVED (E) BOLLARDS TO BE REMOVED (P) DC-9 SURGE PROTECTOR, TOTAL OF (3) TOP OF (E) LIGHT FIXTURES @ ELEV. ±77'-0" (229.41' AMSL) BOTTOM OF (E) LIGHT FIXTURES @ ELEV. ±73'-3" (225.66' AMSL) TOP OF (P) LIGHT POLE @ ELEV. ±78'-0" (230.28' AMSL) (P) STACKED RRUs, (3) PER SECTOR, TOTAL OF (9) (P) ±78'-0" HIGH STADIUM LIGHT POLE TOP OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 67'-11" RAD CENTER OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 64'-11" TOP OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 59'-11" RAD CENTER OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 56'-11" BOTTOM OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 53'-11" (P) AT&T NHHS4-65B-R3B, (1) PER SECTOR, (3) TOTAL (P) 4'-0"Ø x 30'-0" H CYLINDRICAL SHROUD BOTTOM OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 61'-11" (P) AT&T NHHS4-65B-R3B, (1) PER SECTOR, (3) TOTAL BOTTOM OF (P) SHROUD @ ELEV. 38'-3" (P) METAL TRELLIS, PAINTED GREEN MATCHING THE ROOF COLOR OF THE ADJACENT (E) MAINTENANCE BUILDING Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 92 of 138 24"•36" SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 11"x17" SCALE: 1/16"= 1'-0" 24"x36" SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 11"x17" SCALE: 1/16"= 1'-0" 4' -- 4' -- 8' -- 8' -- 16' -, (E) TREES, 16' -, (E) MAINTENANCE BUILDING (E) MAINTENANCE BUILDING \_ (E) TREES. !Yr.\ • • ,. 0 ••• ~ ~ \ . . .. , ... I I I (E) LIGHT FIXTURE, TYP. ... ~ (E) LIGHT FIXTURE, TYP. = 0 I t.n r, n I 1 11 11 I I 11 c::, ~11U ::::> ~t= • 0 0 a::: n 11n I ::c co (/) ~ 0... I 11111 a::: LL I I 11 c::, LJI I", ~ l ::::> 0 = a::: 0 ::c I (/) N ~ ~, ... ,.,"lc"=L_ "'i~-'-..,___....r='·<]S'i:,S}:;. "t.,~ ,,., ~-·.0 <> ' .'iif;•, RP ERO/EA V 'J, \1., Sheet No: Drawn by: Sh e e t T i t l e : Checked by: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION So l u t i o n s D o n e R i g h t DescriptionRev.Date: 90% ZD0 08-05-22 100% ZD1 09-06-22 100% ZD2 10-31-22RF CHANGES 100% ZD3 12-15-22CITY COMMENTS 100% ZD4 03-21-23CITY COMMENTS 58 5 5 C O P L E Y D R . S T E 1 0 0 , SA N D I E G O , C A 9 2 1 1 1 07-31-235100% ZD CITY COMMENTS 10-16-236100% ZD ENCL. TRELLIS SI T E D E T A I L S D1 COMMSCOPE NHHS4-65B-R3B NTSNOT USED 2NTSNOT USED 1 NTS(P) SURGE PROTECTOR SPECIFICATIONS 6NTS(P) ANTENNA SPECIFICATIONS 3 NTS(P) RRU SPECIFICATIONS 5 ERI C S S O N ERICSSON 4478 ERICSSON 4449 ERICSSON 8843 m m RAYCAP DC9-48-60-8C-EV NTS(P) GPS ANTENNA 8 NTSNOT USED 9 NTSNOT USED 10NTSNOT USED 4 RAYCAP DC12-48-60-0-25E NTS(P) SURGE PROTECTOR SPECIFICATIONS 7 COMMSCOPE: BSAMNT-3 Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 93 of 138 DIMENSIONS, LxWxD: WEIGHT (W/OUT MOUNTING KIT): RF CONNECTOR INTERFACE: RF CONNECTOR QTY. WIND SPEED, MAX.: D PLAN 1828 x 350 x 208mm (71.969" X 13.78" X 8.189") 27 kg. (59.525 lbs) 4.3-10 FEMALE 14-(8) HIGH, ( 4) MID AND (2) LOW 241 km/h I 150 mph ................ FRONT SIDE WEIGHT: 6.2 kg. (13.7 lbs) ,- I ""' CX) - :a. -,---- 25 ~. ,I• ' 50 MIN. ' 53 MAX. ' tt V ·, CX) j N - -8 I'. ./ llb!I!. \M ;I~; B::T, r-, - 58 Nm 82, 866A DIMENSIONS, WxDxH: 335x277x380mm 13.2''x10.9"x14.9" WEIGHT: MAX WIND LOAD: BREAKER SIZE: 72 lbs (32.6 Kg) EXCL. HARDWARE @ 50M/SEC = 260N 2x30A, DC POWER CONSUMPTION= 1520W POWER SUPPLY: -48 VDC 3-WIRE (2 WIRE WITH ADAPTER) 85, 812 DIMENSIONS, WxDxH: 335x240x455mm 13.19"x9.44"x17.9" WEIGHT: MAX WIND LOAD: BREAKER SIZE: 71 lbs (32 Kg) EXCL. HARDWARE @ 50M/SEC = 260N 814 DIMENSIONS, WxDxH: WEIGHT: MAX WIND LOAD: BREAKER SIZE: DIMENSIONS, LxWxH: 2x25A, DC POWER CONSUMPTION=1440W 13.4 "x8.26"x 18.1" 59.4 lbs (27 Kg) @ 50M/SEC = 260N 25A 464x260x797mm NOMINAL OPERATING VOLTAGE: ( 18.28"x10.24x31 .4") 48 VDC NOM. DISCHARGE CURRENT: MAX. DISCHARGE CURRENT: MAX. CONTINUOUS OPERATING VOLTAGE: VOLTAGE PROTECTION RATING: 20 kA 8/20 s 60 kA 8/20 s 60 VDC 330 V WIND LOADING: 150 MPH SUSTAINED (105.7 lbs) TOTAL WEIGHT: 195 MPH GUST (213.6 lbs) 26.2 lbs DIMENSIONS, WxDxH: 461.39x509.52x161.71 mm ( 18.17"x6.37"x20.06") ENCLOSURE TYPE: NEMA 4X RATED TOTAL WEIGHT: 56.3 LBS [25.54 KG] 20· -'le---].-----• 18.17" ,j • ..... ,,-0 • ~ . .. I U " " .. ' ~ I 6.37" □ LI U ~ FRONT VIEW SIDE VIEW MOUNTING BRACKET I ~SURGE PROTECTOR ·u 51 it•~I ,l 21.00" J, BOTTOM VIEW (P) METAL TRELLIS HSS TUBE (2) 1 / 4"0 THRU BOLTS, TYP. 7\ ~r ---N~:EW GPS ANTENNA ✓ ,----STEEL PIPE, PER MFR V P1000 UNISTRUT 12" LENGTH, TYP. Ai=t~=ll'~l~_,~--f~IPE CLAMP, TYP. - ERO/RP ERO Sheet No: Drawn by: Sh e e t T i t l e : Checked by: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION So l u t i o n s D o n e R i g h t DescriptionRev.Date: 90% ZD0 08-05-22 100% ZD1 09-06-22 100% ZD2 10-31-22RF CHANGES 100% ZD3 12-15-22CITY COMMENTS 100% ZD4 03-21-23CITY COMMENTS 58 5 5 C O P L E Y D R . S T E 1 0 0 , SA N D I E G O , C A 9 2 1 1 1 07-31-235100% ZD CITY COMMENTS 10-16-236100% ZD ENCL. TRELLIS SI T E D E T A I L S D2 NTS(P) DC POWER CABINET SPECIFICATIONS 1 Outdoor NetSure 512 DC Power System ™ FLX21-2520 FlexSure® WS OUTDOOR ENCLOSURE NTS(P) PURCELL CABINET SPECIFICATIONS 2 NTSNOT USED 8 NTSNOT USED 7 NTSNOT USED 9NTS(P) GENERATOR SPECIFICATIONS 3 SDC020 | 2.2L | 20 kW NTS(P) MAIN AC PANEL SPECIFICATIONS 4 CIENA 3931 NTS(P) CIENA SPECIFICATIONS 5 NTSNOT USED 6 Intersect™, Inc. PTLC-ATS-3S-12200-CL-ATT Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 94 of 138 THE NETXTEND FLEX SERIES -48VDC/+24VDC POWER/BATTERY ENCLOSURE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS BATTERY: BATTERY FOR TELECOM & ELECTRIC UTILITY APPLICATIONS 72"x32"x39" DIMENSIONS, HxWxD: WEIGHT: 752 LB (314 KG) WITHOUT BATTERIES AND RECTIFIERS MOUNTING: 2500 LB (1134 KG) WITH FULL COMPLEMENT OF BATTERIES PAD OR PLATFORM CD CD (D n N OCJ N c~ 6X0.750~ 2.68 28 18 N; 0SP r;x IITILJIY ~ 3.50 • ( l lQQQ(I'). . • • 0 0 CD co 0 -• • . 22.83 4.5 ANCHORAGE PLAN r/J 1. ITT "" cr, co N N 0 r--: cr, n N 0 EQUIPMENT COMPARTMENT BATTERY COMPARTMENT (EQUIPPED W/ (3) BATTERY HEATER PADS) CABINET PLINTH W/ AT&T MOBILITY # NEQ.15998 DIMENSIONS, WxDxH: 25.27"x29.99"x39. 70" COLOR: MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE: ULTRA LIGHT GRAY POLYESTER POWDER COAT FINISH 46" C WEIGHT: MOUNTING OPTIONS: 140 LBS (ENCLOSURE ONLY) ±207 LBS (FULLY LOADED) POLE, 4" OR 12" RISER PLINTH, WALL/H-FRAME PAD, STACKING -NO ADDITIONAL KIT REQUIRED FLX21-2520 IS STACKABLE ON TOP OF FLX12-2420 & FLX16-2520 ENCLOSURES 1. 21.5 1. 1 BOLT CENTER DIST 1 VJ 0 Ck:'. .,,w . 1-<0 Z ~w 0 '::i 0 - I - - - FRONT ANCHORAGE PLAN STANDBY POWER RATING 20 kW, 25 kVA, 60 Hz I LEVEL 2 SOUND ATTENUATION ENCLOSURE RUN TIME HOURS: 64.4 USABLE CAPACITY GAL (L) 103 (390) L x W xH in (mm) 56 x 34.5 x 99.1 (1422 X 876 X 2515) WEIGHT lbs (kg): 2090 (948) (WET ENGINE/DRY TANK) SOUND LEVEL: 71 dBA USE HEX BOLT 1/2-13, 1.25" LONG W/ SPLIT AND LOCK WASHERS ON 4 PLACES WHERE LIFTING EYE BOLTS WERE LOCATED----~< (P) PURCELL CABINET STACK MOUNTED RISER PLINTH PER MFR., SEE MOUNTING OPTIONS FUEL SYSTEM FUEL TYPE: FUEL SPECIFICATIONS: ULTRA LOW SULFUR DIESEL FUEL ASTM ENGINE TYPE: CONFORMS TO UL STD 2200 FUEL TANK IS UL 142 LISTED DIESEL BATTERY HEATER CONTROL UNIT - - HEAT EXCHANGER 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 oO (J 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 (J 0 0 240/120, 200A, 3-src PTLC ASCO Series 300-G ATS NEQ.20110 DIMENSIONS, TOTAL WEIGHT: UL 891 LISTED 32"H x 22''w x 1 o" D 80 lbs (APPROX.) CABINET WITH CAMLOK CONNECTOR PANEL, 240 VAC / 120 VAC, 200A POWER TRANSFER LOAD CENTER WITH AUTOMATIC TRANSFER BETWEEN UTILITY AND AN ALTERNATIVE POWER SOURCE PERMANENTLY CONNECTED OR TEMPORARILY CONNECTED VIA CAMLOK STYLE CONNECTORS. PTLC INCLUDES ASCO 510 SERIES TVSS SURGE PROTECTION, A 30-POSITION SQUARED NO PANELBOARD, AND AN ALARM MONITOR FOR UTILITY POWER LOSS SPD FAIL, AND GENERATOR. (VERTIV P /N 151840.) NOTE: GENERATOR INPUT SIDE MOUNT RECEPTACLE (ICL, INTERSECT CAM LOK) MAY BE ORDERED SEPARATELY AND INSTALLED ON EITHER SIDE OF THE PANEL OR INSTALLED ON THE PREFERRED LOCATION AT SITE. DIMENSIONS, HxWxD: 17"X16.8"X7" WEIGHT: 28.6 LBS 16.S" 1/ " r----- -~ If') DI'. I-w P"l r-<[ ,_. :r:w u u.. '-"o W<i:: z DI'. DI'. :r: O' w w ~'-" z ,_. ::E ::E ,_. DI'. □ □ z w w z I-I--> DI'. ,_. VJ VJ :,co ~ P"l ~ ,_. ::::> ::::> OJ Cl. u.. l=l u u ' <l'. z N • • l::J • • st -st -st -st -st ' ' • ' ' --(\J --(FINI I I ' I I ----- C 7'' t t SH GRADE ERO/RP ERO CEQA DETERMINATION OF EXEMPTION Subject: This California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Determination of Exemption is in compliance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 19.04.060. An appeal to this determination must be filed in writing with the required fee within ten (10) calendar days of the City Planner's decision consistent with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.54.140. Project Number and Title: CUP 2022-0023/CDP 2022-0070 (DEV2022-0206) -POINSETTIA PARK WCF AT&T Project Location -Specific: 6600 Hidden Valley Road (APN: 214-140-13-00) Project Location -City: �Ca=r�ls=b=ad�-----Project Location -County: =Sa=n"'-=--D·=1e....._go-=------ Description of Project: Minor Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit to install a new wireless communication facility (WCF). The project includes the demolition of an existing trash enclosure and removal of an existing, 78-foot tall. baseball field light pole, and the installation of a 78-foot light pole with six (6) wireless antennas and nine (9) remote radio units placed around the pole with a four-foot diameter cylindrical screening shroud and ground-level equipment enclosure. Name of Public Agency Approving Project: -=c.C=ity.L...=..of'-C=a=r=ls=b=ad"'----------------­ Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: �Ci=ty'-"-of'--C=a"-'-r=ls=b=ad"'--------------­ Name of Applicant: Harold Thomas Jr .• MD7 (obo AT&T Wireless) Applicant's Address: 7337 Trade Street, Suite 250, San Diego, CA 92121 Applicant's Telephone Number: _8 _58_-_7 _50_-_1 _7 _89 ___________________ _ Name of Applicant/Identity of person undertaking the project (if different from the applicant above): NA Exempt Status: (Check One) D Ministerial (Section 21080(b)(1); 15268); D Declared Emergency (Section 21080(b)(3); 15269(a)); D Emergency Project (Section 21080(b)(4); 15269 (b)(c)); � Categorical Exemption -State type and section number: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures -Section 15303 D Statutory Exemptions -State code number:. ___________________ _ D Common Sense Exemption (Section 15061(b)(3)) Reasons why project is exempt: Section 15303 exempts construction and location of small facilities or structures. and the installation of small equipment and facilities in small structures. Lead Agency Contact Person: Kyle Van Leeuwen Telephone: 442-339-2611 ERIC LARDY, City Planner Date Exhibit 11 Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 95 of 138 &tit ~ LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Exhibit 12 This is a list of acronyms and abbreviations (in alphabetical order) that are commonly used in staff reports. Acronym Description Acronym Description APA American Planning Association LCPA Local Coastal Program Amendment APN Assessor Parcel Number LOS Level of Service AQMD Air Quality Management District MND Mitigated Negative Declaration BMP Best Management Practice NCTD North County Transit District CALTRANS California Department of Transportation ND Negative Declaration CC City Council PC Planning Commission CCR Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions PDP Planned Development Permit CEQA California Environmental Quality Act PEIR Program Environmental Impact Report CFD Community Facilities District PUD Planned Unit Development CIP Capital Improvement Program ROW Right of Way COA Conditions of Approval RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board CofO Certificate of Occupancy SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments CT Tentative Parcel Map SDP Site Development Permit CUP Conditional Use Permit SP Specific Plan DIF Development Impact Fee SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program DISTRICT City Council Member District Number TM Tentative Map EIR Environmental Impact Report ZC Zone Change EIS Environmental Impact Statement (federal) EPA Environmental Protection Agency FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency GP General Plan GPA General Plan Amendment GIS Geographic Information Systems HCA Housing Crisis Act 2019 IS Initial Study Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 96 of 138 Exhibits “A” – “K” dated Dec.6, 2023 (on file in the office of the City Clerk) Exhibit 13 Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 97 of 138 1 Kyle Van Leeuwen From:Michelle Backus <michwilsoncali@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, February 4, 2023 8:06 AM To:Lauren Yzaguirre Subject:90' Cellular Pole Replacing 78' Light Pole @ Poinsettia Park Hi Lauren, I have two young children and we live very close to this cellular pole. I completely disagree with replacing the 78’ light pole with a 90’ pole as it’s unsafe. Here are the reasons why I am against this project: Project Details: CUP 2022-0023 (Conditional Use Permit) > 90' cellular/light pole to replace existing 78' light pole > 12 more feet is TOO HIGH > Exposed antennas will be hung near top of pole IMPAIRED LINE OF SIGHT > In parking lot next to the bathrooms by the field where Jazz in the Park is held TOO CLOSE TO PEOPLE > First cellular structure at Poinsettia Park NOT NEEDED > RF Radiation Dangers .. near where people live and children playing at the park DANGEROUS TO HEALTH This cannot happen! Please let me know what I need to do to prevent this from happening! Thanks, Michelle Backus 321-278-1044 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Exhibit 14 Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 98 of 138 Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 99 of 138 February 18, 2023 VIA EMAIL 'Drs. §. 'Doue(as &' 'Rita 'M.. 'Barfett 6563 Pe tunia P(ace Carfs6ac{, Ca(ifornia 9 201 1 Pfione: 619-933-1229 ~-'Mai[ rm6arfett@gmaiCcom Kyle Van Leeuwen kyle.vanleeuwen@caclsbadca,gov RE : MD7 Poinsettia Park transmission tower proposal Dear Mr. Leeuwen, Besides the beautiful location and unparalleled good weatther, one of the greatest benefits of our area is the lack of 'communication towers' and the resultant poor cell service. We are undoubtedly being exposed to a lower level of rad iation than in other areas, and the poor cell service is a concrete demonstration of this. It is well known, and there are a plethora of studies demonstrating, the deleterious effects of th is cell tower radiation to both human and animal life. It is both deceitful and disingenuous to attempt to state otherwise. There are adults and children living in close proximity to Poinsettia Park. Never mind the adults, children, and their animals who regularly spend time in the park. Currently, the nesting ospreys are back preparing for th is year's hatchlings on one of the lig ht poles on the south side of this park. That is only one of the myriad of wildlif e species enjoying and thriving in this park. The bio- Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 100 of 138 density, biodiversity, and health of all the animals in this area will rapidly decline if the radiation exposure is increased. We are adamantly opposed to the installation of th is device, and implore the City of Carlsbad to deny this request in order to continue to maintain the healthy lives of its citizens, their animals, and all animal life in this area which is the responsibility of the government to its constituents. ~ vV\. -6tV.lu:tf ' ~ Rita M. Barkett, ID.D.S. 1 Kyle Van Leeuwen From:rich breyer <rpbreyer@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, February 26, 2023 1:13 PM To:Lauren Yzaguirre Subject:Relocate the cellular pole at Poinsettia Park Hello Ms Yzaguirre, I am writing this to requesting that they RELOCATE the proposed cellular antenna pole AWAY FROM NEARBY RESIDENTIAL HOMES AND CHILDREN/YOUTH AT THE PARK AND PAC RIM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL . I am sure they can find a suitable location in another area. There are know health risks with cell towers and I hope the city can stand up for our citizens. Thanks Richard Breyer 760-473-2489 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 101 of 138 - 1 Kyle Van Leeuwen From:Katherine <kc_lord@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, February 5, 2023 2:04 PM To:Lauren Yzaguirre Subject:Project : CUP 2022-0023 (City of Carlsbad Conditional Use Permit) > 90' cellular/light pole A 90 feet high cellular pole with exposed antennas hanging near the very top of the pole in the middle of the Poinsettia park? Not only it is an eyesore to blemish the beautiful skyline and the park, the RF radiation danger will impact everyone who lives, works, plays or visits the area. It is also too close to Pac Rim elementary school for comfort. Please do NOT issue such permit or our city may take on all the unknown liabilities. Thank you, Katherine Chang 6733 Tea Tree St. CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 102 of 138 1 Kyle Van Leeuwen From:Silvia Chang <kandmmom@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, February 6, 2023 3:00 PM To:Lauren Yzaguirre Subject:Proposed cell tower for Poinsettia Park Dear Ms. Ysaguirre, I am very concerned about putting a cell tower in Poinsettia Park. I live in the Greystone Cove which is one of the neighborhoods adjacent to the park. I specifically bought this house 21 years ago because it was in an area that was away from the power lines that are pervasive in the Aviara/Poinsettia region of Carlsbad. Now you are proposing to put up a cell tower that could pose significant health hazards to the residents in the area. This area is densely populated, there is a school nearby, and numerous people go to the park for recreation. Why would you put something that could emit dangerous radiation so close to so many people. We already have to contend with the lights from the park lighting up our neighborhood until late at night, the increased traffic and parking in our neighborhood (also increased pollution as a result), planes flying overhead or taking off over our houses because there is no enforcement of the rules at the airport. This is another slap in the face to the people in this part of Carlsbad. Please consider rejecting this proposal and putting it somewhere where there are not so many children and other people. Thank you, Silvia Chang Silvia Chang 760-310-2570 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 103 of 138 1 Kyle Van Leeuwen From:Mary Crotty <marycrotty4@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, February 1, 2023 9:34 PM To:Lauren Yzaguirre Subject:Fwd: 90' Cellular Pole Replacing 78' Light Pole @ Poinsettia Park I wholeheartedly second all the reasons in this forwarded message to deny this application. Mary Crotty 6713 Camphor Place Carlsbad, CA 92011 Begin forwarded message: From: "AT&T Inc." <cheryllinzey@sbcglobal.net> Subject: Fw: 90' Cellular Pole Replacing 78' Light Pole @ Poinsettia Park Date: February 1, 2023 at 9:12:43 PM PST To: Mary Crotty <marycrotty4@gmail.com>, Dave Steffy <dsteffy@sbcglobal.net> Please send your objection to Lauren Aguirre at the City of Carlsbad before it's too late! ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: AT&T Inc. <cheryllinzey@sbcglobal.net> To: lauren.yzaguirre@carlsbadca.gov <lauren.yzaguirre@carlsbadca.gov> Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2023 at 09:08:57 PM PST Subject: 90' Cellular Pole Replacing 78' Light Pole @ Poinsettia Park The application for CUP2022-0023 should be denied on the basis of the following; 1. The height of the pole and tower will ad to a negative view impact for all surrounding homes. We don't want anymore than what is already excessive man made view pollution in our area. The Cellular towers are not pleasant to look at and are a negative impact on home values. 2. RF Radiation Dangers are near residents and will cause children and anyone playing in the park exposer to Dangerous health hazards. The City of Carlsbad and it's elected officials must understand the above and protect the citizens of Carlsbad from the possible and these negative impacts. I realize that the City is looking for revenue flow from AT&T but should not be at the cost of making our area worst for it. David and Cheryl Linzey 6705 Camphor Place Carlsbad CA, 92011 Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 104 of 138 1 Kyle Van Leeuwen From:Scott Chadwick Sent:Thursday, March 23, 2023 8:21 AM To:Eric Lardy; Jeff Murphy Cc:Geoff Patnoe; Gary Barberio Subject:FW: Thank you for infrastructure improvements in Carlsbad Good morning- Forwarding the below input related to referenced project on poinsettia. Scott Chadwick City Manager City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 www.carlsbadca.gov Facebook | Twitter | You Tube | Pinterest |Enews From: Dan <dan@dan.pm> Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2023 12:01 AM To: Scott Chadwick <Scott.Chadwick@carlsbadca.gov>; Priya Bhat-Patel <Priya.Bhat-Patel@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: Thank you for infrastructure improvements in Carlsbad Hello Scott and Priya, Frank likes to send out mass messages where he BCCs everyone so that nobody can reply and disagree with him. Don't get me started on his opposition to *any* improvements at the airport, which would be a boon to Carlsbad residents and businesses. Frank says "my neighbors" "are totally against" the project at the park. Well, I'm one of his neighbors and as far as I know, I don't know anyone else who is against this AT&T/Verizon equipment. That area is notoriously poor for good service and in 2023, people rely on connectivity more than ever. I know you know this, but the science tells us pretty clearly that a) there's no health risk known at this time and b) there are a lot more risks associated with standing in the sun at the park or getting an x- ray from that park-related sports injury. Comparing non-ionizing radiation vs. ionizing radiation is like comparing drinking non-alcoholic beer to drinking Samuel Adams Utopias craft beer (28%) beer. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 105 of 138 2 "Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) are invisible areas of energy caused by electromagnetic radiation being emitted. There are ionizing and nonionizing EMFs. The latter describes low-level radiation, or emission of energy through space and objects. Sources that transmit these waves include phones, computers, Bluetooth devices, power lines and even microwaves. Meanwhile, ionizing EMFs have much higher radiation, with sources including sunlight and x-rays. The difference between the two matters greatly in terms of health and safety, notes Collins. “In human tissues, ionizing radiation at high enough doses is associated with an increase in cancer, most often skin cancer from the ultraviolet energy in sunlight.” 5G operates on two frequencies, the highest of which ranges from 24.25 GHz to 52.6 GHz notes Frontiers in Public Health[1]. “It is at those frequencies that the big gains in speed of data transfer are really expected,” says Collins. But he adds that the frequency in which electromagnetic radiation starts to ionize and becomes dangerous is about 3 million GHz, nowhere close to 5G. While ionizing radiation at high doses may be linked to cancer, both experts say nonionizing radiation has currently not been proven to do the same. Additionally, the Food and Drug Administration’s team of medical doctors, scientists and researchers who study radiofrequency reports “the current limit on radiofrequency energy set by the [FCC] remains acceptable for protecting public health.” And research published in the Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology found “no confirmed evidence that low-level RF fields above 6GHz such as those used by the 5G network are hazardous to human health[2].” " Dan ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Frank Sung <franksung01@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 10:14 PM Subject: Why Would City Put HOT SPOTS In City Parks? To: Scott Chadwick <scott.chadwick@carlsbadca.gov> Cc: Priya Bhat-Patel <Priya.Bhat-Patel@carlsbadca.gov> Hi Scott - My neighbors and I are totally against the City putting cellular transmission equipment in Poinsettia Park .. near where people live and children play. We have been working with the Planning Department once we were alerted to the AT&T WCF CUP submission .. only to find out that there's also a Verizon WCF CUP submission in the queue. (see attached picture CUP 2022-0023 & CUP 2021-0002) .. near to each other .. near homes and the children's playground and baseball fields. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 106 of 138 □ 3 This is insane! Why would the City put HOT SPOTS in our beautiful parks near where people live and children play? This is not consistent with the spirit and intent of the City's guidelines on cellular equipment placement (Policy #64). The City does have some leeway in this matter. See what Encinitas just passed > https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/communities/north-county/story/2019-10-31/encinitas-to-ban-5g-wireless-antennas-near- schools-daycares-residences Would you please look into how the residents' desires can be blended with the cellular companies goals? What exists today at Calavera Park (4 WCFs clustered) is NOT good planning and is disgraceful. You should take a drive up to the Community Center and see what happened. Please let me know your thoughts. Thx Frank Sung Mariners Point HOA Board Member (m) 760-213-9036 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 107 of 138 1 Kyle Van Leeuwen From:Kimberly <kdhuston2003@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, February 1, 2023 7:23 PM To:Lauren Yzaguirre Subject:Cell tower planned for Poinsettia Park Hi Lauren, I am reaching out today in regards to a notice received from MD7 for installation of a 90 ft cell tower at Poinsettia Park by AT&T. I do not support this at all. I live one street over from where they want to put that tower and I feel there are other parts of carlsbad they can find that is not as intrusive to the people who live near our park. Here are my reasons: 1. They really don't know what the health risks are. Depends on where you get your information. We are talking about a park with close proximity to a grade school. Just not OK. What are you thinking by considering this? 2. Property Values. Statistics will show that people are less likely to buy a home near power lines. Cell towers are no different. I prefer to not have to worry about that. 3. A 90 ft pool is an eye sore. We want to preserve our beautiful place. People who live on the hill whose homes have views of the ocean and sunsets I'm pretty sure don't want to look through cell towers. Nor do I wish for people who visit from all over the world come and see how we mucked up one of the most beautiful places in the world with towers of antennas. Have some control here. Why do we have to be that kind of city? Find a different spot less conspicuous please. 4. AT&T would just be the start of it. Once they put their up the others follow. It's a given. What are we thinking here? What monster are we really creating. Find a different spot less conspicuous please. 5. Cell towers will be obsolete in the near future. Why do we feel the park is a good place to be a temporary housing place for late technology. AT&T wants to make it easy for them to access our power and resources for energy. That's not OK. Find a different spot less conspicuous please. I don't feel this is a good plan for our community and the city needs to come up with a different location other than our parks and near our schools. I will recommend to my HOA board to prepare a letter on behalf of our community that this is not a good place to install a cell tower for reasons above. Thank you so much. I appreciate your time and consideration. Kimberly Desmarais PRIVACY NOTICE - The information contained in this email is confidential. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are NOT the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 108 of 138 2 prohibited. If you have received this email in error, do NOT read the content transmitted and please notify me immediately by email and delete the communication. CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 109 of 138 1 Kyle Van Leeuwen From:Kimberly <kdhuston2003@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, February 24, 2023 10:42 PM To:Lauren Yzaguirre; Frank Sung Cc:ed jago; AT&T Inc.; Michelle Backus; Richard Heimlich; Susan LeClair; Robert Hampton; sharilynschultz1111@gmail.com; Mary Crotty; Christa Ritchie; Kevin Fritz; Tom Rhatigan; Ben Martin; Katherine; Vilas Koinkar; The Hoa; Silvia Chang; Mark Frushone; Aileen Heimlich; dsteffy@sbcglobal.net Subject:Re: Poinsettia Park Wireless Communication Facility (WCF) Hello, Agreed. I want to also point out that cell towers this close to residential homes, the park, and school will affect the property values and deter people from buying near a cell tower by as much as 20%. https://www.nationalbusinesspost.com/cell-towers-impact-home-values/ https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20140703005726/en/Survey-by-the-National-Institute-for-Science- Law-Public-Policy-Indicates-Cell-Towers-and-Antennas-Negatively-Impact-Interest-in-Real-Estate-Properties My suggestion is to find another location in a less densely populated area. Thank you. Kimberly Desmarais PRIVACY NOTICE - The information contained in this email is confidential. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are NOT the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, do NOT read the content transmitted and please notify me immediately by email and delete the communication. On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 04:11:44 PM PST, Frank Sung <franksung01@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Lauren - Thank you for beginning to set some boundaries (height and design) on what cellular facilities are to be permitted in the City of Carlsbad. My neighbors and I OBJECT TO THE LOCATION of this proposed facility at Poinsettia Park. Carlsbad Council Policy #64 (see below) clearly says that locations of new cellular facilities are to be away from residential areas. This is NOT the case for this proposed facility. Our parks are a treasure to the community. Children play and people congregate at our parks. Residential neighborhoods are adjacent to our parks. Please have the project applicant identify locations away from our parks .. ie away from where people live and play. Thank you! Frank Sung (m) 760-213-9036 Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 110 of 138 2 A. Location Guidelines for Placement of WCFs (excluding SWFs) 1. Preferred Locations – WCFs are encouraged to locate on existing buildings and structures. In addition, WCFs should be located in the following zones and areas, which are listed in order of descending preference: a. Industrial zones. b. Commercial zones. c. Other non-residential zones, except open space. d. Public right-of- way of roads adjacent to industrial and commercial zones and identified on the map attached as Exhibit A. e. Public property (e.g., city facilities) not in residential areas. f. Major power transmission towers in non-residential zones or areas. g. Public and private utility installations (not publicly accessible) in residential and open space zones (e.g., water tanks, reservoirs, or the existing communication towers near Maerkle Reservoir). h. Parks and community facilities (e.g., places of worship, community centers) in residential zones or areas. i. Public right-of-way of roads adjacent to residential zones and identified on the map attached as Exhibit A. 2. Discouraged Locations – WCFs should not locate in any of the following zones or areas unless the applicant demonstrates that alternatives in more-preferred locations are not technically feasible or potentially available as required by Application and Review Guideline E.3. a. Open space zones and lots (except as noted in Location Guideline A.1.). b. Residential zones or areas (except as noted in Location Guideline A.1). c. Major power transmission towers in corridors located in/or next to a residential zone or area. d. Environmentally sensitive habitat. e. Public right-of-way of roads not identified on the map attached as Exhibit A. f. On vacant land. 3. Visibility to the Public – In all areas, WCFs should be located where least visible to the public and where least disruptive to the appearance of the host property. Furthermore, no WCF should be installed on an exposed ridgeline or in a location readily visible from a public place, recreation area, scenic area or residential area unless it is satisfactorily located and/or screened so it is hidden or disguised. 4. Collocation – Collocating with existing or other planned wireless communication facilities is recommended whenever feasible and appropriate. Service providers are also encouraged to collocate with water tanks, major power transmission and distribution towers, and other utility structures when in compliance with these guidelines. The city must approve collocation applications unless the expansion adds significantly to the height or width of a facility. Dec. 14, 2021Item #16 Page 16 of 252 5. Monopoles – No new ground-mounted WCF monopoles should be permitted unless the applicant demonstrates no existing monopole, building, or structure can accommodate the applicant’s proposed antenna as required by Application and Review Guideline E.4. On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 2:22 PM Lauren Yzaguirre <Lauren.Yzaguirre@carlsbadca.gov> wrote: Good Afternoon, Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 111 of 138 1 Kyle Van Leeuwen From:Kevin Fritz <kf99@nethere.net> Sent:Monday, February 6, 2023 1:24 PM To:Lauren Yzaguirre Subject:Poinsettia Park proposed cell tower / No vote Dear Lauren, I am strongly opposed to installing a new cell tower at Poinsettia Park for the following reasons. 1. RF transmissions create a health hazard to my family and neighbors living in close proximity. 2. No one wants to live next to a large tower. This will negatively affect the surrounding property values. Better cell coverage does not increase property value. 3. The proposed design is a very large commercial cell site. This size is too big to just improve service to the immediate neighborhoods. This is a large revenue source for ATT and the city but the surrounding neighbors receive nothing of benefit. 4. Extending the light standard and adding dozens of antennas creates an eyesore. ATT proposed no mitigation to otherwise disguise the structure. 5. The extra tall pole height will probably have a bright beacon light at night due to its close proximity to the airport. This will be a nuisance to surrounding neighbors. 6. The extra tall pole is in the landing path of Lifeflight or REACH emergency helicopter when they land on the soccer field. This creates a much more dangerous landing approach for this necessary service, especially at night. 7. There is an Osprey nest less than 150' from the proposed tower. Is it fair to expose this wildlife to same RF radiation too? Who speaks for that nesting pair? 8. We were promised by city officials that when this latest park improvements ( dog park, pickleball, new playground, new bathrooms ) that the park was, "built out" and no further construction would occur. Thank you for collecting our feedback. Kevin and Ellen Fritz 1002 Beacon Bay Dr. CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 112 of 138 1 Kyle Van Leeuwen From:Mark Frushone <mjfrushone@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, February 5, 2023 7:25 AM To:Lauren Yzaguirre Subject:Proposed cell tower, Poinsettia Park Good morning As a father of two younger children, who oŌen play sports at poinseƫa park. I am not in favor of placing a cell tower so close to there a developing brains. One of the benefits of living in Carlsbad is our wonderful public services. In my opinion, the long term affects of RV and UV have not fully been realized. I oppose puƫng the new cell tower in poinseƫa park. Mark CAUTION: Do not open aƩachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 113 of 138 1 Kyle Van Leeuwen From:Nora George <norageorge7@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 21, 2023 7:20 PM To:Lauren Yzaguirre Subject:Re: Proposed cell tower at Poinsettia Park Hello Lauren, Wow, I am very surprised the city has no power to prevent this from being installed in a highly populated area. Can the city request the proposed location to be moved to an area further away from homes, thus, minimizing RF exposure to nearby residents? As you can see, it is VERY close to our property line. In fact, all the properties on Beacon Bay Drive share a green easement with the park - THAT is how close we are. Even to the geographical center of the park would be better. Would it be possible for you to send me a copy of the RF Electromagnetic Energy Jurisdictional Report showing the applicant as compliant? It is good to hear the applicant is willing to work with the public; however, a shorter tower would bring the radiation closer to people. Safety should always take precedence over aesthetics. Thanks for all your information. Kind regards, Nora J George Arts Commissioner City of Carlsbad California (760)930-0065 (619)252-5136 text On Feb 21, 2023, at 11:27 AM, Lauren Yzaguirre <Lauren.Yzaguirre@carlsbadca.gov> wrote: Hi Ms. George, Thank you for providing your comments. I am taking over this project until Kyle returns. The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) regulated radio frequency (RF) emissions. By federal law, the city is prohibited from regulating the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency (RF) emissions, if the facilities comply with the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) regulations concerning RF emissions. The applicant has submitted a Radio Frequency - Electromagnetic Energy Jurisdictional Report to show compliance with FCC regulations. The initial application included a total of 15 antennas (5 per sector, 3 sectors). The city has received a number of concerns from the community regarding the initial design and height of the tower. As result, the city has encouraged the applicant to redesign the project. The applicant is currently working on a new design, so the number of antennas and the RF Electromagnetic Energy Jurisdictional Report may change with a new design. Please see the blue marker in the aerial below for the approximate location of the proposed wireless site. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 114 of 138 1 Kyle Van Leeuwen From:Nora George <norageorge7@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 20, 2023 5:50 PM To:Kyle Van Leeuwen Cc:Priya Bhat-Patel Subject:Proposed cell tower at Poinsettia Park Hello Kyle, Our neighborhood has received correspondence on a proposed cellphone tower at Poinsettia Park and we are extremely concerned about the health issues and drop in housing values that come with such towers. In short, this is a HUGE danger to our youth, their parents and the many residents that regularly use this park. I’m sure you are familiar with the basic and minimal safety requirements for such towers and the homes on Beacon Bay Drive, nor the many ball courts at Poinsettia Park, are NOT at the standard and minimal distance of a quarter mile. Please provide me with specific information on the unit that is being proposed and of the radio frequency and EMFs that it will emit. You know the health and economic dangers of this project so I will not bother at this point to list them. Fortunately, we live in a neighborhood full of engineers, scientists, medical doctors and teachers that each have valid and serious concerns in their respective fields and we are prepared to prevent this project from coming to fruition. I am confident in staff’s ability to find alternative sites for this cell tower, such as the golf course or water tower (both on higher ground), away from so many vulnerable residents and park users. Thank you much for your assistance. Kind regards, Nora J George Arts Commissioner City of Carlsbad California (760)930-0065 (619)252-5136 text CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 115 of 138 D 1 Kyle Van Leeuwen From:Nora George <norageorge7@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, March 3, 2023 1:26 PM To:Eric Lardy Cc:Priya Bhat-Patel; Lauren Yzaguirre; Kyle Lancaster; Kyle Van Leeuwen Subject:Proposed cell tower at Poinsettia Park Dear Eric, I live adjacent to Poinsettia Park so I share the plethora of concerns over the proposed cell phone tower at Poinsettia Park with my community ranging from potential health concerns to devaluation of property values. I urge you and your staff to find an alternative location for such tower that is not so close to housing and not in the middle of our busiest active park. My biggest (of many) three concerns are as follow: 1. City officials have gone through the trouble of creating and adopting City Council Policy 64 yet staff is not adhering to the policy’s “preferred” and “discouraged” locations for such towers. Under “preferred”, section A1(h), parks and residential zones are ranked as the penultimate choice. Under “discouraged”, section A2(b), parks and residential zones are ranked as the second most discouraged. Clearly, there is a disparity. 2. The RF Electromagnetic Energy Jurisdictional Report, page 8, states that the “report was prepared for the use of AT&T Mobility, LLC to meet requirements outlined in AT&T’s corporate RF safety guidelines”. It further states that the modeling methodology including inputs and parameters were dictated by AT&T; moreover, a statistical reduction of “the power to 32% of maximum theoretical power” was used to achieve favorable results. I also question if the modeling took in consideration the amount of metals surrounding the proposed location - smack in the middle of multiple ball fields with lots of fencing. I realize that there are certain industry accepted standards and factors when it comes to modeling but for AT&T to dictate their own criteria seems self-serving and dangerous. It would behoove the city to exercise some due diligence. 3. I understand that the consultant is attempting to appease community concerns with a “stealth” design similar to what is present at Calaveras Park; however, that design involves using a shorter pole which brings the radiation closer to the ground. This design is counterintuitive to addressing community concerns which, essentially, revolve around the unknown long term affects of RFs which manifest as social concerns vis-à-vis visual reminders of potential health concerns leading to decreased property values. Ms. Yzaguirre has done an excellent job of fielding community concerns and providing us with information. I am confident that you, Eric, and your staff will find an alternative location that is not so close to residents, park users, and schools that will prove satisfactory with AT&T as well as the community you serve. Many thanks! Kind regards, Nora J George Arts Commissioner City of Carlsbad California (760)930-0065 (619)252-5136 text CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 116 of 138 1 Kyle Van Leeuwen From:Robert Hampton <thesouthhamptons@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 7, 2023 8:17 PM To:Lauren Yzaguirre Subject:Cell Tower at Poinsettia Park Dear Lauren, I live behind Poinsettia Park and feel very concerned about the proposed cell tower. This seems way to close to schools, playgrounds, sports fields and houses to be safe. From what I read, there is not definitive research on the long term exposure from RF waves. There can’t be, since this technology is so new. So why would we want to risk having this tower installed some place where so many children spend so much time? I know that when my kids were playing sports our entire family spent hours at their practices/events every week. Multiply that by 3 kids and over 15 years of sports, that is a lot of exposure. Not to mention the houses, and school and pre school that are near by. There must be a better location with more open space around it. Thankfully, Carlsbad has so much open space. It seems an odd choice to put this right in the middle of a park. I used to work for a chemical production company in the computer chip industry. We regularly had safety trainings and had to read MSDS sheets. One piece of safety advice I always remember was that we never want to get close to the recommended exposure limits. Because anytime the exposure limits changed, it was always because the existing limits were too high. I look forward to hearing that a safer location has been found for this tower. Sincerely, Anne Hampton CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 117 of 138 D 1 Kyle Van Leeuwen From:Aileen Heimlich <treasuresfound1995@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 22, 2023 1:50 PM To:Eric Lardy; Kyle Van Leeuwen; Curtis Jackson; Cliff Jones; Shared Building; Scott Chadwick; Kyle Lancaster Cc:Priya Bhat-Patel Subject:Poinsettia Park AT&T and Verizon Wireless Cell Facility (WCF) Tower CUPs Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Greetings Staff: As there are now two WCF proposals awaiting approval, we are concerned that they may be approved without intentional consideration of Policy 64 with THE purpose "to GUIDE the public, applicants, boards and commissions and staff in reviewing the placement, construction, and modifications of WCFs." We are concerned, as well, that other WCF applicants may propose installation at this park. Poinsettia Park serves as a major recreational feature of the city with many children and adults recreating there on a daily basis. There are several neighborhoods as well as Pacific Rim Elementary School with a large playfield in close proximity to the park. Additionally, there is an osprey nest on a light post within 150 feet of the two proposed locations which has been utilized two years in a row, having produced two chicks that matured last year, and the return of the ospreys to reinforce their nest and utilize it again this year. The osprey had built a nest three years ago in the same location but it was removed. Two of the goals of Policy 64 are to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public as well as to encourage location of such facilities away from residential and other sensitive areas. In conjunction with the goals, The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 preserves a city's ability to regulate the placement of wireless communication facilities as there is to be no gap in coverage and states that no entity can prevent the completion of a network. We appreciate that the City tightened up Policy 64 after the construction of four WCFs at Calavera Park in close proximity to homes and within a well-utilized park. We have several questions for which we would appreciate responses that shed some light as to why a park location is more preferential to the applicants contrary to Policy 64's purpose and goals? Where is the City's guidance in this regard other than to ask for analysis(es) of other more preferred locations? The permit process in Policy 64 clearly states that "new WCFs are allowed in the public right-of-way- of roads (ROW) subject to the requirements" of said Policy. Additionally, Policy 64 lists 7 more preferred locations than one adjacent to residences/sensitive areas. Have the applicants analyzed and demonstrated that alternatives in more-preferred locations have been proven not technically feasible or available? What is the documentation AT&T has provided that the locations for CUP 2021-002 and CDP 2021-001 are not feasible? We request a copy of said documentation. As the FCC requires environmental review for a selected site and ospreys return to the same nest year after year, how and when is the applicant held responsible to the guidelines set forth by the FCC? We now wonder if future applicants should be required to submit such an analysis as part of the application process so as not to simply pick the easiest potential location. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 118 of 138 2 It is our understanding that "(FCC) rules impose enforceable duties on licensees/applicants in order to meet NEPA obligations." As the nearby environment is residential and riparian with federally threatened California Coastal Gnatcatchers and (Audubon endangered species) ospreys returning regularly to a previously utilized nest, has an analysis taken place as to potential effects on the environment and the wildlife living there? IF not, when will this analysis take place? Have total RF emissions from the Hidden Valley Road 5G facility as well as both proposed locations at Poinsettia Park been taken into consideration in conjunction with other (possible) nearby existing locations? Thank you for the opportunity to be involved in the decision-making process of this matter, for our community as well as for other Carlsbad communities. Respectfully, Aileen and Richard Heimlich CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 119 of 138 1 Kyle Van Leeuwen From:Richard Heimlich <rheimlich@icloud.com> Sent:Wednesday, February 8, 2023 10:49 AM To:Lauren Yzaguirre Cc:Eric Lardy Subject:AT&T cell tower at Poinsettia Park Hi Lauren and Eric - as a resident of Mariner’s Point I am opposed to this tower in Poinsettia park near my house. It should be put in business zone along Paseo Del Norte to the northwest. Higher elevation there better for cell coverage. Doesn’t belong where kids play and adults gather every day with RF dangers. It is proposed next to baseball field where we host Jazz in the Park, TGIF series. Also proposed to go 90 feet because location is in a valley. Taller than existing playing field light towers. Visual pollution as well is an issue for us whose view looks to the park. Thanks for your consideration, Richard Heimlich 6729 Tea Tree St Carlsbad, Ca 92011 619-301-2433 Sent from my iPhone CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 120 of 138 1 Kyle Van Leeuwen From:Vilas Koinkar <vkoinkar@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, February 5, 2023 8:50 AM To:Lauren Yzaguirre Cc:The Hoa Subject:Proposed Cell Tower at Poinsettia Park Dear Lauren, We own a home in Poinseƫa Cove, you are posing a serious health risk to our neighborhood and people in park from RF radiaƟons by installing cell towers right in our back yard. We strongly vote against this proposed cell tower project. Best Regards, Vilas Koinkar, Ph. D. Seema Koinkar Sent from my iPhone CAUTION: Do not open aƩachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 121 of 138 1 Kyle Van Leeuwen From:Susan LeClair <sleclair@wccmonitoring.com> Sent:Monday, February 6, 2023 4:35 PM To:Lauren Yzaguirre Subject:ATT Cell Tower at Poinsettia Park Hello Lauren I am emailing to note that I and my husband, residents of mariner’s Point for the last 5 years and prior to that 25 year residents at The Cove are 100 percent opposed to the proposition for a new cell tower at Poinsettia Park. Please advise if there is anyone else I should contact in regards to this matter. Thank you. Regards, Susan E. LeClair CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 122 of 138 1 Kyle Van Leeuwen From:AT&T Inc. <cheryllinzey@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Wednesday, February 1, 2023 9:09 PM To:Lauren Yzaguirre Subject:90' Cellular Pole Replacing 78' Light Pole @ Poinsettia Park The application for CUP2022-0023 should be denied on the basis of the following; 1. The height of the pole and tower will ad to a negative view impact for all surrounding homes. We don't want anymore than what is already excessive man made view pollution in our area. The Cellular towers are not pleasant to look at and are a negative impact on home values. 2. RF Radiation Dangers are near residents and will cause children and anyone playing in the park exposer to Dangerous health hazards. The City of Carlsbad and it's elected officials must understand the above and protect the citizens of Carlsbad from the possible and these negative impacts. I realize that the City is looking for revenue flow from AT&T but should not be at the cost of making our area worst for it. David and Cheryl Linzey 6705 Camphor Place Carlsbad CA, 92011 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 123 of 138 1 Kyle Van Leeuwen From:Ben Martin <benslens1@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 7, 2023 12:09 PM To:Lauren Yzaguirre Subject:Opposition to MD7 cell phone tower proposal Attn: Lauren Yzaguirre Associate Planner Community Development Department 1635 Faraday Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 442-339-2634 direct Hello Lauren, Thank you for listening and being an advocate for the people. I am writing this letter as a concerned resident owning 6713 Whitesail St. . A recent notification letter had been sent out to anyone within a 600 foot radius of a proposed permit by “MD7” - Application number CUP2022–0023 space project name CALO1850 Poinsettia park new site build (no mention of a cell tower) regarding a cell tower to be built on the southern portion of the Poinsettia park property. To keep this brief and clear we are opposed to this proposal. The reasons for opposing would be the fact that it’s near our residence as well as the fact that it would be in a public space that is constantly occupied by hundreds of all ages and animals. Everybody’s proximity to equipment like this has been proven to have negative impacts. Not only is this proposed in a public park, but in one of the most regularly and densely populated areas of the park, right in between two sports fields. Additionally, I do not understand why projects like this are even considered in areas like a large public park when there are streets like Avenida Encinas (specifically where the water treatment plant is located) or golf courses/ country clubs that would have no problem housing projects like this and have minimal impact on any surrounding areas. A resounding and definite opposition would be our voice regarding MD7’s proposal. We trust that you will do what is needed to prevent sneaky non transparent deals like this from taking place. Please keep us updated. Community development not corporate! :) Thank you, Ben Martin & Family CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 124 of 138 1 Kyle Van Leeuwen From:Gianlorenzo Masini <gianlorenzo.masini@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, February 26, 2023 10:10 PM To:Lauren Yzaguirre Subject:concerns about new cell phone tower plan in Poinsettia Park Dear Ms. Yzaguirre, We are residents of the Cove HOA and we are writing to express our strong opposition to the planned installation of a new cell phone tower in the Poinsettia Park, in close proximity to the Pacific Rim Elementary school campus and in a densely developed residential area. First, we believe the chosen location does not match the recommendation clearly expressed in CCC Policy 64, A. 1. which lists “Parks and Community facilities” as the second last preferred place (in a list of 9), and residential areas in general as a “discouraged location”. If indeed this is a last resort choice, the motivation should be abundantly supported by documentation on which more preferable (in the sense of the cited document) alternative sites have been considered and discarded. We have not seen this. In addition, the result of the technical evaluation of the level of exposure in the neighborhood of the antenna shows that at the antenna level, an area of approximately 96’ around the tower is actually potentially passing the limits for general public. This is likely considered safe because of the height of the antenna but it is not clear how the significant difference in ground levels the surrounding developments have been taken into account in this assessment. Also the simulation does not seems to take into account the presence of other metal structures (light poles, metal fences of the baseball fields) in the vicinity of the antenna that could change the radiation shape by reflection and focusing. Moreover the calculation has been performed using a "32% of maximum theoretical power” factor as suggested by AT&T (pag.8). Since AT&T is the customer for this report it would be probably good to double check this de-rating value with a third party for consistency. I know the concerns expressed above are shared by numerous members of our community, and I hope this Administration will help us to convince the interested Company to revisit their choice and found a more appropriate location. With best regards, Gianlorenzo Masini and Gabriella Maiello CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 125 of 138 1 Kyle Van Leeuwen From:Bryan Phillips <bryan.g.phillips@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Saturday, February 25, 2023 4:23 PM To:Lauren Yzaguirre Subject:Poinsettia Park Wireless Communication Facility (WCF) Attachments:cell tower location in Feb2023 notification mail.jpeg Dear Ms. Yzaguirre: This email to to express my objection to the proposed installation location of the Poinsettia Park Wireless Communication Facility (WCF) cellular tower. It is my hope that the City of Carlsbad will take measures to locate this tower elsewhere, away from concentrated, young populations. My concerns extend beyond the three, below, but I will remain brief: 1) The cell tower being installed near a school (Pacific Rim Elementary) and directly in a (highly populated) park. 2) Old map used to notify surrounding residents: The surrounding residents were notified late Jan / early Feb 2023 via USPS mail of the application which contained a 1994 Thomas Bros map for tower location that conveniently did not show the park nor school in the proposed location (attached). In my opinion, the omission of the park and school by using a 29 year old map seems highly suspect. 3) Per CCC Policy 64, A.1., the applicant is resorting to nearly the last preferred location out of 9 (8th, "h. Parks and community facilities"). Thank you for your attention. Your help will be greatly appreciated. Bryan Phillips 1035 Beacon Bay Drive Carlsbad, CA 92011 7605858050 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 126 of 138 1 Kyle Van Leeuwen From:Scott Chadwick Sent:Thursday, March 23, 2023 8:17 AM To:Jeff Murphy; Eric Lardy Cc:Gary Barberio; Geoff Patnoe Subject:FW: Poinsettia Park AT&T and Verizon Wireless Cell Facility (WCF) Tower CUPs Forwarding along the input that was sent to me related to this project. Scott Chadwick City Manager City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 www.carlsbadca.gov Facebook | Twitter | You Tube | Pinterest |Enews From: josette pyper <josettepyper@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 10:14 PM To: Scott Chadwick <Scott.Chadwick@carlsbadca.gov> Cc: Priya Bhat-Patel <Priya.Bhat-Patel@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: Poinsettia Park AT&T and Verizon Wireless Cell Facility (WCF) Tower CUPs Greetings Staff: As there are now two WCF proposals awaiting approval, we are concerned that they may be approved without intentional consideration of Policy 64 with THE purpose "to GUIDE the public, applicants, boards and commissions and staff in reviewing the placement, construction, and modifications of WCFs." We are concerned, as well, that other WCF applicants may propose installation at this park. Poinsettia Park serves as a major recreational feature of the city with many children and adults recreating there on a daily basis. There are several neighborhoods as well as Pacific Rim Elementary School with a large playfield in close proximity to the park. Additionally, there is an osprey nest on a light post within 150 feet of the two proposed locations which has been utilized two years in a row, having produced two chicks that matured last year, and the return of the ospreys to reinforce their nest and utilize it again this year. The osprey had built a nest three years ago in the same location but it was removed. Two of the goals of Policy 64 are to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public as well as to encourage location of such facilities away from residential and other sensitive areas. In conjunction with the goals, The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 preserves a city's ability to regulate the placement of wireless communication facilities as there is to be no gap in coverage and states that no entity can prevent the completion of a network. We appreciate that the City tightened up Policy 64 after the construction of four WCFs at Calavera Park in close proximity to homes and within a well-utilized park. Dec. 6, 2023Item #3 Page 127 of 138 e 2 We have several questions for which we would appreciate responses that shed some light as to why a park location is more preferential to the applicants contrary to Policy 64's purpose and goals? Where is the City's guidance in this regard other than to ask for analysis(es) of other more preferred locations? The permit process in Policy 64 clearly states that "new WCFs are allowed in the public right-of-way- of roads (ROW) subject to the requirements" of said Policy. Additionally, Policy 64 lists 7 more preferred locations than one adjacent to residences/sensitive areas. Have the applicants analyzed and demonstrated that alternatives in more-preferred locations have been proven not technically feasible or available? What is the documentation AT&T has provided that the locations for CUP 2021-002 and CDP 2021-001 are not feasible? We request a copy of said documentation. As the FCC requires environmental review for a selected site and ospreys return to the same nest year after year, how and when is the applicant held responsible to the guidelines set forth by the FCC? We now wonder if future applicants should be required to submit such an analysis as part of the application process so as not to simply pick the easiest potential location. It is our understanding that "(FCC) rules impose enforceable duties on licensees/applicants in order to meet NEPA obligations." As the nearby environment is residential and riparian with federally threatened California Coastal Gnatcatchers and (Audubon endangered species) ospreys returning regularly to a previously utilized nest, has an analysis taken place as to potential effects on the environment and the wildlife living there? IF not, when will this analysis take place? Have total RF emissions from the Hidden Valley Road 5G facility as well as both proposed locations at Poinsettia Park been taken into consideration in conjunction with other (possible) nearby existing locations? Thank you for the opportunity to be involved in the decision-making process of this matter, for our community as well as for other Carlsbad communities. Respectfully, Josette Pyper josettepyper@hotmail.com CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 128 of 138 1 Kyle Van Leeuwen From:Tom Rhatigan <rhatigantom62@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, February 5, 2023 3:29 PM To:Lauren Yzaguirre Subject:Poinsettia Park cell tower Hello, I live on Beacon Bay Drive and want to let you know that my wife and I are in favor of the new cell tower in the park We’ve never had any decent reception on our phones and are hopeful that will improve with the new tower. We have been getting emails and texts from people who do NOT live in our neighborhood to vote down the tower. They obviously have never had cellphone reception problems but still want to have a say in what is happening in OUR neighborhood. Thank you for trying to help our community. I hope this email in the affirmative is more of the majority than the minority. Tom Rhatigan CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 129 of 138 1 Kyle Van Leeuwen From:Christa Ritchie <christamritchie@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, February 5, 2023 9:06 PM To:Lauren Yzaguirre Subject:I oppose the cell tower in Poinsettia Park To whom this may concern, I am a homeowner here in Carlsbad. I live in the Cove neighborhood at 6709 Whitesail St. . I live with my husband and small baby. I strongly oppose the proposed cell tower to our neighboring park, Poinseƫa park. I am extremely uncomfortable knowing something that can harm the health of me and my growing family could be right next to us. We moved here because of the park, elementary school and family lifestyle. Please for the sake of the families in this area, do not build something so horrid to our health. Especially the young who will be most greatly impacted. Please read more studies about the effect these cell towers have on communiƟes. It is not worth it. It will greatly devalue our area. Consider the impact it will have on YOUR community. Health is far greater than money and convenience. Thank you, Christa Ritchie 858-472-4583 CAUTION: Do not open aƩachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 130 of 138 1 Kyle Van Leeuwen From:Christa Ritchie <christamritchie@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, February 26, 2023 7:28 AM To:Lauren Yzaguirre Subject:Relocate the Cell Tower Hi Lauren, My plead was not taken into account when I emailed. It is important for you to listen to the taxpayers who LIVE in the area where this cell tower is proposed to go. As I’m sure you have been made very aware, our children live, play, and attend school in the very area this proposed cell tower would go. Is there no other location? Is the city really “selling out” at the cost of our youth? There are several provisions we, the taxpayers, have been made aware of regarding the placements of these poles. It is very clear this shouldn’t even have been entertained as an option for its proposed location. Now the people are having to fight back in order to protect the youth. The LAST place should NOT be in a residential location. Shame on the city for going against its own provisions. Those provisions were made for a reason. I find it hard to believe that there would be no better place for this pole. I ask that the city do its due diligence and do what’s morally right. I ask that the city relocate the proposed cellular antenna pole away from nearby residential homes and children at the park and pac rim elementary. CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 131 of 138 1 Kyle Van Leeuwen From:Sharilyn Schultz <sharilynschultz1111@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 30, 2023 2:14 PM To:HThomasJr@md7.com; Kyle Van Leeuwen Subject:Proposed cell tower at Poinsettia Park Good afternoon, I am a Carlsbad resident who lives directly across the street from Poinsettia Park, and I am writing you to express my emphatic DISAPPROVAL of the installation of this cell tower. The specific reason for my disapproval is my extreme concern over EMF exposure. As you are aware, these cell towers emit a large amount of EMF radiation, which has direct negative effects on our bodies. I do not want myself, my family, or anyone else exposed to such radiation 24/7. Thank you for taking the health risks into account as you move forward. I am hopeful that you will make the decision that is best for everyone's well being, rather than profit. Sincerely, Sharilyn Schultz CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 132 of 138 1 Kyle Van Leeuwen From:Sharilyn Schultz <sharilynschultz1111@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, February 24, 2023 9:45 PM To:Susan LeClair Cc:AT&T Inc.; Aileen Heimlich; Ben Martin; Christa Ritchie; Frank Sung; Katherine; Kevin Fritz; Kimberly; Lauren Yzaguirre; Mark Frushone; Mary Crotty; Michelle Backus; Richard Heimlich; Robert Hampton; Silvia Chang; The Hoa; Tom Rhatigan; Vilas Koinkar; dsteffy@sbcglobal.net; ed jago Subject:Re: Poinsettia Park Wireless Communication Facility (WCF) I agree as well!! On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 7:38 PM Susan LeClair <sleclair@wccmonitoring.com> wrote: Absolutely agree!!!! Susan LeClair Sent from my iPhone On Feb 24, 2023, at 4:11 PM, Frank Sung <franksung01@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Lauren - Thank you for beginning to set some boundaries (height and design) on what cellular facilities are to be permitted in the City of Carlsbad. My neighbors and I OBJECT TO THE LOCATION of this proposed facility at Poinsettia Park. Carlsbad Council Policy #64 (see below) clearly says that locations of new cellular facilities are to be away from residential areas. This is NOT the case for this proposed facility. Our parks are a treasure to the community. Children play and people congregate at our parks. Residential neighborhoods are adjacent to our parks. Please have the project applicant identify locations away from our parks .. ie away from where people live and play. Thank you! Frank Sung (m) 760-213-9036 A. Location Guidelines for Placement of WCFs (excluding SWFs) 1. Preferred Locations – WCFs are encouraged to locate on existing buildings and structures. In addition, WCFs should be located in the following zones and areas, which are listed in order of descending preference: a. Industrial zones. b. Commercial zones. c. Other non-residential zones, except open space. d. Public right-of- way of roads adjacent to industrial and commercial zones and identified on the map attached as Exhibit A. e. Public property (e.g., city facilities) not in residential areas. f. Major power transmission towers in non-residential zones Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 133 of 138 2 or areas. g. Public and private utility installations (not publicly accessible) in residential and open space zones (e.g., water tanks, reservoirs, or the existing communication towers near Maerkle Reservoir). h. Parks and community facilities (e.g., places of worship, community centers) in residential zones or areas. i. Public right-of-way of roads adjacent to residential zones and identified on the map attached as Exhibit A. 2. Discouraged Locations – WCFs should not locate in any of the following zones or areas unless the applicant demonstrates that alternatives in more- preferred locations are not technically feasible or potentially available as required by Application and Review Guideline E.3. a. Open space zones and lots (except as noted in Location Guideline A.1.). b. Residential zones or areas (except as noted in Location Guideline A.1). c. Major power transmission towers in corridors located in/or next to a residential zone or area. d. Environmentally sensitive habitat. e. Public right-of-way of roads not identified on the map attached as Exhibit A. f. On vacant land. 3. Visibility to the Public – In all areas, WCFs should be located where least visible to the public and where least disruptive to the appearance of the host property. Furthermore, no WCF should be installed on an exposed ridgeline or in a location readily visible from a public place, recreation area, scenic area or residential area unless it is s atisfactorily located and/or screened so it is hidden or disguised. 4. Collocation – Collocating with existing or other planned wireless communication facilities is recommended whenever feasible and appropriate. Service providers ar e also encouraged to collocate with water tanks, major power transmission and distribution towers, and other utility structures when in compliance with these guidelines. The city must approve collocation applications unless the expansion adds significan tly to the height or width of a facility. Dec. 14, 2021Item #16 Page 16 of 252 5. Monopoles – No new ground-mounted WCF monopoles should be permitted unless the applicant demonstrates no existing monopole, building, or structure can accommodate the applicant’s proposed antenna as required by Application and Review Guideline E.4. On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 2:22 PM Lauren Yzaguirre <Lauren.Yzaguirre@carlsbadca.gov> wrote: Good Afternoon, Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 134 of 138 1 Kyle Van Leeuwen From:Kyle Van Leeuwen Sent:Monday, November 20, 2023 11:23 AM To:Kyle Van Leeuwen Subject:FW: From: Cameron St.Clair <cstclair@rincongrp.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2023 12:36 PM To: Planning <Planning@CarlsbadCA.gov> Subject: Planning Commissioners, With the lack of evidence on 5G cell towers I strongly urge the planning commission to deny the application to allow a 5G cell tower on the New Song Church property. These towers should not be put in our neighborhoods or near schools. It is the responsibility of the commissioners to keep our neighborhoods safe. Thank you, Cameron St.Clair Owner of a property on Adams Street CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 135 of 138 1 Kyle Van Leeuwen From:Frank Sung <franksung01@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, February 24, 2023 4:11 PM To:Lauren Yzaguirre Cc:ed jago; AT&T Inc.; Michelle Backus; Richard Heimlich; Susan LeClair; Robert Hampton; Kimberly; sharilynschultz1111@gmail.com; Mary Crotty; Christa Ritchie; Kevin Fritz; Tom Rhatigan; Ben Martin; Katherine; Vilas Koinkar; The Hoa; Silvia Chang; Mark Frushone; Aileen Heimlich; dsteffy@sbcglobal.net Subject:Re: Poinsettia Park Wireless Communication Facility (WCF) Hi Lauren - Thank you for beginning to set some boundaries (height and design) on what cellular facilities are to be permitted in the City of Carlsbad. My neighbors and I OBJECT TO THE LOCATION of this proposed facility at Poinsettia Park. Carlsbad Council Policy #64 (see below) clearly says that locations of new cellular facilities are to be away from residential areas. This is NOT the case for this proposed facility. Our parks are a treasure to the community. Children play and people congregate at our parks. Residential neighborhoods are adjacent to our parks. Please have the project applicant identify locations away from our parks .. ie away from where people live and play. Thank you! Frank Sung (m) 760-213-9036 A. Location Guidelines for Placement of WCFs (excluding SWFs) 1. Preferred Locations – WCFs are encouraged to locate on existing buildings and structures. In addition, WCFs should be located in the following zones and areas, which are listed in order of descending preference: a. Industrial zones. b. Commercial zones. c. Other non-residential zones, except open space. d. Public right-of- way of roads adjacent to industrial and commercial zones and identified on the map attached as Exhibit A. e. Public property (e.g., city facilities) not in residential areas. f. Major power transmission towers in non-residential zones or areas. g. Public and private utility installations (not publicly accessible) in residential and open space zones (e.g., water tanks, reservoirs, or the existing communication towers near Maerkle Reservoir). h. Parks and community facilities (e.g., places of worship, community centers) in residential zones or areas. i. Public right-of-way of roads adjacent to residential zones and identified on the map attached as Exhibit A. 2. Discouraged Locations – WCFs should not locate in any of the following zones or areas unless the applicant demonstrates that alternatives in more-preferred locations are not technically feasible or potentially available as required by Application and Review Guideline E.3. a. Open space zones and lots (except as noted in Location Guideline A.1.). b. Residential zones or areas (except as noted in Location Guideline A.1). c. Major power transmission towers in corridors located in/or next to a residential Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 136 of 138 2 zone or area. d. Environmentally sensitive habitat. e. Public right-of-way of roads not identified on the map attached as Exhibit A. f. On vacant land. 3. Visibility to the Public – In all areas, WCFs should be located where least visible to the public and where least disruptive to the appearance of the host property. Furthermore, no WCF should be installed on an exposed ridgeline or in a location readily visible from a public place, recreation area, scenic area or residential area unless it is satisfactorily located and/or screened so it is hidden or disguised. 4. Collocation – Collocating with existing or other planned wireless communication facilities is recommended whenever feasible and appropriate. Service providers are also encouraged to collocate with water tanks, major power transmission and distribution towers, and other utility structures when in compliance with these guidelines. The city must approve collocation applications unless the expansion adds significantly to the height or width of a facility. Dec. 14, 2021Item #16 Page 16 of 252 5. Monopoles – No new ground-mounted WCF monopoles should be permitted unless the applicant demonstrates no existing monopole, building, or structure can accommodate the applicant’s proposed antenna as required by Application and Review Guideline E.4. On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 2:22 PM Lauren Yzaguirre <Lauren.Yzaguirre@carlsbadca.gov> wrote: Good Afternoon, I am reaching out to you in response to your expressed concerns about the proposed Poinsettia Wireless Communication Facility (CUP2022-0023) located in Poinsettia Park at 6600 Hidden Valley Road. I would like to draw your attention to the attached second review letter for this project. The concerns expressed by the community have been taken into consideration by staff. As a result, the applicant has been presented with the following two options: 1. Withdraw the project and resubmit a new application featuring a redesigned structure that incorporates a stealth design, with the replacement pole being limited in height to that of the existing pole. 2. Proceed with the current application as proposed, providing additional documentation to support the request. The applicant has been advised that although a decision has not been determined, in this scenario the city could recommend denial to the decision-making body (Planning Commission) at the public hearing. Please review the attached documentation and contact me directly should you have any questions or concerns. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 137 of 138 1 Kyle Van Leeuwen From:Laura Leigh Wantz <lauraleighwantz2021@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, February 26, 2023 6:38 PM To:Lauren Yzaguirre Cc:Priya Bhat-Patel Subject:Re: Proposed cell phone tower Dear Ms. Yzaguirre: We want to thank you for telling MD7/AT&T to lower the cell pole height and to add a stealth design at Poinsettia Park. Please have them relocate the proposed cell pole far away from where people live and where our child play and out of the visual line of the upslope neighborhood. It is inappropriate to locate these facilities so close to homes and youth sports fields and our local elementary school. Please keep in mind that, since there has been no new developments in this neighborhood, there is no real need for additional cell service. Thank you. Jim and Laura Wantz 6713 Tea Tree Street Carlsbad Email: LauraLeighWantz2021@gmail.com Cell: 949/322-4673 Landline: 760/448-5243 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dec. 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 138 of 138 Poinsettia Park WCF (AT&T) Kyle Van Leeuwen, Associate Planner Community Development December 6, 2023 CUP 2022-0023/CDP 2022-0070 22 ( City of Carlsbad 23 PROJECT LOCATION POINSETTIA PARK WCF DEV 2022-0206 0 0 90 180 360 540 {c ity of Carlsbad Proposed Project CUP/CDP: Wireless Communication Facility (WCF) •New 78’ tall light pole (to replace existing 78’ pole) •Placed below lights: •6 panel antennas •9 radio units •3 surge protectors •Equipment to be screened by 4’ radius radome •Equipment Enclosure (to replace trash enclosure) {c ity of Carlsbad SCOPE OF REVIEW What is subject to review: •Placement (location) - Subject to coverage objectives •Construction (Design) - Guidelines/Requirements: •Must be reasonable (objective) •Applied to all communication infrastructure •Must be published in advance {c ity of Carlsbad SCOPE OF REVIEW What is NOT subject to review: •Radio Frequency Emissions (RF) •Cannot be denied because of perceived radio frequency health hazards •No carrier can be favored •Cannot prevent completion of a network {c ity of Carlsbad SCOPE OF REVIEW Policy 64 – Review Guidelines •Lists Preferred Locations (in order of preference) •Identifies Discouraged Locations •Specifies “Stealth” Design Techniques •Location and Screening of Equipment •Appropriate Height and Setbacks {c ity of Carlsbad 28 Proposed Project 2 8 ATION AT THE (P) (E) GROUND ELEV • AUSL (151.10') POLELOCATIOH CH ER s FT) ER IT. POWER TRENCH (P) FIBER/OC (APPROX. "5'-0, PATHWAY Qlm:R P) AT&T CMU ~~OUIPMENT ENCLOSURE. S Z3 PLAN ON SHEET E)P-C~ ◊ LIGHT POI£, lYP. Bl£ACH£R, lYP. 29 Proposed Project Mo-----<P) AT&T NHHS4-66~R3B, (1) PER SECTOR, (3) TOTAL +to------<P) AT&T NHHS4-66~R3B, (1) PER SECTOR. (3) TOTAL P) STACKED RRUe, (3) PER SECTOR, TOTAL OF (9) . <O {c ity of Carlsbad 30 Proposed Project IJGHTI ,1-lXTIJAl-;S TOI-P U-.J.OCATF..O LIGHTISG {c ity of Carlsbad 31 Project Changes •Early Public Feedback/Issues •Design (Height, Visual Impact) •RF Exposure •Property Values •Construction Impacts •Response •Project twice redesigned, address aesthetic/stealthing concerns •Reduced height and number of antennas •Reduction of antennas reduced the amount of RF produced Existing 1st Design 2nd Design Proposed {c ity of Carlsbad City Council Policy 64 Proposed WCF Compliance •Exhibits “stealth” design (light pole & radome) •“Preferred location.” Park sites are preferred locations per City Council Policy 64. No alternative location exists. Applicant analyzed 8 other potential sites. •Radio frequency (RF) exposure well below the levels established as acceptable by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) •Emergency generator compliant with noise exposure limits {c ity of Carlsbad 33 City Council Policy 64 A. Location Guidelines for Placement of WCFs (excluding SWFs) 1. Preferred Locations-WCFs are encouraged to locate on existing buildings and structures. In add ition, WCFs should be located in the following zones and areas, which are listed in order of descending preference: a. Industrial zones. b. Commercial zones. C. d. e. f. g. h. i. Other non-residential zones, except open space. Public right-of-way of roads adjacent to industrial and commercial zones and identified on the map attached as Exhibit A. Public property (e.g., city facilities) not in residential areas. Major power transmission towers in non-residential zones or areas. Public and private utility installations (not publicly accessible) in residential and open space zones (e.g., water tanks, reservoirs, or the existing communication towers near Maerkle Reservoir). Parks and community facilities (e.g., places of worship, community centers) in residential zones or areas. Public right-of-way of roads adjacent to residential zones and identified on the map attached as Exhibit A. 2. Discouraged Locations -WCFs should not locate in any of the following zones or areas unless the applicant demonstrates that alternatives in more-preferred locations are not technically feasible or potentially avai lable as required by Application and Review Guideline E.3. a. Open space zones and lots (except as noted in Location Guideline A.1.). b. Residential zones or areas excep as no e 111 oca 1011 u1 e ine . . c. Major power transmission towers in corridors located in/or next to a residential zone or area. d. e. f. Environmentally sensitive habitat. Public right-of-way of roads not identified on the map attached as Exhibit A. On vacant land. {c ity of Carlsbad City Council Policy 64 •The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requires facilities to comply with RF exposure limits and is the regulating authority related to RF exposure. •1996 Telecommunications Act: city cannot evaluate or deny a project based on perceived RF health hazards, so long as the project complies with exposure limits. •A RF Exposure Study demonstrating the facility will be below the FCC’s Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) has been provided. {c ity of Carlsbad 35 Alternative Sites Analysis •Area Zoned Residential & OS •Nearest non-residential zones are 70-80 feet lower in elevation .,. R-8 s 0 • R-8R-8 .R -8 R\ R.:8 OS R-8 OS OS OS OS OS OS 0 • • {c ity of Carlsbad 36 Alternative Sites Analysis • • {c ity of Carlsbad 37 Past Planning Commission Approvals WCF Faux Trees •6/3/2020 –Trailblazer park WCF (Approved 5-1-1) •Two 55’-tall faux eucalyptus trees •Temporary CUP in Open Space Zone (Future site of Robertson Ranch Park) •Pole appx. 280’ from residential property line, 350’ from residences WCF Light Poles •5/16/2016 –Verizon Army & Navy Athletic Facility WCF (Approved 6-0-1) •Stealth design approved as 81’-tall light pole with 6 panels within a 4’-radius radome •Appx. 550 feet from residential uses •3/4/2009 –Verizon Carlsbad High School WCF (unanimous approval) •100’-tall light pole, no additional stealthing –Open Space Zone •Pole appx. 80’ from residential property line, appx. 110’ from residence {c ity of Carlsbad 38 Past Planning Commission Approvals Trailblazer Park WCF Verizon Army & Navy Athletic Facility WCF Verizon Carlsbad High School WCF '----.I,~ Project Consistency •General Plan – Open Space (OS) •Zoning – Open Space (OS) •Minor Conditional Use Permit Regulations •City Council Policy 64 •Coastal Development Regulations •Growth Management •CEQA {c ity of Carlsbad ITEM: RECOMMENDATION •ADOPT a resolution APPROVING the Minor Conditional Use Permit (CUP2022-0023) and Coastal Development Permit (CDP 2022-0070). {c ity of Carlsbad 41 Past Planning Commission Approvals WCF Faux Trees •6/3/2020 -Trailblazer park WCF (Approved 5-1-1) •Two 55’-tall faux eucalyptus trees •Temporary CUP in Open Space Zone (Future site of Robertson Ranch Park) •Pole appx. 280’ from residential property line, 350’ from residences •4/5/2017 –Carlsbad Ellery Reservoir WCF (approved 6-0-1) •60’ faux eucalyptus tree in a Residential Zone (R-A-10000) •Pole appx. 16.5’ from residential property line, appx. 60’ from residence WCF Light Poles •5/16/2016 –Verizon Army & Navy Athletic Facility WCF (Approved 6-0-1) •Stealth design approved as 81’-tall light pole with 6 panels within a 4’-radius radome •Appx. 550 feet from residential uses •3/4/2009 –Verizon Carlsbad High School WCF (unanimous approval) •100’-tall light pole, no additional stealthing –Open Space Zone •Pole appx. 80’ from residential property line, appx. 110’ from residence •1/21/2004 –Calaveras Hills Community Park (Unanimous approval) •79.5’ light pole with flush mounted antennas – Open Space Zone •Appx. 225’ form nearest residential property line {c ity of Carlsbad 42 Alternative Sites Analysis Candidate(s) Location Site Map • Candidate #3 ~ .... mot U~ r'l J.J,.• C 9 JC t +-!Candidate #8 ~-,,..,...~-:-:-:----, \ . I ~ • <E--JCandidate #6 •r 1l 1J 9 f ! \ Q u 9 Candidate #5 ...... {c ity of Carlsbad Federal Communications Commission (FCC) – RF Exposure •The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requires facilities to comply with radio frequency (RF) exposure guidelines, and is the regulating authority related to radiofrequency exposure limits generated by wireless communication facilities. •Based on the 1996 Telecommunications Act, a local government city cannot evaluate or deny the project based on perceived health hazards of RF exposure, so long as the project complies with federally set exposure limits. •Exhibit 8 contains a RF Electromagnetic Fields Exposure Study demonstrating that the cumulative exposure levels from this facility will be below the FCC’s Maximum Permissible Exposure 44 Setback •Proposed Setback: appx 177’ to pole (appx 210’ to nearest residence) •Required Setback: 78’ to property line •No specific setback to residential properties/uses is required ,-------- (P} LIGHT POLE WITH I CYLINDRICAL SHROUD 1• I{ "RADOME" (E} TRASH ENCLOSURE TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED i i i h. v I ~ L ___ _ ◊ ◊ -◊ I i i i • i i i j I 74 I I I I • I ~-_J • "-·-·-· .. ~'r--• {c ity of Carlsbad 45 CUP Required Findings 1. That the requested use is necessary or desirable for the development of the community and is in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the general plan, including, if applicable, the certified local coastal program, specific plan or master plan. 2. That the requested use is not detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is to be located. 3. That the site for the proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, parking, loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping and other development features prescribed in this code and required by the City Planner, planning commission or City Council, in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. 4. That the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic generated by the proposed use. 5. That the proposed WCF is consistent with City Council Policy No. 64. {c ity of Carlsbad 46 CDP Required Findings 1. That the proposed development is in conformance with the Certified Local Coastal Program and all applicable policies. 2. The proposal is in conformity with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter Three of the Coastal Act. 3. The project is consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone. {c ity of Carlsbad 47 Photo Simulations {c ity of Carlsbad 48 Photo Simulations {c ity of Carlsbad 49 Park – Alternative Site {c ity of Carlsbad 50 Policy 64 Language-2021 A. Location Guidelines for Placement of WCFs (excluding SWFs) 1. Preferred Locations-WCFs are encouraged to locate on existing buildings and structures. In add ition, WCFs should be located in the following zones and areas, which are listed in order of descending preference: a. Industrial zones. b. Commercial zones. c. Other non-residential zones, except open space. d. Public right-of-way of roads adjacent to industrial and commercial zones and identified on the map attached as Exhibit A. e. Public property (e.g., city facilities) not in residential areas. f. Major power transmission towers in non-residential zones or areas. g. Public and private utility installations (not publicly accessible) in residential and open space zones (e.g., water tanks, reservoirs, or the existing communication towers near Maerkle Reservoir). h. Parks and community facilities (e.g., places of worship, community centers) in residential zones or areas. i. Public right-of-way of roads adjacent to residential zones and identified on the map attached as Exhibit A. 2. Discouraged Locations -WCFs should not locate in any of the following zones or areas unless the applicant demonstrates that alternatives in more-preferred locations are not technically feasible or potentially avai lable as required by Application and Review Guideline E.3. a. Open space zones and lots (except as noted in Location Guideline A.1.). b. Residential zones or areas (except as noted in Location Guideline A.1). c. Major power transmission towers in corridors located in/or next to a residential zone or area. d. e. f. Environmentally sensitive habitat. Public right-of-way of roads not identified on the map attached as Exhibit A. On vacant land. {c ity of Carlsbad 51 Policy 64 Language-2001 A. Location Guidelines 1. Preferred Locations -WCFs should locate on buildings and structures, not on vacant land. In addition, WCFs should locate in the following zones and areas, which are listed in order of descending preference: a. Industrial and public utility zones. b. Commercial zones. c. Public property (e.g., city facilities) not in residential areas. d. Other non-residential zones, except open space. e. Public utility installations (not publicly accessible) in residential and open space zones (e.g., water tanks, existing lattice towers. reservoirs). f. Parks and community facilities (e.g., places of worship, community centers) in residential zones. 2. Discouraged Locations -WCFs should not locate in any of the following zones or areas unless the applicant demonstrates no feasible alternative exists as required by Application and Review Guideline D.2. a. Open space zones and lots (except as noted in Location Guideline A.1.). b. Residential zones. c. Major power transmission corridors riext to a resi~ential zone. CITY OF CARLSBAD Page 5 of9 Policy No. 64 COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT Date Issued October 3 2001 DATED: September 21, 2001 Effective Date October 3 2001 Cancellation Date Suoersedes N.o. General Subject: WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES Specific Subject: Review and operation guidelines for wireless communication facilities Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department Heads and Division Heads, Employee Bulletin Boards, Press. File d. Environmentally sensitive habitat. e. On vacant land in any zone. {c ity of Carlsbad FRANK SUNG NEIGHBORS’ GROUP > Agenda # 3 •AGENDA ITEM #3 •POINSETTIA PARK WCF CUP 2022- 0023 •CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION •DECEMBER 6, 2023 Verizon WCF CUP 2021-0002 Appx 445’ to PL AT&T WCF CUP 2022-0023 Appx 180’ to PL THREE QUESTIONS #1 IS THERE A NEED FOR ADDITIONAL CELLULAR COVERAGE IN THIS AREA #2 IS IT WISE TO PLACE THE WIRELESS CELLULAR FACILITY SO CLOSE TO THE HOMES? #3 WHY IS THE WIRELESS CELLULAR FACILITY EVEN IN ANY OF OUR PARKS? DEFINITIONS .. SANITY CHECK PREFERRED > LIKED BETTER OR BEST .. WANTED IN PREFERENCE TO OTHERS DISCOURAGED > TO HINDER BY DISFAVORING .. TO AVOID NET: THE TAKEAWAY WHEN SOMETHING IS ON THE BOTTOM OF THE PREFERRED LIST AND ON THE TOP OF THE DISCOURAGED LIST SHOULD BE “STAY AWAY”!! HOW DID WE GET TO 4 CELL POLES @ CALAVERA HILLS PARK? 2000 #1 CELL POLE APPROVED IN 2000 PRIOR TO POLICY #64 LATE 2001 POLICY #64 PUT INTO PLACE IN LATE 2001 2004 #2 CELL POLE APPROVED IN 2004 2013 #3 CELL POLE APPROVED IN 2013 2019 #4 CELL POLE APPROVED IN 2019 ■ I I I I I I I ■ ■ I I I I I I I ■ ■ I I I I THREE QUESTIONS > RECAP #1 IS THERE A NEED FOR ADDITIONAL CELLULAR COVERAGE IN THIS AREA > NO .. THE AREA IS WELL SERVED #2 IS IT WISE TO PLACE THE WIRELESS CELLULAR FACILITY SO CLOSE TO THE HOMES? > NO .. WCFs SHOULD BE LOCATED AWAY FROM WHERE PEOPLE LIVE .. BEST PRACTICES .. MINIMUM OF 1200’ OR 400 METERS #3 WHY IS THE WIRELESS CELLULAR FACILITY EVEN IN ANY OF OUR PARKS? > IT SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED IF POLICY #64 IS CORRECTLY INTERPRETED AT&T New Site Build CAL01850 6600 Hidden Valley Rd., Carlsbad, CA 92011 September 2023 - ., AT&T 2PROPERTY OF MD7 Target Area Summary •AT&T is proposing to build a new wireless facility to bring coverage to the Hidden Valley Rd area •Coverage Objective for this site includes: neighboring residences, Pacific Rim School. •The proposed structure is a 78’ tall light pole. Seagate condos f ~•••• Fast Water Heater~ .-,,it• T Seagate Condominium 1M Rentals Carlsbad ~ Apartments in Carlsbad Paseo Del Norte Poinsettia Park Tennis and Pickleball Courts q 'Poinsettia KinderCare ' Beacon Bay Or Seahorse Ct Carlsbad Photo q :i:: C: C. "' ::, < ., ill' '< :0 C. Pacific Rim A Elementary School Y Camino De Las Ondas :c~bJ1yC.1 Abella Ave Gold Flower~0 3PROPERTY OF MD7 Zoning and Land Uses Zone: City of Carlsbad Open Space Zone Surrounding uses: •North: Open Space Zone, Single Family Residential •South: Single Family Residential •East Single Family Residential •West: Single Family Residential, Open Space 4PROPERTY OF MD7 Scope of Work •Construction of a 78’-0” light-pole •Install (6) Antennas •Install (9) RRUs •(8) ’ CMU equipment enclosure •(1) Emergency Back-Up Generator 5PROPERTY OF MD7 Site Plan ~SEE!ltl.L FIELD":.. (E) WJtmNI.NCE BUILDlt«; I (E) CWJ14-Ll~K~/ FENCC. IYP, ; I (E) CAGED WATER WJ.VE;dl (E) \IJ.LVE POST I TABLE & I (E) :t:42' HIGt1 TREE BENCH, TYP.~ \ I (E)GATE ~ ~ (E) ±J.5' HIGH TREE ACCESS~ ♦ (E) COKCR£1E SW~E r·,,, 'l (P) AT&T CMU WALL ENClOSUFIE, SE£ EQUIPMENT Pl.AH OH SHEET Z3 V \DISA8Wl LOGO, TYP. '" .. '"'""='-,F ---"6 .--- IN!, PROVIDE (2) BO.LI.ARDS IH -IP£, lYP. FRONT OF METER F>EOEST FOR PROTE.CTI LIGHT POI.£, M'. 81.fACHER. IYP. 6PROPERTY OF MD7 AT&T’s Commitment to Public Safety •FirstNet is a critical network dedicated to first responders helping them make faster and better decisions to keep themselves and the public safe •Dedicated frequency to clear a communication highway in times of emergency •80% of 911 calls are made from a wireless device •AT&T sole deployer of FirstNet •AT&T sees public safety as the highest priority when proposing new cell sites as well as existing cell site modifications. Radio Frequency Safety Report has been completed ensure exposure is minimal and compliant with FCC Rules and Regulations. 7PROPERTY OF MD7 AT&T New Site Build CAL01850 6600 Hidden Valley Rd., Carlsbad, CA 92011 8PROPERTY OF MD7 Photo Simulations – View 1 (F.iTl.\Slt[},,(].uSt"RF. TOHt.R.l:J.10\'f. qur.lfID.c.HXH'l:l'.S m H,[ lFli.lf".ATED q11t14'111c.11 uG.1rr 1'1.)1.E.l\lBl:.RJ.:\lll\1:D A.",,l)liEf'L'iC:Fl) 9PROPERTY OF MD7 Photo Simulations – View 2 l'.)JJC.lrll~Gl'00\.'11:'i. TO BE llEJ.ll(J\l1D q rt-tr mc;11 u,;m l'OII-: 1\l BE Rf~'tlO\'FD ,\SDIIH"l-~.D 10PROPERTY OF MD7 Photo Simulations – View 3 :),llC".JITI~C.t-lXTl'RJ:.-. 1U HF.. REIL.II .A"JTD ~.:nr-09rnc.11 uc.1rr Nll.l~ TU BE lrJ,trn Hl }L'\;n llEPI.\CED 11PROPERTY OF MD7 Photo Simulations – View 4 1':)JJ(.lrll~GIIXll.!a:.I:..'> TiloRl·.1:1.UX::.\TI'D :)17 .. .VIU(,I\ UC.Irr fut..E·miu,RJ~"'E.I:> \!'I.Dl:EPL\c:tcll fNl:t,lf.trlllC.11 l.JC:/ITl"t)IJ kl:LC1C"XllD(!~ 1.1c.1m~--JlXTUR.lc..", ~ ;'IAT11rTl•,\:-..J·J .. \:,.~T;..',.:-,,.,\;, 'f:TJ111NT111..,,..,4'.tl"O \l.J-..,,DRII.Al.SlfROtJD ~'),,,i;J>TOTIII. (l't,.)l'OIJ~ 12PROPERTY OF MD7 Coverage without CAL01850 13PROPERTY OF MD7 Coverage with CAL01850 • • • ~l!'tt -= -::a,-, n·u111ty -• :.- " :i~ ,I. ••• .. ,:; CAL01850' 14PROPERTY OF MD7 Coverage with only CAL01850 Co~ ~ 11t~:.,~ f .. j a..iXN S.,.,Rd Questions? MARCH 2023 Exhibit 2CORRESPONDNECE FOR CUP 2022-0023 / CDP 2022-0070 (DEV2022-0206) Poinsettia Park WCF (AT&T): January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 141 of 247 From: To: Subject: Date: flann.lDg Qlothla Ytaeland FW: Carlsbad Village Square/State St. & Carlsbad Village Olive Monday, January 8, 2024 8: 10:51 AM From: Joan Lynn <joanrl@roadrunner.com> Sent: Saturday, January 6, 2024 2:21 PM To: Planning <Planning@CarlsbadCA.gov> Subject: Carlsbad Village Square/State St. & Carlsbad Village Drive To: Carlsbad Planning Commission Re: Carlsbad Village Square During a recent walk through the Village, I saw a Notice of Project Application regarding the Shipping Container Buildings. Why would anyone want to demolish Choice Juicery where families and children meet and have outdoor fun. Crack.heads is always busy with customers enjoying breakfast, lunch and happy hour. We don't need another 4-story building in the Village, enough of them were built in die last few years. When we moved here in 2002 it was easy to go out to dinner and find a parking place, now it is almost always impossible. The Village is enjoyed by residents and tourist who like walking through the area, visiting the shops, enjoying a coffee, lunch or dinner. lfwe keep demolishing what represents the Village, Carlsbad Village will be renamed Carlsbad City. My husband and I are against this project. Joan Lynn and John Lynn 2535 Jefferson St. Unit I Carlsbad, CA 92008 CAUTION. Do not o en attachments or click on links unless sender and know the content is safe. January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 142 of 247 From: CC: Subject: Date: council Internet Email Eric Lardy FW: Towers Monday, January 8, 2024 8:04:31 AM -----Original Message--✓1 From: Roxanne Rusing <rrusingl@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, January 6, 2024 2:05 PM To: Council .Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: Towers No no no at Poinsettia Sent from my iPhone CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 143 of 247 From: Cc: Subject: Date: Council Internet Emal! Eric Lardy FW: A TT cell tower at Poinsettia Park Monday, January 8, 2024 8:04:43 AM From: Tom Rhatigan <rhatigantom62@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, January 6, 2024 7:24 AM To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: ATT cell tower at Poinsettia Park Hello. I live on Beacon Bay Drive and have ATT cell se rvice, that is ,when it works.I would love to have a new cell tower installed at Poinsettia Park so I can receive phone ca lls like the rest of the county please. Thank you. CAUTION. Do not o en attachments or click on links unless sender and know the content is safe. January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 144 of 247 From: To: Subject: Date: Brooke Woolf v Plannlng Cell towers Sunday, January 71 2024 3:56:40 PM Please, please do not allow this in our poinsettia park. We truly don't know the long term effect of exposure -ironic to put it where people go to exercise, be outdoors and get healthy. Please do not allow. Brooke Woolf 2801 Carrillo Way Carlsbad Sent from my iPhone CAU'ITON: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you1·ecognize tbe sender and know the content is safe. January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 145 of 247 From: To: Subject: Date: Roxanne Rusina Planning Towers Saturday, January 6, 2024 2:05:18 PM No no no at Poinsettia Sent from my iPhone CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 146 of 247 From: To: Frank Sung J ~ Subject: Fwd: STOP Poinsettia Parle Cell Poles at Jan 17 5 pm Meeting Saturday, January 6, 2024 12:58:15 PM Date: Hello City Planning Department -Please put this email in the January 17th Planning Commission Meeting package .. AGAINST CUP 2022-0023. Council Policy #64 provides what the City Planning Department and City Planning Commissioners need to DENY this CUP application. I've bcc'ed our City Council. Thank you! Frank Sung Mariners Point HOA Board Member (m) 760-2 13-9036 ----------Fo1warded message --------- From: Poinsettia WCF <nowcfpoinsettia@gmai1.com> Date: Sat, Jan 6, 2024 at 12:40 PM Subj ect: STOP Poinsettia Park Ce! l Poles at Jan 17 5 pm Meeting To: PLEASE JOININ SUPPORTING A GROUP OF NEIGHBORS WHO WANT TO PROTECT OUR CITY PAR.KS FRONI BECOMING CELLULAR ANTENNA FARMS. SEE BELOW. CALL TO ACTION .. As a result of all of our efforts the Planning Commission remanded (ie defened only because they didn't have the votes for approval that night) it's vote to WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 17, 2024. They have asked ATT to provide more data as to WHY THERE IS A NEED .. and have asked A TI to evaluate DIFFERENT ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS .. A WAY FROM HOMES AND OUT OF THE PARK. This is good news as per City Council Policy #64 .. residential homes/city parks are among the LEAST favorable locations permitted. Remember, if the city approves this new antenna at Poinsettia Park the city CANNOT deny any other cell carriers from adding their own antennas in the park in the future. We are trying to prevent Poinsettia Park from turning into Calavera Hills Park with 4 large cell phone antenna arrays .. an antennae farm in a city park. See attached photo of 3 of 4 cell poles We NEED YOUR HELP. EMAIL the city__planners and elected officials one more time before thjs next meeting. Send in yow comments by January 10th! January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 147 of 247 Here are our strongest arguments. • Neighbors do not want the BLIGHT of multiple cell antennas in Poinsettia Park. • Urge Planning Commissioners to listen and respond to its residents' concerns .. BOTH VISUAL .. AND EXPOSURE TO RF RADIATION FROM BEING SO CLOSE TO HOMES AND USERS OF THE PARK, We have collected a petition with over 300 signatures OPPOSING the antenna in Poinsettia Park .. both online and in person over a couple of days in late November. In addition, many individual emails have already been sent. EVEN IF YOU HA VE SENT IN YOUR COMMENTS PREVIOUSLY .. DO IT AGAIN! • Moving the antenna to a different light pole within Poinsettia Park is NOT a solution. We don't want an ugly cell installation in the park. Period. • While the city may not consider the potential radiation hazards, people are indeed very much concerned about living so near OR spending an afternoon or evening next to such a large antenna. • Letting in 1 cellular pole will definitely lead to more cellular poles. The City will have no bases to deny subsequent applicants. Drive up to Calavera Hills Park and see what will take place. • Ask the Planning Commission to follow the guidelines set forth in City Council Policy 64 which ranks acceptable cell tower locations. Parks are ranked 8 out of 9 possible locations. This means there are 7 other higher priority locations that must be considered first. There are currently 14 new sites identified and presented to ATT for review prior to the January 17 vote. Please urge the Commissione1·s to apply the ranking order of Policy 64 requiring ATT to make alternative sites work. Fyi, the A TT representative stated during his presentation to the Planning Commission on December 6th that Poinsettia Park was originally selected due to ease of access and low construction cost. • Urge the Planning Commission to DENY this currentATT application based on other acceptable alternative locations outside of Poinsettia Park. A denial will force ATT to work up a new application for a new location • • ATTEND the next Planning Commission meeting in person. Speak up and have your voice heard. • Meeting date: January 17, 2024 at 5pm at 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Ja n u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 2 4 It e m # 1 P a g e 1 4 8 o f 2 4 7 January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 149 of 247 Please send your email comments to all of this list: planning@carlsbadca.gov counci l@carlsbadca.gov manager@carisbadca.gov Eric.Lardy@carisbadca.gov Kyle VanLeeuwen@carlsbadca.gov keith.blackbum@carlsbadca.gov melanie.burkho1der@carisbadca.gov caroJyn.luna@carlsbadca.gov priya.bhat-pateJ@carl sbadca. gov teresa.acosta@carisbadca.gov Calavera Cell Towers.jpg [i] CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 150 of 247 Fromt To: Mm!n i/ Subject: Jeff Murphy; Kyle Van Leeuwen; Enc Lardy; Planning; Council Internet Email: Manager Internet Emall Poinsettia Parle AT&T Date: Saturday, January 6, 2024 8:21:12 AM At the public comment period at the Jahuary 6, 2023 Plannihg Commission meeting, several people expressed dissatisfaction with AT&T for not including other viable alternate site locations for a new cel l antenna. Testimony from the applicant stated, " Poinsettia Park was chosen due to its easy access for construction and ma intenance}' Our goal is to support the installation of a new cell facility, but not in our beautiful parks. During this remand period, we have collaborated with several of our neighbors who are electrical engineers familiar with cellular transmission networks to develop a new list of alternative site locations outside of Poinsettia Parl<. Policy 64 provides the Review and Approval Guidelines and we have included the appropriate reference for each location listing. We have shared this list with AT&T's representative, Mr. Harold Thomas Jr. from MD7. Mr. Thomas has assured us that AT&T engineers will review of these possible sites and present their findings in the updated Alternative Site Analysis as requested by the planning commissioners. We respectfully urge you to deny the current application based on t he availability of other viable sites that would work to complete AT&T's network without utilizing Poinsettia Park. Thank you. Board of Directors the Cove Hoa 1. 2. 3. 4. Alternative Sites for New Wireless Cell Facility December 20, 2023 Water Tank, West side -East of Black Rail Rd. and Triton Ave. ( A.1.g. Utility Installations) Transmission Tower (1) 400 feet northeast of North Coast Calvary Chapel -1330 Poinsettia Ln. ( A.1.g. Utility Installations) iransmission Tower (2) 400 feet southeast of North Coast Calvary Chapel -1330 Poinsettia Ln . Just east of Poinsettia Lane roadway. This transmission line extends southeast and has several more towers that may also be viable. ( A.1.g. Utility Installations ) January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 151 of 247 5. 6. 7. 8. North Coast Calvary Chapel -1330 Poinsettia Ln. This ls a large property with multiple possible antenna locations. ( A.1.h. Community Facilities) Grand Pacific Palisades Resort-5805 Armada Dr. Collocate with ex1sting cell carriers. ( A.1.b. Commercial Zones) AltaMira RV lot -6672 Paseo del Norte. This is a private facflity. ( A.Lb. Commercial Zones) Transmission Tower (3), wood telephone pole -This pole is 50' north of the Alta Mira RV lot with wires extending east across the open area into Poinsettia Park. ( A.1.g. Utility Installations) Carlsbad Fire Station #4 -6885 Batlquitos Dr. A tower would be easily disguised with your eucalyptus stealth design to blend in with the abundant eucalyptus trees located next to the station. ( A.1.e. City Facilities) 9. CalTrans Maintenance Facility-6050 Paseo Del Norte. ( A.1.e. City Facilities) 10. 11. 12. 13, Transmission Tower (4) -400' east of the intersection of Goldenbush Dr. and Daylily Dr. ( A.Lg. Utility Installations) Transmission Tower (5) -on the Crossings Golf Course at these coordinates: 33.12687927504221, -117.3035647233823 ( A.l.g. Utility Installations) Legoland -collocate with existing cell carrier currently on this site. ( A.1.b. Commercial Zones) Inside Windmill, Windmill Fooq Hall -890 Palomar Airport Rd. Collocation with existing carriers. ( A.1.b. Commercial Zones) Board of Directors Poinsettia Cove Maintenance Corporation January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 152 of 247 From: M!!!lo To: Subject: JetfMuro1w: Kyte Yan Leeuwen: ~i Planning: Council rntemet Email: Manager Int:met Email Poinsettia Park AT&T Date: Saturday, January 6, 2024 8:21:10 AM At the public comment period at the January 6, 2023 Planning Commission meeting, several people expressed dissatisfaction with AT&T for not including other viable alternate site locations for a new cell antenna. Testimony from the applicant stated, " Po1nsettia Park was chosen due to its easy access for construction and maintenance." Our goal is to support the installation of a new cell facility, but not in our beautiful parks. During this remand period, we have collaborated with several of our neighbors who are electrical engineers familiar with cellular transmission networks to develop a new list of alternative site locations outside of Poinsettia Park. Polley 64 provides the Review and Approval Gu1delines and we have included the appropriate reference for each location listing. We have shared this list with AT&T's representative, Mr. Harold Thomas Jr. from MD7. Mr. Thomas has assured us that AT&T engineers will review of these possible sites and present theirfindings in t he updated Alternative Site Analysis as requested by the planning commissioners. We respectfully urge you to deny the current application based on the availability of other viable sites that would work to complete AT& T's network without utilizing Poinsettia Parl<. Thank you. Board of Directors the Cove Hoa 1. 2. 3. 4. Alternative Sites for New Wireless Cell Facility December 20, 2023 Water Tank, West side -East of Black Rail Rd. and Triton Ave. ( A.1.g. Utility Installations) Transmission Tower (1) 400 feet northeast of North Coast Calvary Chapel -1330 Poinsettia Ln. ( A.Lg. Utility Installations) Transmission Tower (2) 400 feet southeast of North Coast Calvary Chapel -1330 Poinsettia Ln. Just east of Poinsettia Lane roadway. This transmission line extends southeast and has several more towers that may also be viable. ( A.1.g. Utility Installations) January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 153 of 247 5. 6. 7. 8. North Coast Calvary Chapel -1330 Poinsettia Ln. This is a large property with multiple possible antenna locations. ( A.1.h. Community Facilities) Grand Pac1fic Palisades Resort -5805 Armada Dr. Collocate with existing cell carriers. ( A.1.b. Commercial Zones) Alta Mira RV lot-6672 Paseo del Norte. This is a private faclllty. ( A.l.b. Commercial Zones) Transmission Tower (3), wood telephone pole -This pole is 50' north of the AltaMlra RV lot with wires extending east across the open area into Poinsettra Park. ( A.1.g. Utility Installations) Carlsbad Fire Station #4 -6885 Batiquitos Dr. A tower would be easily disguised with your eucalyptus stealth design to blend in with the abundant eucalyptus trees located next to the station. ( A.l.e. City Facilities) 9. CalTrans Maintenance Facil ity -6050 Paseo Del Norte. ( A.1.e. City Facilities) 10. 11. 12. 13. Tra nsmission Tower (4) -400' east of the intersection of Golden bush Dr. and Daylily Dr. ( A.1.g. Utility Installations) Transmission Tower (5) -on the Crossings Golf Course at these coordinates: 33.12687927504221, -117.3035647233823 (A.Lg.Utility Installations) Legoland -collocate with existing cell carrier currently on this site. ( A.l.b. Commerdal Zones) Inside Windmill, Windmill Food Hall -890 Palomar Airport Rd. Collocation with existing carriers. ( A.1.b. Commercial Zones) Board of Directors Poinsettia Cove Maintenance Corporation January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 154 of 247 From: To: Subject: Date: Tom Rhatigan ,/ flan.o.in9 . ATT cell tower Saturday, January 6, 2024 7:23:43 AM Hello. I live on Beacon Bay Drive and have ATT cell service, that is ,when it works.I would love to have a new cell tower installed so I can receive phone calls lli(e the rest of the county please. Thank you. CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 Cynthia Vigeland Subject:FW: Comments for Planning Commissioners - Proposed A.T.&T. Wireless Communications Tower CAL01850 Poinsettia Park Attachments:Concerns, Comments and Questions CAL01850 - Ashton.docx; Exhibit_3__Project_Analysis.V3.pdf; Exhibit_5_-_Council_Policy_No._64_-_Wireless_Communication_Facilities (2).pdf; 14292179_321857 _CAL01850_EME Jx_RS100_102523.EBI.pdf; 14292179_288901_CAL01850_EME Jx_RS100_ 090922.EBI.pdf; Exhibit_6_-_Alternative_Site_Analysis.pdf; Exhibit_9 _-_Generator_Noise_Assessment_Letter (1).pdf; CUP2022-0023_Final_Plan_Set.pdf From: Gretchen.M. Ashton <gretchen.m.ashton@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 1, 2024 1:56 PM To: City Clerk <Clerk@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: Comments for Planning Commissioners - Proposed A.T.&T. Wireless Communications Tower CAL01850 Poinsettia Park Dear City Clerk, Attached are my comments regarding the above-referenced subject. Please provide these comments with attachments to each of the Planning Commissioners at soon as possible to give them the opportunity to review well in advance of the January 17th meeting. I understand this matter is first on the agenda for the meeting. Also, additionally, please include this email and all attachments in the agenda packet. Thank you for your assistance with my records request. This is my resulting review comments, concerns and questions. Best Regards, Gretchen M. Ashton 760 271 6069 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 155 of 247 Public Records Request: #R003872-120523 Document Review and Comments for AT&T Site Number: CAL01850 Site Name: Poinsettia Park at 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Road. Carlsbad, California by Gretchen M. Ashton 12/29/2023 Introduction and Purpose: The purpose of my inquiry is to learn more about the A.T.&T. Wireless Telecommunication Tower proposed for Poinsettia Park, to assist my neighbors that have expressed concerns directly to me, and to voice my own concerns and comments. I own two homes in the area. The first is one door outside the 100-foot radius on Dowitcher Court near the main entrance to Poinsettia Park. The second is two doors outside the 600-foot radius on Abelia Avenue. I have lived here since 1998 (in Carlsbad since 1996), have observed development in the area, engaged in city matters from time-to-time, regularly visit the park, and know the neighborhood well. I am a small business owner and have been licensed in Carlsbad for more than 20 years. We see the skyline of and hear the activities at Poinsettia Park from our homes (even inside), patios, gardens, balconies, sidewalks, and streets. For example, we will definitely notice the cell tower shroud which will add a 30-foot high, 4-foot-wide obstruction above the tree line and in sightline from our homes. The tower is unsightly between our homes and the ocean and sunset views. We will definitely hear and smell the generator operating. Please read the discoveries and comments below. There are real and grave concerns about this project, discrepancies in reporting and analysis which affect public safety, use of the park, our neighborhood , and the City of Carlsbad. A.T.&T. is NOT in compliance with regard to noise and RF-EME, with the FCC nor our city Policy 64. The community has overwhelmingly rejected this cell tower at Poinsettia Park. Please do not permit the project or any cell tower to be placed in our neighborhood, especially at the park. On December 5, 2023, I requested the following in a public records request. I was pleased to receive more than 200 files about 10 days later. I have reviewed all documents. I also reviewed FCC regulations and other pertinent information online. “All information related to and from all cellular and wireless companies wanting to do business in or place cell phone towers in the city of Carlsbad. Please include correspondence, consultant studies, financial evaluation including how much money the city will be paid and any information related to expenses, environmental reviews, permits, meeting minutes, agendas, contracts, and all ordinances related to.” January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 156 of 247 Page 2 of 6: Ashton 12/29/2023 Poinsettia Park Wireless Communication Tower Proposed A.T. & T. Site Number: CAL01850 The documents that I received which seem to be the most relevant at this time are listed here and attached: 1) City of Carlsbad Policy 64 – 12/14/2021 2) Project Analysis – Exhibit 3 – No Date – No Author 3) Alternative Site Analysis Report – 5/1/2023 4) Radio Frequency – Electromagnetic Energy (RF-EME) Jurisdictional Report – 10/25/2023 5) Radio Frequency – Electromagnetic Energy (RF-EME) Jurisdictional Report – 9/9/2022 6) Generator Noise Assessment Letter- 10/28/2022 7) CUP Final Plan Set 2022-2023 Concerns, Comments and Questions: A) Based on this Generator Noise Assessment study it is quite possible that A.T.&T. is NOT in compliance with noise limits and regulations for the following reasons. The Generator Noise Assessment Letter states the Land Use Designation is “Residential,” and the Carlsbad Community Noise Exposure Limit (CNEL) is shown as “Exterior Noise Standard 60 dBA”. In fact, the City of Carlsbad CNEL is 55 dBA daytime and 45 dBA nighttime for residential. Decibels increase rapidly and exponentially. Every 10 decibels loudness doubles. According to OSHA, for every increase of 5 dBA to certain sound, the amount of exposure time is cut in half. The analysis in Table 2 – Proposed Equipment states the dBA of the proposed generator is “65 dBA at 21 feet”. Specifications for the Generac generator in the CUP Final Plan Set 2022-2023 indicate 71 dBA operating. The results of the analysis report indicate dBA scenarios at seven meters (approximately 23 feet – not 21) with a results range between 56 and 67 dBA with sound levels +/-2dBA. All of which are above the residential CNEL of 55 and 45 dBA. This is sound levels as much as 20 times louder than nighttime limits. Which means the loudness would double and double again. The results are from various sides of the generator. The analysis studies only the closest property line to the south. Imagine how loud this will be for these residents. How will the generator be positioned? Real correlations should be made. Which side of the generator is facing the south property line? There seems to be no consideration of the effect of these noise levels above CNEL on people using the park, especially within the 7 meters. Are folks just supposed to “clear out,” i.e., move to a different bench, walk along a different sidewalk, use a different restroom while the generator is operating, not go to the park at all? January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 157 of 247 Page 3 of 6: Ashton 12/29/2023 Poinsettia Park Wireless Communication Tower Proposed A.T. & T. Site Number: CAL01850 It seems the methodology used by EBI in the noise study is also without regard or explanation for atmospheric conditions. Sound changes in pitch and speed depending on dry or humid conditions, i.e., the speed of sound in air increases with the increased humidity. In Carlsbad, our average annual humidity is 69%, 75% in July and 64% in January. There is no evaluation of our terraced neighborhood. We can hear traffic on the freeway as far away as Aviara Parkway. We would certainly hear this generator running. Consultant EBI is hired by A.T.&T. and all information for the analysis is provided by A.T.&T. Does the city have a truly independent consultant? B) DIESEL FUMES: The generator operates using diesel fuel (103 gallons stored onsite) which will create exhaust exposure for the public. It is quickly found in many sources that “Diesel exhaust contains carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, nitric oxide, benzene, and many other chemicals that many scientists believe cause cancer… Diesel exhaust can irritate the eyes, nose, throat, and lungs, and it can cause coughs, headaches, lightheadedness, and nausea.” How will this exhaust travel through the air? How much and what concentrations will be created during weekly maintenance operation of the generator? If tests are often performed “no-load” which allows carbon to build up in the generator’s engine which increases harmful emissions. What is the exposure during full- time use in case of a power outage? For both people in the park passive or active, and in the surrounding homes. Noise and fumes are also an exposure for pets at the dog park and walking nearby. Further, certain agency standards such as National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) for testing emergency generators involve 30 and 90-minute tests at cold start and varying loads. Will these tests be done annually or more frequently? Do the surrounding trees meet the San Diego County defensible space guidelines for generators? What fire agency is responsible for monitoring the generator and fuel storage at Poinsettia Park? Was there a fire safety analysis, or confirmation that all fire safety requirements are met and will be managed? C) Based on the RF-EME Jurisdictional report it appears A.T.&T. is likely NOT in compliance with all FCC Regulations and City of Carlsbad Policy 64. A.T.&T. is apparently mitigating this by posting a sign. The sign is 7” x 7” and to be located on the monopole six feet below the antennas which seems like it would be under the shroud with other equipment. According to two separate reports, the sign for the CUP 90-foot monopole would read “Stay back 96 feet from face of antennas.” The sign for the Minor January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 158 of 247 Page 4 of 6: Ashton 12/29/2023 Poinsettia Park Wireless Communication Tower Proposed A.T. & T. Site Number: CAL01850 CUP 78-foot would read “Stay back 44 feet from face of antennas. Please explain what the benefit of the sign is for the public, why it is a mitigation, and why the difference in the stay back distance. The exposure will have already taken place before someone can read the sign. According to the study “Modeling indicates that the worst-case emitted power density exceeds the FCC’s general public limit within approximately 44 feet of the antenna face and the occupational limit within approximately 19 feet of the antenna face. Modeling also indicates that the worst-case emitted power density may exceed the FCC’s general population limit within approximately 6 feet below the bottom of the AT&T antennas and the occupational limit within approximately 5 feet below the bottom of the AT&T antennas.” This verifies that RF-EME does occur along the length of the pole and down toward the base of the pole. The base of the pole is outside of the equipment enclosure. Anyone sitting nearby is exposed to some level which increases over minutes becoming more harmful. Since RF-EME doesn’t remain at exactly 44 feet, but arcs, deflects, and travels in different directions, what for example, would be the exposure of a child climbing on top of playground equipment at the tot lot, or children playing a baseball game nearby for two hours, or spectators at the soccer fields? What might the exposure be for homes to the east that sit at a higher elevation than those to the south? IMPORTANT NOTE: FCC regulations indicate the city cannot reject a Wireless Telecommunication Tower based on “perceived” RF – EME emissions/exposures. Interestingly, this study tells us what the exposures actually are through modeling and that some exposures related to the installation exceed FCC limits. The city can now refuse the project based on “actual” emissions exposures of any level. The examples in this RF- EME Jurisdictional Report are at levels of 700 MHZ and 850 HMZ. According to the report, A.T.&T. will actually be operating at between 700 MHZ and 1900 MHZ. D) According to the Alternative Site Analysis Report, A.T.&T. states that at least several individual owners refused an A.T.&T. Wireless Communication Tower on their site, building, etc. If just one property owner was enough to dissuade at other locations, then why wouldn’t many property owners at the proposed site be enough to dissuade the project? The city planning commission has received at a minimum more than 25 property owners rejecting the tower in writing and even more public comments against the A.T.&T. Wireless Communication Tower or any tower in Poinsettia Park. January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 159 of 247 Page 5 of 6: Ashton 12/29/2023 Poinsettia Park Wireless Communication Tower Proposed A.T. & T. Site Number: CAL01850 A.T.&T. states that since adequate cellular coverage already existed at various other locations, there was no need for a tower. This indicates A.T.&T. is motivated to create new business. This is illustrated in the coverage plots current and projected. They say it brings benefits to surrounding businesses, schools, and residents. It is obvious the risks and public dissatisfaction far outweigh any “perceived” benefits. Most of us already have services with carriers that have much better coverage than A.T.&T. everywhere (not just in Carlsbad) and have better customer service and products. A.T.&T. invested millions of dollars lobbying the federal government and FCC to create a law restricting local authorities’ decisions regarding RF-EME exposure. A.T.&T. is required to conduct a study about RF-EME exposure. A.T.&T. has its own set of rules called “AT&T’s RF Exposure: Responsibilities, Procedures & Guidelines document, dated October 28, 2014.” If RF-EME exposure isn’t anything to be concerned with as we are constantly being told, why has A.T.&T. and other telecommunications companies gone to such great lengths to manipulate? E) The existing light pole is being removed and a new monopole is being installed. The specifications for the monopole, other than height, are not provided, i.e., diameter, which is needed to determine compliance based on the formula provided to calculate equipment volume requirements. It is important for the public to know that the replacement monopole, while still only 78 feet tall, might have a significantly larger diameter. Please provide the complete monopole dimensions and specifications. A four foot-wide, 30-foot-high shroud is much different than a slender pole with four feet of field lights on top. F) It seems that the existing trees near the new monopole are not of sufficient height as required in project documents to help conceal the monopole. G) Consideration should be given that the nearby ball field and many benches and trees in this park are designated memorials. H) It is my understanding that a lease cannot or isn’t drawn up for the Wireless Telecommunications Tower until after the project is approved/completed. Are there guarantees of future leases included? As a reference, the Verizon lease at Calavera Hills Park was approximately $50,000 a year for 10 years between 2013 and 2023. All of these payments went into the city’s general fund. Is there an estimated income projection for the proposed Wireless Telecommunications Tower at Poinsettia Park? Is it correct that January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 160 of 247 Page 6 of 6: Ashton 12/29/2023 Poinsettia Park Wireless Communication Tower Proposed A.T. & T. Site Number: CAL01850 the cost to install the tower is $250,000.00? Who pays for this? If costs are different, please advise. I) In Exhibit 3, Project Analysis mentioning a Minor Conditional Use Permit, the project land use is notated as “Open Space”. Open Space is public land without public access. According to Policy 64, this project CAL01850 is in the category of Parks located in residential areas where the public has access. Please explain why a different land use is mentioned in Exhibit 3. January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 161 of 247 PROJECT ANALYSIS The project is subject to the following regulations: A.Open Space (OS) General Plan Land Use Designation B.Open Space (OS) Zone (CMC Chapter 21.33) and Minor Conditional Use Permits and Conditional Use Permits (21.42) C.Local Coastal Program (Mello II Segment) D.Wireless Communication Facilities Policy (City Council Policy Statement No. 64) The recommendation for approval of this project was developed by analyzing the project’s consistency with the applicable regulations and policies. The project’s compliance with each of the above regulations is discussed in detail within the sections below. A.General Plan Open Space (VC) Land Use Designation The project site is designated Open Space (OS) on the city’s General Plan Land Use Map. The proposed WCF is consistent with the OS General Plan Land Use designation in that the OS Land Use designation does not preclude the use of WCF’s. Furthermore, a Public Park is a permitted land use within the OS designation, and WCFs are allowed with permits in public parks. The proposed use will serve and benefit the residential and business community and region as a whole, including emergency service providers. Therefore, the proposed WCF use is consistent with the OS General Plan Land Use designation. The project also complies with the noise exposure limits of the Noise Element of the General Plan and Noise Guidelines Manual. Residential use areas are limited to 60 decibels (dB) of exterior exposure, and the Generator Noise Assessment Letter provided by the applicant (EBI Consulting, Oct. 28, 2022) calculates 53.8 dBs of noise will be generated as measured from the adjacent residential property line. Additionally, the study does not include any noise attenuation of the generator noise due to the equipment being located within a walled enclosure, or that the proposed generator will only run for routine cycling/testing for a duration of no more than 15 minutes one time per week during daytime hours, or in the event of a loss of power. B.Open Space (OS) Zone (Chapter 21.20); and Minor Conditional Use Permits and Conditional Use Permits (Chapter 21.42) The proposed WCF consisting of a 78-foot tall, baseball field light pole, with six panel antennas, nine remote radio units (RRU), and three surge protectors installed on a the light pole is located within Open Space (OS) zone, which allows for a stealth wireless communication facilities (WCFs) subject to approval of a minor conditional use permit (CUP), if consistent with the preferred location and the stealth design review and approval guidelines of city council policy statement No. 64. The project is required to comply with the development standards of the O-S zone. The January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 162 of 247 O-S zone does not specify any setbacks, lot coverage or lot size requirements. It does, however, specify that structures shall not exceed 25 feet tall unless a higher elevation is approved by a minor conditional use permit issued by the City Planner. The proposed project is a use which is allowed in the Open Space Zone subject to the approval of a minor conditional use permit (MCUP) or conditional use permit (CUP). Chapter 21.42 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code requires that four findings be made in order to approve a CUP. All of these findings can be made for this project as discussed below. Conditional uses such as Wireless Communications Facilities (WCF) possess unique and special characteristics that make it impractical to include them as permitted uses “by right” in any of the various zoning classifications (i.e. residential, commercial, office, industrial, and open space). The authority for the location and operation of these uses is subject to City Council Policy Statement No. 64 – Wireless Communication Facilities Policy (see discussion D below) and the issuance of a MCUP or CUP. Staff has reviewed the proposed project and found that all of the necessary findings can be made to approve the MCUP. The required findings and satisfaction of these findings are provided below. 1. That the requested use is necessary or desirable for the development of the community, and is in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the general plan, including, if applicable, the certified local coastal program, specific plan or master plan. The use is consistent with the General Plan in that the Open Space Land Use designation does not preclude the provision of WCF uses. Within the Open Space (O-S) zone, CMC Chapter 21.33; WCFs are conditionally permitted uses. The proposed project has been designed and conditioned to comply with all applicable zoning regulations and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) standards for radio frequency (RF) exposure. The WCF is proposed to be installed on a structure that already exists, which will reduce its visibility and will be the least disruptive to the appearance of the park. The WCF will not be located on an exposed ridgeline and is satisfactorily screened and disguised by being located on a structure, which will light an athletic field. The new antennas will be mounted as close to the light pole as technologically feasible within a four-foot diameter radome. The radome will be painted to match the color of the light pole, thereby minimizing visual impacts. City Council Policy No. 64 – Wireless Communication Facilities Guidelines indicate that there is a need to accommodate new communication technology and must be balanced with the need to minimize the number of new tower structures, thus reducing the impacts towers can have on the surrounding community. According to the applicant’s response to the Wireless Communication Facility Guidelines, the applicant examined the search for co-location opportunities and did not locate any existing freestanding co-locatable wireless towers within the search area that would provide the required height. Per the applicant, the entirety of the targeted search area is located within residentially zoned parcels or open spaces; therefore, January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 163 of 247 more favorably zoned parcels, such as commercial or industrial, were infeasible. No co-location opportunities were available. All of this resulted in the subject proposal for a new telecommunication facility. The proposed project would help alleviate an area of poor coverage and overloaded capacity within this service area, which causes reoccurring lost calls, ineffective service, and slow data speeds. The requested WCF is necessary for the development of the community because of the benefit and demand for digital communications and data transmissions for businesses, residences, individuals, public agencies and emergency service systems in this part of the city. Federal and California law require cities provide access to telecommunications infrastructure as outlined in the restrictions contained within Policy 64. The use is consistent with the General Plan in that the Open Space Land Use designation does not preclude the provision of WCF uses. The use is in harmony with objectives that seek to maintain and enhance Carlsbad’s appearance in that the WCF is integrated into a light pole; is designed so that the antennas will be attached as close to the light pole as possible with a concealing radome; and associated equipment is located within an enclosure designed to be compatible with the adjacent maintenance building, utilizing materials, colors, and textures that will match the maintenance building. 2. That the requested use is not detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is to be located in. The antennas are proposed to be mounted to a replacement light pole that is the same height as the existing light pole, and antennas are mounted as close to the light pole as technology will allow, thus reducing an outward noticeable appearance and minimizing visual impacts. The Telecommunication Act of 1996 preempts local governments from regulating the "placement, construction and modification of wireless communication facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of RF emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the FCC standards for such emissions." The proposed project would be consistent with the FCC's regulations for wireless facilities. The project complies with the FCC RF Exposure Guidelines. The project complies with the FCC Radio Frequency (RF) Exposure Guidelines as detailed in Exhibit 8. Lastly, a Generator Noise Assessment Letter was prepared by EBI Consulting (October 28, 2022) in accordance with the City of Carlsbad’s Noise Element of the General Plan and Noise Guidelines. The analysis, detailed in Exhibit 9, concludes that the noise produced from operation of the proposed emergency back-up generator will comply with the Carlsbad Exterior Noise Limits at all receiving property lines. While the Noise Element does not establish a community park as a noise-sensitive land use, the provided study does indicate that the level of noise from the generator would be compliant with daytime and nighttime limits at a distance of 21 feet from the generator (65 dB). Additionally, the study does not include any noise attenuation of the generator noise due to the equipment being located within a walled enclosure, or that the proposed generator will only run for routine cycling/testing for a duration January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 164 of 247 of no more than 15 minutes one time per week during daytime hours, or in the event of a loss of power. 3. That the site for the proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, parking, loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping and other development features prescribed in this code and required by the City Planner, planning commission or City Council, in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. The light pole on which the proposed antennas are to be located is the same height as the existing pole; the associated equipment is proposed to be located within an enclosure designed to be compatible with the adjacent maintenance building, utilizing materials, colors, and textures that will match the remaining maintenance building; the light pole and equipment are not within any required front, rear or side yard setbacks; and the proposed pole and equipment enclosure are located more than 160 feet from the nearest adjacent residential property. 4. That the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic generated by the proposed use. The unmanned WCF will require, on average, only monthly maintenance visits and occasional visits in response to operational issues. The existing street system is adequate to properly handle any traffic generated by the use. Construction is not expected to generate or impact the circulation network and will be coordinated to avoid impacts to any events within the park. C. Conformance with the Coastal Development Regulations for the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program (CMC Chapter 21.201) and the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone (CMC Chapter 21.203) The project site is located within the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program and is not in the appeal jurisdiction. The site is also located within and subject to the Coastal Resources Protection Overlay Zone. The project’s compliance with each of these programs and ordinances is discussed below: 1. Mello II Segment of the Certified Local Coastal Program and all applicable policies The proposed site is in the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program (LCP) and is not within the appealable jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission. The proposed WCF use is not precluded by Local Coastal Program. Furthermore, staff finds the proposed project to be consistent with the Mello II segment of the Local Coastal Program in that the site is designated for non-residential uses and is already developed with athletic fields with field lights and other park amenities. The project consists of replacing one of the existing January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 165 of 247 field light poles with a new pole that is the same height as the existing and installing an unmanned WCF on the light pole. The WCF will not obstruct views of the coastline as seen from public lands or the public right-of-way, nor otherwise damage the visual beauty of the coastal zone. No agricultural activities, sensitive resources, geological instability, flood hazard or vertical coastal access opportunities exist onsite. Furthermore, the WCF facility is not in an area of known geologic instability or flood hazards. 2.Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone The development is subject to the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone (CMC Chapter 21.203). The Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone identifies areas of protection: a) preservation of steep slopes and vegetation; b) drainage, erosion, sedimentation, habitat; c) seismic hazards, landslides, and slope instability; and d) floodplain development. The project’s compliance with each of these areas of concern is discussed below: a.Preservation of Steep Slopes and Vegetation. Slopes greater than 25% and possessing endangered plant/animal species and/or coastal sage scrub and chaparral plant communities are considered “dual criteria” slopes and are protected in the Coastal Zone. The project does not support any “dual criteria” slopes. b.Drainage, Erosion, Sedimentation, Habitat. The project will adhere to the city’s Master Drainage Plan, Grading Ordinance, Storm Water Ordinance, BMP Design Manual and Jurisdictional Runoff Management Program (JRMP) to avoid increased urban run-off, pollutants, and soil erosion. c.Seismic Hazards, Landslides and Slope Instability. The site is not located in an area prone to landslides, or susceptible to accelerated erosion, floods or liquefaction. d.Flood Plain Development. No structures or fill are being proposed within a one-hundred- year floodplain area as identified by the FEMA Flood Map Service Center. D.Wireless Communication Facilities Policy (City Council Policy Statement No. 64) The City Council adopted Policy No. 64, Wireless Communication Facilities, on Dec. 14, 2021, establishing review and approval guidelines for WCFs. The project is consistent with City Council Policy No. 64 in that the proposed location, a public park in a residential area, is a “preferred” location. The WCF is proposed to be installed on a structure that already exists, which will reduce its visibility and will be the least disruptive to the appearance of the park. The WCF will not be located on an exposed ridgeline and is satisfactorily screened and disguised by being located on a structure, which will light an athletic field. The new antennas will be mounted as close to the light pole as technologically feasible within a four-foot diameter January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 166 of 247 radome. The radome will be painted to match the color of the light pole, thereby minimizing visual impacts. The proposed ground mounted equipment will be located within an enclosure, which is designed and treated to match and compliment the adjacent maintenance building. The proposed light pole is consistent with the height requirements of the Open Space zone and will be the same height as the existing light pole to be replaced and the other existing light poles for the baseball field. The proposed installation is more than 160 feet away from the adjacent residentially zoned properties, which is more than double the 78-foot setback called for by the policy. Site selection information was provided that indicates other locations are not feasible. Color photo-simulations have been provided to show that the project will not substantially alter views to the site from surrounding viewpoints. All aspects of the proposed WCF, including the supports, antennas, screening methods, and equipment feature “stealth” design techniques so they visually blend into the background or the surface on which they are mounted. The applicant examined the search for co-location opportunities and did not locate any existing freestanding co-locatable wireless towers within the search area that would provide the required height. Per the applicant, the entirety of the targeted search area is located within residentially zoned parcels or open spaces; therefore, more favorably zoned parcels, such as commercial or industrial, were infeasible. No co-location opportunities were available. All of this resulted in the subject proposal for a new telecommunication facility. The FCC, which regulates the wireless communications industry, has referenced prior studies concluding that RF emission exposure levels associated with this type of facility have been determined to be safe. RF emissions generated from the proposed WCF would be below the FCC accepted guidelines/standards. Pursuant to federal law, a local government agency may not regulate the placement and modification of a WCF based on the environmental or health effects of RF emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with federal law concerning emissions. To ensure that the FCC standards are being met, a condition has been added to the permit that requires that the applicant submit a RF study to demonstrate compliance with the applicable FCC regulations. Therefore, staff does not anticipate concerns regarding RF emissions as it relates to the park or residential development in the area. A Generator Noise Assessment Letter was prepared by EBI Consulting (October 28, 2022) in accordance with the City of Carlsbad’s Noise Element of the General Plana and Noise Guidelines. The analysis concludes that the noise produced from operation of the proposed emergency back-up generator will comply with the Carlsbad Exterior Noise Limits at all receiving property lines. E. Growth Management Plan The proposed Wireless Communications Facility (WCF) is located in Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 20. Installation of the WCF on the existing site and monthly facility maintenance visits January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 167 of 247 will not result in increased public facilities demands; therefore, the proposal will not exceed performance standards for public facilities. January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 168 of 247 Exhibit 5 January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 169 of 247 {city of Carlsbad Council Policy Statement Category: WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES Policy No. Date Issued: Effective Date: Resolution No. Cancellation Date: 64 9/26/2017 . 12/14/2021 2021-289 Supersedes No. 64 04/10/12 Specific Subject: Review and Operation Guidelines for Wireless Communication Facilities PURPOSE: Wireless communication facilities, or WCFs, refer to the many facilities with antennas and supporting equipment that receive and transmit signals and together enable mobile or other "wire-free" communication and information services. Unlike wireline communications, such as the land-based telephone system, wireless communication technologies, by their operational nature, require a network of antennas mounted at various heights and attached typically to buildings, structures and poles. A common name for a WCF is "cell site." WCF proposals to the city became commonplace in the mid-1990s. Since then, Carlsbad has processed dozens of new WCF applications and numerous permit renewals for existing. facilities, all without benefit of specific review criteria. As the city's population and the popularity and variety of wireless services grow, providers are expected to install more facilities to improve coverage and gain user capacity. The following Review and Operation Guidelines (Guidelines) have been developed to supplement and clarify the requirements of Carlsbad Municipal and Zoning codes, including chapter 21.42 of the Carlsbad Zoning Code. These requirements are meant to provide a general overview of the procedures and requirements for installation of WCFs, while accommodating and supporting deployment of WCFs to provide adequate coverage and capacity throughout the city. They also outline definitions that are quantifiable and measurable and detail development standards and design requirements which the city will use to review proposed facilities. This policy's purpose is to guide the public, applicants, boards and commissions, and staff in reviewing the placement, construction, and modification of WCFs. The goal is to assure WCFs in Carlsbad: • Are reviewed and provided within the parameters of law. • Protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public to the extent permitted by applicable laws. • Are encouraged to locate away from residential and other sensitive areas, except as allowed by Sections A, B and C of this policy. • Represent the fewest possible facilities necessary to complete a network without discriminating against providers of functionally equivalent services or prohibiting the provision of wireless services. • Use, as much as possible, "stealth" techniques so they are not seen or easily noticed. • Operate consistent with Carlsbad's quality of life. Page 1 of 18 This policy applies to all commercial providers of wireless communication services. It does not apply to amateur (HAM) radio antennas, dish antennas, collocations and/or modifications covered under Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations at 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.6100 et seq. (implementing Section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act (codified as 47 C.F.R. § 1455(a)) for non-substantial modifications to existing wireless towers and base stations)1 and other antennas installed on a residence for an individual’s private use. The Guidelines shall not relieve a person from the responsibility of complying with all other applicable regulations of any other local, state, or federal agencies. These Guidelines supplement existing regulations and provide clear standards and guidelines for all wireless infrastructure deployments unless specifically prohibited by applicable law. The standards and procedures contained in these Guidelines are intended to, and should be applied to, protect and promote public health, safety and welfare, and balance the benefits that flow from robust, advanced wireless services with the city’s local values. Except as expressly provided otherwise, these Guidelines shall be applicable to all applications and requests for authorization to construct, install, attach, operate, collocate, modify, reconstruct, replace, relocate or otherwise deploy WCFs, inclusive of applications which affect existing facilities. These Guidelines are also intended to establish clear procedures for application intake and completeness review. Conditional use permit applications for WCFs that were denied shall follow the process in Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.54.130 for reapplication of a new CUP. Building permit and ROW permit applications for facilities that were denied may be submitted to the Community Development Department as new applications at any time, without prejudice. Said new application will be processed as a completely separate application, with new submittal materials and fees required, and shall demonstrate compliance with these Guidelines. BACKGROUND: To secure the right to provide personal wireless services to a region, companies often must obtain airwave licenses that are auctioned by the FCC, the federal agency that regulates the communications industry. For radio services that use license spectrum, the FCC mandates the licensees establish their service networks as quickly as possible. In Carlsbad, there are three common types of WCF systems: Cellular, PCS (Personal Communications Services), and ESMR (Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio). POLICY: REVIEW RESTRICTIONS: The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TCA) preserves the city’s ability to regulate the placement, construction, and modification of wireless communication facilities subject to the following restrictions. 1 If the city determines that an application submitted for approval pursuant to Section 6409(a) is, in fact, not covered by the applicable federal regulations, the applicant may resubmit the request for approval pursuant to the applicable provisions in this policy. January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 170 of 247 • The city may not favor any carrier. Regulations may not unreasonably discriminate among functionally equivalent service providers. A “functionally equivalent provider” means a competitor. • The city may not prevent completion of a network. Regulations may not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. According to the FCC’s recent order in 2018, the denial of a single permit application may cause an effective prohibition if it “materially inhibits or limits the ability of any competitor or potential competitor to compete in a fair and balanced legal and regulatory environment.” Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order, WT Docket No. 17-79, WC Docket No. 17-84, 33 FCC Rcd. 9088 at ¶ 37 (2018) (Small Cell Order). In addition, local aesthetic requirements may be prohibitory unless they are reasonable and published in advance. Small Cell Order at ¶ 40, rev’d in part, City of Portland v. United States, 969 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2020). • Applications are to be processed in a reasonable time. A city must act on an application for WCFs within a “reasonable” amount of time, which the FCC generally defines as either 60, 90, or 150 days from the time an application is submitted and depending on the nature and scope of the proposed wireless facility. • Failure to approve or deny applications may result in automatic approvals and court orders. Under California Government Code 65964.1, an application for a wireless facility may be “deemed approved” if a city or county fails to act within the presumptively reasonable timeframes established by the FCC. This provision contains some exceptions but generally applies to new facilities and very large modifications to existing facilities both on private property and in the public rights-of-way. The FCC’s regulations contain a similar “deemed granted” remedy for less- than substantial collocations and modifications to existing facilities. In addition, the Small Cell Order establishes that a permitting agency’s failure to act within the referenced timeframes will amount to a presumptive prohibition on the provision of personal wireless services, the remedy for which may be a court injunction. • The city cannot deny an application because of perceived radio frequency health hazards. If federal standards are met, cities may not deny permits on the grounds that radio frequency emissions (RF) are harmful to the environment or to the health of residents. However, local governments may require wireless carriers to prove compliance with the standards. The FCC has established procedures to enforce compliance with its rules. • The city cannot deny, and shall approve, any eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station (Section 6409(a) non-substantial modifications). The FCC promulgated detailed regulations for this restriction, including a definition for “substantial change” and procedural rules for processing these applications, which can be found at 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.6100 et seq. • Certain collocation facilities are not subject to discretionary permit requirements. Under California Government Code section 65850.6, a collocation facility (where two or more wireless operators have located their antennas at a common location) shall be a permitted use not subject to discretionary permit requirements if it satisfies the requirements of that statute. • A decision to deny an application must be supported by substantial evidence. A decision to deny a WCF application must be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. The reasons for the denial must also be contained in a written record contemporaneously available with the written denial notice and must be clear enough to enable judicial review. January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 171 of 247 HEALTH CONCERNS & SAFEGUARDS: Possible health risks from exposure to the RF electromagnetic fields generated by WCFs are a significant community concern. Accordingly, the FCC requires facilities to comply with RF exposure guidelines published in the Code of Federal Regulations (see 47 CFR § 1.1307 and 47 CFR §1.1310). The limits of exposure established by the guidelines are designed to protect the public health with a very large margin of safety as they are approximately 50 times below the levels that generally are accepted as having the potential to cause a measurable change in human physiology. Both the Environmental Protection Agency and Food and Drug Administration have endorsed the FCC’s exposure limits, and courts have upheld the FCC rules requiring compliance with the limits. Most WCFs create maximum exposures that are only a small fraction of the limits. Furthermore, because the antennas in a PCS, cellular, or other wireless network operate more efficiently when in a line of sight arrangement to effectively transmit, their power is focused on the horizon instead of toward the sky or ground. Generally, unless a person is physically next to and at the same height as an antenna, it is not possible to be exposed to RF emissions that exceed the maximum permissible exposure. The FCC requires providers, upon license application, renewal, or modification, to demonstrate compliance with RF exposure guidelines. Where two or more wireless operators have located their antennas at a common location (called “collocation”), the total exposure from all antennas taken together must be within FCC guidelines. Many facilities are exempt from routine e compliance demonstrations under FCC guidelines, however, because their low power generation or height above ground level is highly unlikely to cause exposures that exceed the guidelines in areas accessible by people. PERMIT PROCESS: Wireless communication facilities (WCFs) are defined in Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.04.379. Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.42.140(B)(165) allows WCFs in all zones with the approval of a minor conditional use permit (MCUP) or a conditional use permit (CUP) and subject to this policy. New WCFs are allowed in the public right-of-way of roads (ROW) subject to the requirements of this policy and the processing requirements of Table A below. Small wireless facilities (SWFs) are WCFs that also meet the definition in FCC regulations at 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.6002(l). For WCFs and SWFs to be located in the public right-of-way of roads, which generally is not zoned, a right-of-way permit pursuant to Title 11 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code may be used as outlined in Table A – WCF and SWF Processing Requirements. January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 172 of 247 Table A – WCF and SWF Processing Requirements Category Code reference/ definition Application Review Process Coastal Zone and Coastal Development Permit (CDP) requirements Applicable Policy 64 Guidelines New WCFs on public or private property Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) Section 21.04.379 CUP or Minor CUP 1 CDP or Minor CDP required per CMC Chap. 21.201 unless specifically exempted A, B, D, and E New WCFs in the public right-of-way of roads CMC Section 21.04.379 ROW permit2, Minor CUP3 or CUP4 Exempt per CMC Section 21.201.B.115 A, B, D and E Existing WCF – Section 6409(a) eligible facilities request CMC Section 21.04.379 and 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a) Section 6409(a) worksheets Exempt per CMC Section 21.201.B.115 N/A – Policy 64 does not apply Existing WCF – Emergency Generators CMC Section 21.04.379 and Government Code Section 65850.75 Building Permit Exempt per CMC Section 21.201.B.115 N/A – Policy 64 does not apply Small Wireless Facilities (SWF) CMC Section 21.04.379 and the definition in FCC regulations at 47 C.F.R. § 1.6002(l) Within the public right- of-way of roads: Right-of- way Permit Exempt per CMC Section 21.201.B.115 C, D, and E Outside the public right- of-way of roads: MCUP Minor CDP required per CMC Chap. 21.201 unless specifically exempted5 B, C, D, and E Notes: 1. These guidelines apply in the review of CUPs or Minor CUPs for new WCFs. 2. A right of way permit shall be required instead of a CUP for a WCF that is (i) to be located on an existing or replacement pole, (ii) is consistent with the preferred locations in Location Guideline A.1 (or if in a discouraged location in Location Guideline A.2, has all equipment underground), and (iii) is consistent with Design Guidelines for WCFs in the Public Right- of-Way C 3. A minor CUP by Process 1 shall be required for a WCF that is (i) to be located on an existing or replacement pole, (ii) is in a discouraged location in Section A with above-ground equipment, and (iii) is consistent with Design Guidelines for WCFs in the Public Right-of-Way C 4. A CUP by Process 2 shall be required for all other WCFs not meeting the criteria for approval subject to a right of way permit or a minor CUP by process 1 5. When located within the city’s jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone. January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 173 of 247 REVIEW AND APPROVAL GUIDELINES A. Location Guidelines for Placement of WCFs (excluding SWFs) 1. Preferred Locations – WCFs are encouraged to locate on existing buildings and structures. In addition, WCFs should be located in the following zones and areas, which are listed in order of descending preference: a. Industrial zones. b. Commercial zones. c. Other non-residential zones, except open space. d. Public right-of-way of roads adjacent to industrial and commercial zones and identified on the map attached as Exhibit A. e. Public property (e.g., city facilities) not in residential areas. f. Major power transmission towers in non-residential zones or areas. g. Public and private utility installations (not publicly accessible) in residential and open space zones (e.g., water tanks, reservoirs, or the existing communication towers near Maerkle Reservoir). h. Parks and community facilities (e.g., places of worship, community centers) in residential zones or areas. i. Public right-of-way of roads adjacent to residential zones and identified on the map attached as Exhibit A. 2. Discouraged Locations – WCFs should not locate in any of the following zones or areas unless the applicant demonstrates that alternatives in more-preferred locations are not technically feasible or potentially available as required by Application and Review Guideline E.3. a. Open space zones and lots (except as noted in Location Guideline A.1.). b. Residential zones or areas (except as noted in Location Guideline A.1). c. Major power transmission towers in corridors located in/or next to a residential zone or area. d. Environmentally sensitive habitat. e. Public right-of-way of roads not identified on the map attached as Exhibit A. f. On vacant land. 3. Visibility to the Public – In all areas, WCFs should be located where least visible to the public and where least disruptive to the appearance of the host property. Furthermore, no WCF should be installed on an exposed ridgeline or in a location readily visible from a public place, recreation area, scenic area or residential area unless it is satisfactorily located and/or screened so it is hidden or disguised. 4. Collocation – Collocating with existing or other planned wireless communication facilities is recommended whenever feasible and appropriate. Service providers are also encouraged to collocate with water tanks, major power transmission and distribution towers, and other utility structures when in compliance with these guidelines. The city must approve collocation applications unless the expansion adds significantly to the height or width of a facility. January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 174 of 247 5. Monopoles – No new ground-mounted WCF monopoles should be permitted unless the applicant demonstrates no existing monopole, building, or structure can accommodate the applicant’s proposed antenna as required by Application and Review Guideline E.4. B. Design Guidelines for WCFs and SWFs Outside the Public Right-Of-Way of Roads 1. Stealth Design – All aspects of WCFs and SWFs, including the supports, antennas, screening methods, and equipment should exhibit “stealth” design techniques so they visually blend into the background or the surface on which they are mounted. Subject to city approval, developers should use false architectural elements (e.g., cupolas, bell towers, dormers, and chimneys), architectural treatments (e.g., colors, textures and materials), elements replicating natural features (e.g., trees and rocks), landscaping, and other creative means to hide or disguise the facilities. Stealth can also refer to facilities completely hidden by existing improvements, such as parapet walls. 2. Equipment – Equipment should be located within existing buildings to the extent feasible. If equipment must be located outside, it should be screened with walls and plants. If small outbuildings or extensions to existing structures are constructed specifically to house equipment, they should be designed and treated to match nearby architecture or the surrounding landscape. 3. Collocation – Whenever feasible and appropriate, design and placement should promote and enable collocation. 4. Height – facilities should adhere to the existing height limitations of the zone in which they are located. When installed on an existing structure, new facilities and collocations should not exceed the height of the existing/replacement structure on which they are being installed. 5. Setbacks – WCFs and SWFs, including all equipment and improvements, should adhere to the building setback requirements of the zone in which they are located, with the following clarifications: a. If on a site next to a residential zone, a setback should be maintained from the residential zone boundary a minimum distance equal to the above-ground height of the overall support structure’s height. b. If in a residential zone and in a public utility installation, park, or community facility, a setback should be maintained from the property boundaries of the utility installation, park, or community facility a minimum distance equal to the above-ground height of the overall support structure’s height. c. The decision-maker for WCFs may decrease or increase these setbacks if it finds such changes would improve the overall compatibility of the WCF based on the factors contained in Application and Review Guideline E.4. 6. Building or Structure-Mounted WCFs and SWFs – a. Antennas and their associated mountings should generally not project outward more than 24 inches from the face of the building. b. Roof-mounted antennas should be located as far away as possible from the outer edge of a building or structure and should not be placed on roof peaks. January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 175 of 247 c. If permitted, WCFs and SWFs on residential buildings should only be allowed if disguised as a typical residential feature (e.g., a chimney, a dormer) and if all equipment is located inside, not outside, the building. 7. Ground-mounted Monopole WCFs – a. All antennas should be mounted as close as possible to the monopole to improve facility appearance. b. The placement, screening, and disguise of the monopole should fit with the surrounding site design, architecture, and landscaping. Tree disguises, such as a “mono-palm,” may be acceptable depending on their quality and compatibility with landscaping nearby. c. Landscaping should be provided as necessary to screen, complement, or add realism to a monopole. Landscaping should include mature shrubs and trees. Some of the trees should be tall enough to screen at least three-quarters of the height of the monopole at the time of planting. Sometimes, landscaping may not be needed because of the monopole’s location or vegetation already nearby. d. When possible and in compliance with these guidelines, monopoles should be placed next to tall buildings, structures, or tall trees. 8. Pole mounted SWFs shall comply with the Design Guidelines in section C.2 of this policy as applicable, including height limits. 9. Lattice Towers – New lattice towers should not be permitted in the city. On existing lattice towers: a. All antennas should be mounted as close as possible to the tower so they are less noticeable, and should match the color of the tower. b. Wiring must be concealed in conduit that is flush-mounted to the tower. The conduit and mounting hardware shall match the color of the tower. c. Non-antenna equipment mounted on the tower should be placed behind the antennas to conceal them from view, and should be enclosed in a cabinet that matches the color and finish of the structures on which they are mounted. Ground mounted equipment shall comply with B.2 above. 10. Undergrounding – All utilities should be placed underground. 11. Regulatory Compliance – WCFs should comply with all FCC, FAA (Federal Aviation Administration), CPUC (California Public Utilities Commission) and local zoning and building code requirements. C. Design Guidelines for WCFs and SWFs in the Public Right-of-Way of Roads The general intent of these design and development standards is to preserve the character of the city’s neighborhoods and corridors by requiring WCFs and SWFs to utilize the least intrusive design available with regard to appearance, size, and location, and to blend into the existing streetscape as much as possible. They also seek to prevent conflict with existing and planned roadway, utility, and storm drain improvements. 1. Support pole installation preferences for the right-of-way of roads January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 176 of 247 a. The city prefers WCFs and SWFs to be installed on support poles in the public rights-of- way of roads, ordered from most preferred to least preferred, as follows: (1) Existing or replacement streetlight poles. (2) Existing or replacement wood utility poles. (3) Existing or replacement traffic signal poles. (4) New, non-replacement streetlight poles. (5) New, non-replacement poles (not wood). b. The city prohibits WCFs and SWFs facilities to be installed on the following support poles or structures: (1) Signs. (2) Any utility pole scheduled for removal or relocation within 12 months from the time the approval authority acts on the small wireless facility application. (3) New, non-replacement wood poles. (4) Pieces of public art, structures placed in the in the right-of-way through charitable donations, commemorative memorial structures or archways over roads and pedestrian walkways, or other similar structures as determined by the engineering manager. c. The engineering manager shall determine whether an application for a WCF or SWF utilizes the least intrusive design available or if there is a more preferred support pole type within 500 feet of the proposed location. For purposes of these guidelines, least intrusive design available means the most preferred design or development standard as provided in these Guidelines that is technically feasible. For individual antennas, shrouds/radomes, accessory equipment, mounting brackets/attachments and any other physical aspect of a facility, the city strongly prefers the smallest such item that is technically feasible. If the application does not propose the least intrusive design, or if there is a more preferred support pole within 500 feet, the application shall provide written evidence of the following: (1) A clearly defined technical service objective (2) A technical analysis that includes the factual reasons why the least intrusive design or a more preferred support pole type within 500 feet of the proposed location is not technically feasible. 2. Requirements applicable to all WCFs and SWFs in the public right-of-way of roads a. Overall height. WCFs and SWFs mounted to existing poles shall not exceed the height of a support pole by more than five feet measured from the top of the pole, except as necessary to comply with CPUC General Order 95 relating to utility poles. Replacement poles and new non-replacement poles shall not exceed the city height standards for streetlight poles or traffic signal poles, as applicable, by more than ten percent, plus five feet for the antenna. Replacement utility poles shall not exceed ten percent of the height of the existing utility pole, plus five feet for the antenna. b. Antenna stealth/concealment. The antenna(s) associated with the installation shall be stealth to the maximum extent feasible and concealed with a radome(s), shroud(s) or other cover(s) that also conceals the cable connections, antenna mount, and other hardware. The radome, shroud or other cover must be a flat, non-reflective color to match the underlying support structure. January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 177 of 247 c.Antenna size. (1)Each antenna shall not exceed 3 cubic feet in volume. (2)Top-mount antennas (including the shroud) shall be no more than 16 inches wide when placed on light poles, and shall not exceed the width of any wooden utility pole on which they are mounted. (3)Any top-mounted antennas which are wider than the light pole on which they are mounted shall be tapered to match the width of the pole at the point of attachment to the pole. d.Equipment location. Accessory equipment may be both pole mounted and non- pole mounted. Pole mounted limits are described in Section C.2.e , the balance located according to the following preference: (1) underground, (2) above ground and screened consistent with Section C.2.f. The city’s preferences is for non-pole mounted equipment to be placed underground to the extent possible, unless the applicant demonstrates that it is technically infeasible or there are conflicts with other utilities, obstructions or it is otherwise not feasible, as determined by the engineering manager. If undergrounding is not feasible, the city prefers the equipment to be pole-mounted. e.Pole mounted equipment. (1)Design and stealth/concealment. Accessory equipment must be stealth to the maximum extent feasible and/or concealed within a cabinet or shroud, and should be flush mounted and centered on the pole, except to the extent necessary to comply with CPUC General Order 95 for wood utility poles. The installation should be designed to minimize the overall visual profile, and installations that are partially or completely wrapped around the pole are encouraged. All equipment cabinets or shrouds shall be painted to match the color of the surface of the pole on which they are attached to reduce their visibility. Equipment may be installed behind street, traffic or other signs (between the pole and sign) to the extent that the installation complies with applicable regulations. All cables and conduits associated with the equipment shall be concealed from view within the same shroud or other cover and routed directly through the pole when feasible. Microwave or other wireless backhaul shall not have a separate and unconcealed antenna. (2)Size limits. All non-antenna equipment mounted to the pole is included in the equipment volume limit. Electric meters and disconnect switches that are mounted on the pole are not included in the equipment volume limit. All pole mounted non-antenna equipment, including cabinets, shall not exceed: (a).A width of 24 inches; and (b).Nine (9) cubic feet in volume if installed within or adjacent to a residential district or within 500 feet from any structure approved for a residential use; or (c).Seventeen (17) cubic feet in volume if installed within or adjacent to a non-residential district. f.Ground mounted equipment. If underground equipment is not feasible because there are conflicts with other utilities, obstructions or it is otherwise not technically feasible, as determined by the engineering manager per section (d) above, then all above ground equipment shall be: (1) placed in a ground-mounted January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 178 of 247 equipment shroud or cabinet that contains all equipment associated with the small wireless facility other than the antenna; and (2) set back at least 2.5 feet from the back of the curb and within the parkway or greenway or 2.5 feet back from the edge of the sidewalk when it is contiguous to the curb. All cables and conduits associated with the equipment shall be concealed from view, routed directly through the pole, and placed underground between the pole and the ground-mounted cabinet. All ground mounted equipment shall be stealth and/or screened completely, unless it is disguised to the satisfaction of the engineering manager. Volume limits for ground-mounted equipment shall be the same as applicable to pole-mounted equipment. The engineering manager may elect to waive volumetric limits for equipment that is installed or placed underground. g. All equipment associated with the WCF or SWF shall be located so as to avoid impacts to pedestrian access and vehicular site distance and safety. Pole mounted equipment should be mounted a minimum of eight feet above grade. h. To reduce clutter and deter vandalism, excess fiber optic or coaxial cables shall not be spooled, coiled, or otherwise stored on the pole unless concealed within a cabinet. i. If the proposed WCF or SWF would damage or displace any street trees or trees on public property, the applicant shall comply with CMC Chapter 11.12 and City Council Policy No. 4 and will be responsible for planting replacement trees to the satisfaction of the Parks & Recreation Director or designee. j. If an applicant proposes to replace a streetlight pole, the replacement pole should be substantially similar to the existing pole and comply with city standards and specifications for streetlight poles. 3. Supplemental requirements for WCFs and SWFs on New Poles for the right-of-way of roads a. All WCFs on new poles require a CUP by Process 2. b. Any new pole and/or equipment and other improvements associated with a new pole or an existing pole must be set back from intersections, alleys, and driveways and placed in locations where it will not obstruct motorists’ sight lines or pedestrian access. In general, there is a presumption of no obstruction where a new pole and/or equipment is set back at least: i. A minimum of 50-feet from the extension of the curb of the intersecting street at intersections. Distances of less than 50-feet may be allowed through approval of the engineering manager and the city traffic engineer; ii. Six feet from any driveway cut or alley entrance or exit; iii. Six feet from any permanent object or existing lawfully-permitted encroachment in the public right-of-way, including without limitation bicycle racks, traffic signs and signals, trees, open tree wells, benches or other street furniture, streetlights, door swings, gate swings, or sidewalk café enclosures. c. The city may, in its discretion, require an additional setback for a specific pole when the city determines that the presumptively acceptable setback would obstruct motorists’ sight lines or pedestrian access. d. The city may require the applicant to install a stealth pole, which may include without limitation functional streetlights and/or banners when technically feasible and the city determines that such additions would enhance the overall appearance and usefulness of the new pole. January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 179 of 247 e. The city will consider new pole designs proposed by an applicant if they meet the intent of this policy for stealth and attractive designs that adequately conceal equipment, as determined by the engineering manager. If a new pole without a streetlight is proposed, antennas and all equipment not installed underground must be concealed and integrated into the overall design of the pole, no exterior equipment boxes or shrouds attached to the pole will be permitted. 4. Areas with decorative streetlight poles. a. Replacement poles and new non-replacement poles installed within the following areas shall be substantially similar in color, style and design to the existing decorative streetlights, as determined by the engineering manager in consultation with the city planner. Poles in each area shall use a single consistent design theme to maintain the existing character established by existing streetlights: (1) Carlsbad Village (2) Villages of La Costa Master Plan (3) Bressi Ranch Master Plan (4) La Costa Master Plan (MP 149) (5) Various roads including El Camino Real and Aviara Parkway that utilize the mission bell streetlight design (6) Any other areas as determined by the city planner or engineering manager 5. Supplemental requirements for WCFs and SWFs on existing wood utility poles. a. All antennas must be installed within a radome, shroud or other cover mounted to the pole at the top, side, or on a stand-off bracket or extension arm that is attached to the pole. The city’s preference is for side-mounted antennas located in the communications space below the electric lines.2 b. All cables, wires and other connectors must be concealed within the antenna shroud, stand-off bracket/extension arm and conduit that is flush-mounted to the pole to the maximum extent feasible and of the smallest diameter and shortest length necessary to serve the facility. No loose, exposed, or dangling wiring or cables shall be allowed. c. All shrouds, conduit or other items stealth/concealing antennas, equipment and wires shall be painted to match the color of the pole. D. Performance Guidelines 1. Noise – All equipment, such as emergency generators and air conditioners, should be designed and operated consistent with the city noise standards. 2. Maintenance – All facilities, related equipment, and landscaping should be maintained in good condition and free from trash, debris, graffiti, and any form of vandalism. All required landscaping should be automatically irrigated. Damaged equipment and 2 Strand-mount antennas are also considered a preferred installation type. January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 180 of 247 damaged, dead, or decaying landscaping should be replaced promptly. Replacement of landscaping that provides facility screening should be, as much as possible, of similar size (including height), type, and screening capability at the time of planting as the plant(s) being replaced. 3. Maintenance Hours – Except in an emergency posing an immediate public health and safety threat, maintenance activities in or within 100 feet of a residential zone should only occur between 7 AM (8 AM on Saturdays) and sunset. Maintenance should not take place on Sundays or holidays. 4. Lighting – Security lighting should be kept to a minimum and should only be triggered by a motion detector where practical. 5. Compliance with laws and FCC RF Exposure Guidelines – The permittee shall maintain compliance at all times with all federal, state and local statutes, regulations, orders or other rules that carry the force of law (“laws”) applicable to the permittee, the subject property, the WCR, SWF or other infrastructure deployment or any use or activities in connection with the use authorized by a required permit, which includes without limitation any laws applicable to human exposure to RF emissions and any standards, specifications or other requirements identified by the city planner or engineering manager (such as, without limitation, those requirements affixed to a required permit). If the city planner or engineering manager finds good cause to believe that the facility is not in compliance with any laws applicable to human exposure to RF emissions, the city planner or engineering manager may require the permittee to submit a written report certified by a qualified radio frequency engineer familiar with the facility that certifies that the facility is in compliance with all such laws. The city planner or engineering manager may order the facility to be powered down if, based on objective evidence, the city planner or engineering manager finds that the facility is in fact not in compliance with any laws applicable to human exposure to RF emissions until such time that the permittee demonstrates actual compliance with such laws. The permittee expressly acknowledges and agrees that this obligation is intended to be broadly construed and that no other specific requirements in these conditions are intended to reduce, relieve or otherwise lessen the permittee’s obligations to maintain compliance with all laws. No failure or omission by the City to timely notice, prompt or enforce compliance with any applicable provision in the Carlsbad Municipal Code, this Policy, any permit, any permit condition or any applicable law or regulation, shall be deemed to relieve, waive or lessen the permittee’s obligation to comply in all respects with all applicable provisions in the Carlsbad Municipal Code, this Policy, any permit, any permit condition or any applicable law or regulation. . 6. Abandonment of antennas and equipment- Any WCF or SWF that is not operated for a continuous period of 180 days will be considered abandoned. Within 90 days of receipt of notice from the city notifying the owner of such abandonment, the facility owner must remove the facility and restore the site, as much as is reasonable and practical, to its prior condition. If such facility is not removed within the 90 days, the facility will be considered a nuisance and in addition to any other available remedy, will be subject to abatement under Chapter 6.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. If there are two or more users of a single WCF, then this provision will not become effective until all users stop using the January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 181 of 247 WCF. The provider or owner must give notice to the city of the intent to discontinue use of any facility before discontinuing the use. E. Application and Review Guidelines 1. Application requirements for WCFs. In addition to the typical submittal requirements for a CUP or Minor CUP (see Planning Division Form P-2), right-of-way permit or building permit (including plans, landscape details, and color and material samples, as appropriate), all WCF applications shall include the following items: a. A description of the site selection process undertaken for the WCF proposed. Technical service objectives and the reasons for selecting the proposed site and rejecting other sites should be provided. b. A description or map of the applicant’s existing and other proposed sites. c. A description of the wireless system proposed (e.g., cellular, PCS, etc.) and its consumer features (e.g., voice, video, and data transmissions). d. Verification that the proposed WCF will either comply with the FCC’s guidelines for human exposure to RF electromagnetic fields or will be categorically excluded from having to determine compliance with the guidelines per 47 CFR §1.1307(b)(1). If WCFs are proposed for collocation, the verification must show the total exposure from all facilities taken together meets the FCC guidelines. The applicant shall submit an RF exposure compliance report that certifies that the proposed facility, both individually and cumulatively as applicable under 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(b)(5), will comply with applicable federal RF exposure standards and exposure limits. e. Color photo-simulation exhibits, prepared to scale, of the proposed WCF to show what the project would look like at its proposed location and from surrounding viewpoints. The city planner or engineering manager may waive the requirement to provide the exhibits if he/she determines they are unnecessary. f. Provide confirmation that an environmental assessment, or other application determination, has been completed by or on behalf of the FCC for any facility proposed in a location identified in 47 C.F.R. 1.307 (including a floodplain) or as otherwise required by National Environmental Policy Act or the National Historic Preservation Act. 2. Application requirements for SWFs. In addition to the typical submittal requirements for a right-of-way permit or building permit (including plans, landscape details, and color and material samples, as appropriate), all SWF applications shall include the following items: a. A description of the wireless system proposed (e.g., cellular, PCS, etc.) and its consumer features (e.g., voice, video, and data transmissions). b. For new poles that are least preferred, a description of the site selection process undertaken for the proposed SWF. A technical service objective and the reasons for selecting the proposed site and rejecting other sites should be provided. c. Verification that the proposed SWF will either comply with the FCC’s guidelines for human exposure to RF electromagnetic fields or will be categorically excluded from having to determine compliance with the guidelines per 47 CFR §1.1307(b)(1). The applicant shall submit an RF exposure compliance report that certifies that the proposed facility, both individually and cumulatively as January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 182 of 247 applicable under 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(b)(5), will comply with applicable federal RF exposure standards and exposure limits. d. Color photo-simulation exhibits, prepared to scale, of the proposed WCF to show what the project would look like at its proposed location and from surrounding viewpoints. The city planner or engineering manager may waive the requirement to provide the exhibits if he/she determines they are unnecessary. e. Environmental impact assessment form to determine whether the proposed project is categorically exempt under Article 19 of the CEQA Guidelines, or whether the proposed project will require a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report. In addition, provide confirmation that an environmental assessment, or other application determination, has been completed by or on behalf of the FCC for any facility proposed in a location identified in 47 C.F.R. 1.307 (including a floodplain) or as otherwise required by National Environmental Policy Act or the National Historic Preservation Act. 3. For WCFs proposed in a zone or area that is a discouraged WCF location as listed in Location Guideline A.2., the applicant shall provide evidence that no location in a preferred zone or area as listed in Location Guideline A.1. is technically feasible or potentially available to accommodate the applicant’s proposed facility. Evidence should document that preferred zone or area locations do not meet engineering, coverage, location, or height requirements, or have other unsuitable limitations. 4. For proposed new ground-mounted monopole WCFs, the applicant shall also provide evidence to the city’s satisfaction that no existing monopole, building, structure, or WCF site (“existing facility”) could accommodate the proposal. Evidence should demonstrate any of the following: a. No existing facility is located within the geographic area or provides the height or structural strength needed to meet the applicant’s engineering requirements. b. The applicant’s proposed WCF would cause electromagnetic interference with the existing antennae array or vice versa. c. The fees, costs, or contractual provisions required by the owner to locate on an existing facility or to modify the same to enable location are unreasonable. Costs exceeding new monopole development are presumed to be unreasonable. d. The applicant demonstrates to the decision-maker’s (Planning Commission or city planner) satisfaction that there are other limiting factors that render an existing facility unsuitable. 5. In approving a WCF or SWF, the decision-maker (Planning Commission, city planner or engineering manager) shall make the findings in Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.42.020 if applicable, and shall give consideration to the following factors: a. Compliance with these guidelines. b. Height and setbacks. c. Proximity to residential uses. d. The nature of uses on adjacent and nearby properties. e. Surrounding topography and landscaping. f. Quality and compatibility of design and screening. g. Impacts on public views and the visual quality of the surrounding area. January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 183 of 247 h. Availability of other facilities and buildings for collocation. 6. Conditional Use Permits (CUPs)/Minor CUPs for WCFs shall be granted for a period not to exceed ten years unless public safety reasons and/or substantial land use reasons justify a shorter term. A WCF that is decommissioned, discontinued, or otherwise abandoned by the owner or operator for a continuous one-year period is subject to revocation under Section 21.42.120 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Upon a request for either an extension or an amendment of a CUP or Minor CUP, the WCF will be reevaluated to assess the impact of the facility on adjacent properties, the record of maintenance and performance with reference to the conditions of approval, and consistency with these guidelines. Additionally, the city will review the appropriateness of the existing facility’s design, and that the applicant documented that the WCF maintains the design that is the smallest, most efficient, and least visible and that there are not now more appropriate and available locations for the facility, such as the opportunity to collocate or relocate to an existing building. 7. Collocation for WCFs. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65850.6, qualifying collocation facilities for WCFs shall not be approved with a conditional use permit or conditional use permit amendment. This section does not apply to SWFs. a. For the purposes of collocation, the following definitions apply: (1) “Collocation facility” means the placement or installation of WCFs, including antennas, and related equipment, on or immediately adjacent to, a wireless telecommunications collocation facility. (2) “Wireless telecommunications facility” means equipment and network emergency power systems that are integral to providing wireless telecommunications services. (3) “Wireless telecommunications collocation facility” or “WTCF” means a wireless telecommunications facility that includes Collocation facilities. b. A building permit shall be required for a proposed WCF Collocation facility which will be placed on a previously approved WTCF provided that: (1) The new WCF Collocation facility is consistent with requirements for the existing WTCF installation; and (2) The modification of an existing wireless tower or base station does not physically change the dimensions of such tower or base station. c. Approval of an application to construct or reconstruct a WCF wireless facility shall not require an escrow deposit for removal of the WCF Collocation facility or any component thereof. d. Notwithstanding subsection (b) above, the city may require a performance bond or other surety or another form of security if the amount required is rationally related to the cost of removal. 8. Applications from a single provider of wireless communication services for up to 10 SWF permits may be batched and processed together. A single provider may not submit more than one batch of applications at one time. Batched applications will only be accepted prior to 4:00pm Monday through Thursday. January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 184 of 247 9. Applications must be submitted in-person and with an appointment. Application materials delivered by U.S. mail or other delivery service will not be processed and do not constitute a submitted and duly filed application. An application is not considered duly filed and submitted unless it is provided in-person to a representative of the Community Development Department and assigned a case number or permit number as appropriate. 10. SWFs that propose to use an existing pole, replacement pole or other existing structure shall be required to provide authorization from the pole or structure owner. Authorization may include signatures, letters, agreements or other similar methods acceptable to the city planner or engineering manager. Authorization from the owner in connection with joint utility poles may be evidenced by documentation that shows that authorization has been granted in accordance with the joint pole committee’s rules, which may include authorization deemed granted by lapse of time. 11. Exceptions to this policy. The city may grant an exception to the requirements of this policy but only to the extent necessary to avoid conflict with applicable federal or state law. When the applicant requests an exception, the approval authority shall consider the findings in subsection (a) of this section. Each exception is specific to the facts and circumstances in connection with each application. An exception granted in one instance shall not be deemed to create a presumption or expectation that an exception will be granted in any other instance. a. The decision maker may grant an exception to any provision or requirement in this policy only if the decision maker finds that: (1) A denial based on the application’s noncompliance with a specific provision or requirement would violate federal law, state law or both; or (2) A provision in this policy, as applied to the applicant, would violate any rights or privileges conferred on the applicant by federal or state law. b. If the decision maker finds that an exception should be granted, the exception shall be narrowly tailored so that the exception deviates from this policy to least extent necessary for compliance with federal or state law. c. The applicant shall have the burden to prove to the decision maker that an exception should be granted pursuant to this section. The standard of evidence shall be the same as required by applicable federal or state law for the issue raised in the applicant’s request for an exception. 12. Pre-Application Meetings. Federal laws and policies establish time limitations (referred to as a “shot clock”) related to processing of all types of WCFs and SWFs permits. The city is required to act on a WCF or SWF permit within the established shot clock timeframes. Pre-application meetings are strongly encouraged in order to ensure that proposed facilities comply with the requirements of these Guidelines and that application materials include adequate and accurate information. A pre-application meeting is voluntary and is intended to streamline the review process through informal discussion between the potential applicant and staff that includes, without limitation, the appropriate project classification and review process; any latent issues in connection with the proposed project, including compliance with generally applicable rules for public health and safety; potential concealment issues or concerns (if applicable); coordination with other city January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 185 of 247 departments responsible for application review; and any foreseen application completeness issues. 13. Pre-approved designs. To expedite the review process, encourage collaborative designs among applicants and the city, and ensure cohesive and high-quality designs for new or replacement poles in areas such as those with decorative streetlights, the engineering manager in consultation with the city planner, may designate one or more pre-approved designs for small wireless facilities and other infrastructure deployments. a.Any applicant may propose a design for consideration as a pre-approved design. The city may, in its discretion, establish a pre-approved design when the proposed pre-approved design exceeds the design guidelines in this policy. b.The city may modify or repeal any pre-approved design by written notice to any applicants who have used the pre-approved design, and by posting the notice at the Land Use Engineering counter. The modification or repeal shall be effective immediately. c.Any applicant may propose to use any pre-approved design whether the applicant initially requested that the city adopt such pre-approved design or not. The city’s decision to adopt a preapproved design expresses no preference or requirement that applicants use the specific vendor or manufacturer that fabricated the design depicted in the pre-approved plans. Any other vendor or manufacturer that fabricates a facility to the standards and specifications in the pre-approved design with like materials, finishes and overall quality shall be acceptable as a pre-approved design. 14.A master license agreement or other authorization is required prior to permit submittals for WCF or SWF installations that will locate on city-owned property or facilities. 15.At the time of filing the application, the applicant shall pay all applicable fees contained in the most recent fee schedule adopted by the city council. 16.An applicant may voluntarily elect to defer submittal of any permit or agreement which is otherwise required as part of a whole application. The voluntary deferral of any such permit or agreement shall toll the shot clock on that item. Once the voluntarily deferred item is received, the city will provide comments on any deferred submittal in the same manner as if it was a new application. The city will continue to process all other permits and agreements that are not deferred. SEVERABILITY: If any sections, subsections, sentence, clause, or phrase of the policy is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision or legislation of any court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of preemptive legislation, such decision or legislation shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the policy. The City Council declares that it would have approved this policy, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more of the sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases thereof is declared invalid or unconstitutional. These Guidelines have been adopted, and may be amended, by resolution of the City Council. Revisions to address clerical errors may be made administratively by the Director of Community Development. January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 186 of 247 May 1, 2023 To: From: City of Carlsbad Harold Thomas Jr, MD7,LLC Planning Development Services obo. AT&T Wireless Department 10590 W. Ocean Air Drive, Suite 250 1635 Faraday Ave., San Diego, CA 92130 Carlsbad, CA 92008 (858) 750- 1798 hthomasjr@md7.com Alterna�ve Site Analysis Report Development Approval for a New Wireless Telecommunica�on Facility Project Descrip�on: AT&T is seeking Development Approval to allow for the construc�on of a new Telecommunica�ons facility to be located at 6600 Hidden Valley Rd., Carlsbad, CA 92011. The APN for the address is 214-140-13-00 and within an OS zone in the Hidden Valley Road Community. The proposed facility will be a 78-foot-tall light pole that will replace the (e) light pole C3. AT&T aims to establish compliance by insta�ng en�tlements for this facility following the guidelines outlined by the city. This proposed facility will also meet all guidelines and regula�ons that the FCC has outlined for telecommunica�ons facili�es. AT&T has also looked for viable alterna�ves in both design and loca�on to ensure that the facility best supports the community. We will be installing the 78-foot-tall tower along with an 8- foot-high CMU wall equipment enclosure. As well as the installa�on of: (2) panel antennas per sector for a total of (6), (9) Remote Radio Units, (3) surge protectors at the antenna area, (2) surge protectors in equipment enclosure area, (1) VERTIV DC Power Cabinet, (2) Purcell Cabinets, (1) GPS Antenna, (1) Generator, (2) Fiber Cable Trunks and (9) DC power cable trunks. Along with the installa�on of a Telco / Fiber Service, and a 200A Electrical Power Service. Candidate #1 - Industrial When evalua�ng poten�al candidates to build a cell tower, AT&T sought to establish a tower within one of the City of Carlsbad’s preferred zones. Beginning with an industrial zone, as the primary target. However, as we were researching thorough the city’s, city map, we were unable to locate an industrial zone where our tower would be suitable. This is largely because, loca�ons in industrial zones had dependable coverage. As a result, we were unable to proceed further with the establishment of a cell site. Exhibit 6 January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 187 of 247 Candidate #2 - Commercial AT&T had considered a site located at 901 Palomar Airport Road. With the site being in a C-T-Q zone, AT&T would be within one of the ci�es preferred zones for wireless telecommunica�on facili�es. The proximity of the freeway along with the local businesses were appealing, as the facility would be able to provide them with dependable coverage. However, upon further review of the site the loca�on of the project was no longer feasible. There was no feasible loca�on as to where we could have placed our facility due to there being no room on the site. A roo�op facility was also proposed as an op�on for the site, however the property owner ul�mately declined. In addi�on, when comparing differences in eleva�on, this site would have been lower than the proposed site by 73 feet. This would compromise and strain the coverage even further. A�er much discussion, AT&T withdrew interest in proceeding forward with the site. Candidate #3 - Other non-residential zones, except open space AT&T had also considered, when establishing a cell site would have been at the Carlsbad Car Rental Center at 6030 Avenida Encinas Suite E. As we looked at this site, it looked promising as it was s�ll within the top sites that the city would prefer for a cell site to be located. During our outreach we proposed our ini�al idea to the property owner. However, despite nego�a�ons they property owner was not interested in having a cell site on their property. In addi�on to the coverage report maps, produced by our RF engineer, establishing a site at this loca�on would not have been the best use of resources. As this loca�on had a fair amount of exis�ng coverage. Thereby adding a site here would have, done lit le to improve an already fair amount of coverage. In turn, having a cell site established for the sake of having a site. Candidate #4 – Public right-of-way of roads adjacent to industrial and commercial zones The next site that AT&T was considering was located at parcel number 214-010-95-00. With the site being located within a P.U. (public u�lity) zone, AT&T would be within one of the ci�es preferred zones for wireless telecommunica�ons facili�es. Similar to the previous site this loca�on, this site would have been located near the San Diego Freeway. Unlike the previous candidate, this loca�on provided various places to where we would be able to construct our standalone structure. As a result, we brought our proposal to the property owner. However, we were unable to proceed with the candidate. The property owner declined our proposal as they were uninterested in having a cell tower at their site. Candidate #5 – Public Property (i.e City Facilities) not in residential areas AT&T had also considered placing a facility at Aviara Community Park as a poten�al candidate for the cell tower. Like the loca�on that we are proposing, this park is a city owned property. While this site garnered some interest, we were unable to pursue this site as a viable candidate. Upon review of our coverage maps as provided by the RF engineer, this area was already doing fairly well in coverage. Therefore, if we were to proceed to establish a site here it would not be mee�ng any objec�ve in assis�ng the community. January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 188 of 247 Candidate #6 - Major power transmission towers in non-resident AT&T had also sought to collocate onto an exis�ng facility located at 5800 The Crossings Dr. The site would have been located within a preferred zone and would have been a city owned property as well. However, like the previous sites, the site would have been in a site that was doing well in coverage. This site would have been located outside of the Target Area that AT&T had established when determining viable candidate op�ons. As a result we were unable to proceed with this site as a viable op�on. Candidate #7 – Public and private utility installations (not publicly accessible) in residential and open spaces (i.e water tanks, reservoirs, or the existing communication towers near Maerkle River AT&T had also sought opportuni�es to locate onto a private u�lity installa�on located at 705 Palomar Airport Rd. Similar to candidate 4 this site would have been located near the I-5 Freeway. The site was located towards the edges of the desired Target search area; however, it was a viable candidate for a cell tower. However, upon further review of the site, we were unable to proceed with the site as a viable candidate. Given how close the site would have been to the shoreline, there would have been an eleva�onal disadvantage than the proposed site loca�on. Where Poinse�a Park has an eleva�on of 175 feet, this loca�on has an eleva�on of roughly 63-feet. With a significant eleva�onal disadvantage of a lit le over half, we were unable to proceed with this site as a viable candidate. Alternate Site #8 – Public right-of-way of roads adjacent to residential zones AT&T had also sought opportuni�es to locate onto a public right-of-way road, along Paseo El Norte. This loca�on would have closer within the target area. However, this site would not have been a viable op�on as the loca�on also presented eleva�onal disadvantage. The proposed site has an elevation of 168 compared to the 63-foot elevation that we would have if we moved to the roadway along Paseo El Norte. Leading to a 105 foot disadvantage. Therefore we were unable to proceed with this location. Conclusion AT&T chose the site at 6600 Hidden Valley Road for numerous factors. The proposed site was located within an open space zone. This site also provided the possibility of a stealth design; an aspect that was not easily available with the previous sites. With every proposed site AT&T wanted to ensure that any structure they produced, would serve to its maximum poten�al. That whatever height was proposed, it would be to a height that would integrate to the exis�ng landscape to avoid distrac�on and serve to its poten�al, and not for greed. As we evaluated the area, we no�ced the exis�ng light poles and sought a design that would integrate with the exis�ng features in the area. Before we decided to proceed with this candidate, we contacted City of Carlsbad to present our proposal. As we presented our proposal, and how it would be beneficial to the community. In addi�on, the tower would implement a stealth design. The Na�onal Ins�tute of Health’s Wireless Subs�tu�on Report for the second half of 2020 es�mates that 65.3% of adults and 75.5% of children live in wireless- only homes (ht ps://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/wireless202108-508.pdf), and it is es�mated that in many areas of the US, 80% or more of 911 calls are made from a wireless device (htps://www.nena.org/page/911Sta�s�cs). Enhanced wireless also allows businesses to flourish, from being able to have a media presence to person-to-person sales and banking apps that are common on smartphones. While AT&T prides itself on providing dependable 10590 WEST OCEAN AIR DRIVE / SUITE 300 / SAN DIEGO, CA 92130 January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 189 of 247 connec�vity, in a manner that respects the landscape and is beneficial for residents. Our site will be able to best serve: the neighboring residences, Poinse�a Kinder Care and Pacific Rim Elementary School, Carlsbad Fire Sta�on 4, and nearby local businesses. Our site will allow people to work remotely from home because it can enhance connec�vity through phone hotspots if service is dependable. This is less �me on the road, greater flexibility, and a consistent connec�ve source. When we created our coverage map, our priority was to ensure that the height and loca�on we chose, will be following the exis�ng standards governing health safety, and welfare. The facility will be engineered and constructed in accordance the standards in effect at the �me of building permit applica�on, including current building, fire, energy, mechanical and structural codes. The city will have the opportunity to review plans and verify the correct standards are applied. Candidate(s) Loca�on Site Map Coverage Map January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 190 of 247 • \;C::a::.n::d:.:id::a:.:te:..:#:.:3:..___J'°""-'" q l-il:,;nG ... d..,1111 Col --.«dEd: 9 LEGO\.A"ID~'ilo1tia' 9 t, \ 1 • -<;-1Candi~te #2 ] • co,tcoWM e:,;1 eQ cu GJ, 11 11 ·111 ,;M~'•f ' Q _ ..... \ Enur d N<r,1~11,t<:' U-i.,0.1<'.,,,g& II ~n·a,gt ~fGt• ~!'-3· {>c, Vy • • ~Candidate #6 ....... tt:;~~~~:~ ~ 5J' ' \ .,e<a:~ HeaGQ\iMte· • '\"·,~ .. \ \ ~l•ln . ....... ! 9 w11J:.i112't.., j ,11:,1~ McClell A ·•trtf ~-,l., I Candidate #5 January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 191 of 247 CAL01850 Existing Coverage • • CAL01850 Existing Coverage Single site coverage 56 ft " \ A,\IIAII Please let me know if you have any ques�ons or concerns. Best, Harold Thomas Jr Land Use-I hthomasjr@md7.com (858) 750-1798 January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 192 of 247 Radio Frequency – Electromagnetic Energy (RF-EME) Jurisdictional Report Site Name: FA#: USID: Site ID: Address: Latitude: Longitude: Structure Type: RFDS ID: RFDS Technology: EBI Project Number: Report Date: Pace Job: Poinsettia Park 14292179 288901 CAL01850 6600 Hidden Valley Road Carlsbad, California 92011 San Diego County 33.11388000 NAD83 -117.30528000 NAD83 Light Pole 4292308 eNode B 6222005431 September 9, 2022 MRSDL022412, MRSDL028406, MRSDL028395, MRSDL022409, MRSDL018605, MRSDL040392, MRSDL040393 The proposed AT&T installation will be in compliance with FCC regulations upon proper installation of recommended signage. Prepared for: AT&T Mobility, LLC c/o MD7, LLC 10590 West Ocean Air Drive, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92130 Prepared by: January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 193 of 247 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 288901 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 i TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.0 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (FCC) REQUIREMENTS ................................... 3 2.0 AT&T RF EXPOSURE POLICY REQUIREMENTS .................................................................... 5 3.0 WORST-CASE PREDICTIVE MODELING ................................................................................. 5 4.0 RECOMMENDED SIGNAGE/COMPLIANCE PLAN .................................................................... 7 5.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................. 8 6.0 LIMITATIONS ......................................................................................................................... 8 APPENDICES Appendix A Personnel Certifications Appendix B Compliance/Signage Plan Appendix C Antenna Inventory January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 194 of 247 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 288901 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Purpose of Report EnviroBusiness Inc. (dba EBI Consulting) has been contracted by AT&T Mobility, LLC to conduct radio frequency electromagnetic (RF-EME) modeling for AT&T Site CAL01850 located at 6600 Hidden Valley Road in Carlsbad, California to determine RF-EME exposure levels from proposed AT&T wireless communications equipment at this site. As described in greater detail in Section 1.0 of this report, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has developed Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) Limits for general public exposures and occupational exposures. This report summarizes the results of RF-EME modeling in relation to relevant FCC RF-EME compliance standards for limiting human exposure to RF-EME fields. This report contains the RF EME analysis for the site, including the following: ▪ Site Plan with antenna locations ▪ Graphical representation of theoretical MPE fields based on modeling ▪ Graphical representation of recommended signage and/or barriers This document addresses the compliance of AT&T’s transmitting facilities independently and in relation to all collocated facilities at the site. Statement of Compliance A site is considered out of compliance with FCC regulations if there are areas that exceed the FCC exposure limits and there are no RF hazard mitigation measures in place. Any carrier which has an installation that contributes more than 5% of the applicable MPE must participate in mitigating these RF hazards. As presented in the sections below, based on worst-case predictive modeling, the worst-case emitted power density may exceed the FCC’s general public limit within approximately 93 feet of ATT’s proposed antennas at the light fixture level. Modeling also indicates that the worst-case emitted power density will not exceed the FCC’s occupational limit at the light fixture level. As such, the proposed AT&T installation is in compliance with FCC regulations upon proper installation of recommended signage and/or barriers. AT&T Recommended Signage/Compliance Plan AT&T’s RF Exposure: Responsibilities, Procedures & Guidelines document, dated October 28, 2014, requires that: 1. All sites must be analyzed for RF exposure compliance; 2. All sites must have that analysis documented; and 3. All sites must have any necessary signage and barriers installed. Site compliance recommendations have been developed based upon protocols presented in AT&T’s RF Exposure: Responsibilities, Procedures & Guidelines document, dated October 28, 2014, additional guidance provided by AT&T, EBI’s understanding of FCC and OSHA requirements, and common industry practice. Barrier locations have been identified (when required) based on guidance presented in AT&T’s RF Exposure: Responsibilities, Procedures & Guidelines document, dated October 28, 2014. January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 195 of 247 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 288901 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 2 The following signage is recommended at this site: ▪ Yellow 7 by 7 inch CAUTION signs on opposite sides of the light pole, 21 feet below the bottom of the antennas. Signs should denote a stay-back distance of 96 feet from the face of the antennas. The signage proposed for installation at this site complies with AT&T’s RF Exposure: Responsibilities, Procedures & Guidelines document and therefore complies with FCC and OSHA requirements. Barriers are not recommended on this site. To reduce the risk of exposure and/or injury, EBI recommends that access to the light pole or areas associated with the active antenna installation be restricted and secured where possible. More detailed information concerning site compliance recommendations is presented in Section 4.0 and Appendix B of this report. January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 196 of 247 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 288901 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 3 1.0 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (FCC) REQUIREMENTS The FCC has established Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) limits for human exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic (RF-EME) energy fields, based on exposure limits recommended by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) and, over a wide range of frequencies, the exposure limits developed by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) and adopted by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) to replace the 1982 ANSI guidelines. Limits for localized absorption are based on recommendations of both ANSI/IEEE and NCRP. The FCC guidelines incorporate two separate tiers of exposure limits that are based upon occupational/controlled exposure limits (for workers) and general public/uncontrolled exposure limits for members of the general public. Occupational/controlled exposure limits apply to situations in which persons are exposed as a consequence of their employment and in which those persons who are exposed have been made fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over their exposure. Occupational/ controlled exposure limits also apply where exposure is of a transient nature as a result of incidental passage through a location where exposure levels may be above general public/uncontrolled limits (see below), as long as the exposed person has been made fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over his or her exposure by leaving the area or by some other appropriate means. General public/uncontrolled exposure limits apply to situations in which the general public may be exposed or in which persons who are exposed as a consequence of their employment may not be made fully aware of the potential for exposure or cannot exercise control over their exposure. Therefore, members of the general public would always be considered under this category when exposure is not employment-related, for example, in the case of a telecommunications tower that exposes persons in a nearby residential area. Table 1 and Figure 1 (below), which are included within the FCC’s OET Bulletin 65, summarize the MPE limits for RF emissions. These limits are designed to provide a substantial margin of safety. They vary by frequency to take into account the different types of equipment that may be in operation at a particular facility and are “time-averaged” limits to reflect different durations resulting from controlled and uncontrolled exposures. The FCC’s MPEs are measured in terms of power (mW) over a unit surface area (cm2). Known as the power density, the FCC has established an occupational MPE of 5 milliwatts per square centimeter (mW/cm2) and an uncontrolled MPE of 1 mW/cm2 for equipment operating in the 1900 MHz frequency range. For the AT&T equipment operating at 850 MHz, the FCC’s occupational MPE is 2.83 mW/cm2 and an uncontrolled MPE of 0.57 mW/cm2. For the AT&T equipment operating at 700 MHz, the FCC’s occupational MPE is 2.33 mW/cm2 and an uncontrolled MPE of 0.47 mW/cm2. These limits are considered protective of these populations. Table 1: Limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) (A) Limits for Occupational/Controlled Exposure Frequency Range (MHz) Electric Field Strength (E) (V/m) Magnetic Field Strength (H) (A/m) Power Density (S) (mW/cm2) Averaging Time [E]2, [H]2, or S (minutes) 0.3-3.0 614 1.63 (100)* 6 3.0-30 1842/f 4.89/f (900/f2)* 6 30-300 61.4 0.163 1.0 6 300-I,500 -- -- f/300 6 1,500-100,000 -- -- 5 6 January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 197 of 247 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 288901 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 4 (B) Limits for General Public/Uncontrolled Exposure Frequency Range (MHz) Electric Field Strength (E) (V/m) Magnetic Field Strength (H) (A/m) Power Density (S) (mW/cm2) Averaging Time [E]2, [H]2, or S (minutes) 0.3-1.34 614 1.63 (100)* 30 1.34-30 824/f 2.19/f (180/f2)* 30 30-300 27.5 0.073 0.2 30 300-I,500 -- -- f/1,500 30 1,500-100,000 -- -- 1.0 30 f = Frequency in (MHz) * Plane-wave equivalent power density Based on the above, the most restrictive thresholds for exposures of unlimited duration to RF energy for several personal wireless services are summarized below: Personal Wireless Service Approximate Frequency Occupational MPE Public MPE Microwave (Point-to-Point) 5,000 - 80,000 MHz 5.00 mW/cm2 1.00 mW/cm2 Broadband Radio (BRS) 2,600 MHz 5.00 mW/cm2 1.00 mW/cm2 Wireless Communication (WCS) 2,300 MHz 5.00 mW/cm2 1.00 mW/cm2 Advanced Wireless (AWS) 2,100 MHz 5.00 mW/cm2 1.00 mW/cm2 Personal Communication (PCS) 1,950 MHz 5.00 mW/cm2 1.00 mW/cm2 Cellular Telephone 870 MHz 2.90 mW/cm2 0.58 mW/cm2 Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) 855 MHz 2.85 mW/cm2 0.57 mW/cm2 Long Term Evolution (LTE) 700 MHz 2.33 mW/cm2 0.47 mW/cm2 Most Restrictive Frequency Range 30-300 MHz 1.00 mW/cm2 0.20 mW/cm2 MPE limits are designed to provide a substantial margin of safety. These limits apply for continuous exposures and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. Po w e r D e n s i t y ( m W / c m 2) January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 198 of 247 Figure 1. FCC Limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) Plane-wave Equivalent Power Density '/00 10 5 0.2 \ -Occupational/Controlled Exposure - - - -General Population/Uncontrolled Exposure \ \ / \_ - - -_,I' / / / _,,.-- - --- ---- 0_'/~---~--~~---~---~--~~----~-~~ 0.03 0-3 1 3 1.34 30 300 Frequency (MHz) r 3,000 '1,500 30,000 i 300,000 '/00,000 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 288901 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 5 Personal Communication (PCS) facilities used by AT&T in this area operate within a frequency range of 700-1900 MHz. Facilities typically consist of: 1) electronic transceivers (the radios or cabinets) connected to wired telephone lines; and 2) antennas that send the wireless signals created by the transceivers to be received by individual subscriber units (PCS telephones). Transceivers are typically connected to antennas by coaxial cables. Because of the short wavelength of PCS services, the antennas require line-of-site paths for good propagation, and are typically installed above ground level. Antennas are constructed to concentrate energy towards the horizon, with as little energy as possible scattered towards the ground or the sky. This design, combined with the low power of PCS facilities, generally results in no possibility for exposure to approach Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) levels, with the exception of areas directly in front of the antennas. 2.0 AT&T RF EXPOSURE POLICY REQUIREMENTS AT&T’s RF Exposure: Responsibilities, Procedures & Guidelines document, dated October 28, 2014, requires that: 1. All sites must be analyzed for RF exposure compliance; 2. All sites must have that analysis documented; and 3. All sites must have any necessary signage and barriers installed. Pursuant to this guidance, worst-case predictive modeling was performed for the site. This modeling is described below in Section 3.0. Lastly, based on the modeling and survey data, EBI has produced a Compliance Plan for this site that outlines the recommended signage and barriers. The recommended Compliance Plan for this site is described in Section 4.0. 3.0 WORST-CASE PREDICTIVE MODELING In accordance with AT&T’s RF Exposure policy, EBI performed theoretical modeling using RoofMaster™ software to estimate the worst-case power density at the site light fixture level and ground-level and/or nearby rooftops resulting from operation of the antennas. RoofMaster™ is a widely-used predictive modeling program that has been developed to predict RF power density values for rooftop and tower telecommunications sites produced by vertical collinear antennas that are typically used in the cellular, PCS, paging and other communications services. Using the computational methods set forth in Federal Communications (FCC) Office of Engineering & Technology (OET) Bulletin 65, “Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields” (OET-65), RoofMaster™ calculates predicted power density in a scalable grid based on the contributions of all RF sources characterized in the study scenario. At each grid location, the cumulative power density is expressed as a percentage of the FCC limits. Manufacturer antenna pattern data is utilized in these calculations. RoofMaster™ models consist of the Far Field model as specified in OET-65 and an implementation of the OET-65 Cylindrical Model (Sula9). The models utilize several operational specifications for different types of antennas to produce a plot of spatially-averaged power densities that can be expressed as a percentage of the applicable exposure limit. A statistical power factor may be applied to the antenna system based on guidance from the carrier and system manufacturers. For this report, EBI utilized antenna and power data provided by AT&T and compared the resultant worst-case MPE levels to the FCC’s occupational/controlled exposure limits outlined in OET Bulletin 65. The assumptions used in the modeling are based upon information provided by AT&T and information gathered from other sources. There are no other wireless carriers with equipment installed at this site. January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 199 of 247 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 288901 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 6 Based on worst-case predictive modeling, the worst-case emitted power density may exceed the FCC’s general public limit within approximately 93 feet of AT&T’s Sector A, B, and C antennas on the light fixture level. Modeling indicates that the worst-case emitted power density may exceed the FCC’s general public limit within approximately 96 feet of the antenna face and the occupational limit within approximately 45 feet of the antenna face. Modeling also indicates that the worst-case emitted power density may exceed the FCC’s general population limit within approximately 21 feet below the bottom of the AT&T antennas and the occupational limit within approximately 10 feet below the bottom of the AT&T antennas. At the nearest walking/working surfaces to the AT&T antennas on the light fixture level, the maximum power density generated by the AT&T antennas is approximately 454.09 percent of the FCC’s general public limit (90.82 percent of the FCC’s occupational limit). The composite exposure level from all carriers on this site is approximately 454.09 percent of the FCC’s general public limit (90.82 percent of the FCC’s occupational limit) at the nearest walking/working surface to each antenna. It should be noted that percentage of MPE is based on spatially-averaged power densities over a height of six feet, with the height of the light fixture being centered within that spatial range. Based on worst-case predictive modeling, there are no areas at ground/street level related to the proposed AT&T antennas that exceed the FCC’s occupational or general public exposure limits at this site. At ground/street level, the maximum power density generated by the antennas is approximately 5.3 percent of the FCC’s general public limit (1.06 percent of the FCC’s occupational limit). A graphical representation of the RoofMaster™ modeling results is presented in Appendix B. Microwave dish antennas are designed for point-to-point operations at the elevations of the installed equipment rather than ground-level coverage. Based on AT&T’s RF Exposure: Responsibilities, Procedures & Guidelines document, dated October 28, 2014, microwave antennas are considered compliant if they are higher than 20 feet above any accessible walking/working surface. There are no microwaves installed at this site. January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 200 of 247 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 288901 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 7 4.0 RECOMMENDED SIGNAGE/COMPLIANCE PLAN Signs are the primary means for control of access to areas where RF exposure levels may potentially exceed the MPE. As presented in the AT&T guidance document, the signs must: ▪ Be posted at a conspicuous point; ▪ Be posted at the appropriate locations; ▪ Be readily visible; and ▪ Make the reader aware of the potential risks prior to entering the affected area. The table below presents the signs that may be used for AT&T installations. CRAN / HETNET Small Cell Decals / Signs Alerting Signs NOTICE DECAL TRILINGUAL NOTICE NOTICE 2 NOTICE SIGN CAUTION 2 – ROOFTOP CAUTION 2A CAUTION DECAL CAUTION 2B - TOWER CAUTION 2C - PARAPETS CAUTION SIGN WARNING 1B WARNING 2A January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 201 of 247 NOTICE (<i) RF energy emitted by this antenna may excttd the FCC's exposure limits for the general population. Stay at least 1 feel away from the antenna. Call AT&T at 800-638-2822. option 9 then 3, for help if you need access wi1hin lttL AT&T operates antennas al this structure. this point you are entering an area where radio frequency (RFt fie.Ida may ucNd the FCC General PopulaUon exposure limlts, Follow Hftty guldeOnH for working In iln RF anvironmenL Knp h. 1w1y from the fronts of lhe antenna ~ Conta<I AT&T at 800-638.2822. op~ 9, 3 and rollow their lns:trucUoos prior to peffo""lng any maintenance or repa rs above this poln~ This ii AT&T Sito us10 ___ _ A CAUTION RF onorgy omitted by this ant1nna may uceed tho FCC's occupational exposure limits. Stay al least 1 feet away from the antenna. Call AT&T al 800-638-2822, opUon 9 then 3, lor help II you nood access within 1 foot. JI A CAUTION £ AT&T operates antennas at this atructure. tMs point you irt toterlng an .,., wh••• radio frequency (RF) lltld ""'f uceed tho FCC Ocwpatlonal bposu,.. I mlts Follow 11loty guldoUnn tor working In an RF environment. KHp ft. ■way from the fronts of the •ncennas. Cone.ct AT&T al 800.ClS.2822, opt. 9, l end fotlow their lnstn,ctions prior to perfom,fng any m1i nt.tn1nc:• or rep• "' abovt th point. Coll Stte USID ___ _ _,01- 0ACAUTION° M "''•"·"'~·-· ltfw,4fliD1MCl"•tlltnt• .. -....-~t,flirw,..,&rH,!!lr KC~[.,._...,_ hlMsd!tJplildMlbaatitpltM• ·-~ij,Ui1111,:,),UI-JW.--•.n11 ..i111m1_..~,-•~-t INHCfNfW:t•..,..,t,n,GMli.!1~. ·--·-""·----· °A CAUTION. M Onllltltowr: IIIM~wq MhllYWlol',._81111 -,,Iff411fK{~f.-,l..nli. c..aw.r111D-i!l-nn,.-,,-,i.,w .,._Mndal.lilflllltptffllailf ~-~~~~ PffllMl'ltllfiDti!JllhlOll'll'f...iN•iat,1 .,._..e•tl'IWftlllil'ld.tt,~ .... ,..,,~~a:tltt~ ·----·----· NOTICE Alt.Ttpe1MilC~ilMlltt. """6fJM,OW .... tnl.911g•MN lfl'IIMlt1,dlo~(W)~..,,.- -f{(~ ..... b~INJ. ~M6d)'..-bWJ;11 ... ■•II -Ca&atl.Ull,U00--6111:a-U...-tMIIJ,, .......... ---.. .,~ .. ~--,-Dlf i.-. . ----,.,....,, ___ . ACAUTION M i,lll .,alllDIIMUIIP!t!""• ·~~Am"'iltffl1rfWl9tlllJN ~=:r~.=_-,IMfffUlr =~'-won.l"i••· (OtUin.U&T•90IH)l·2Ul,~9il:!.'GJ, ... -............... ,._ Ninlf!WCttrrtpffi...-.,llli!Wlptd•flL 0ACAUTION° ~ ,.llll"Pfllll'l~.lllllllr.l!t k,N4~1N11,-111t~M#til ,,._ifflfltftl:llf}'(af)iltldl11N1~'~' K[~~lnib. hlMWt(J~ilrraQ'tilgll•II f~~L C.K!Af,ll,iiaa),Ul-au.tliSlll•-¥10. .aadilllRl_.,lm~prlmllll~~ ~,11rwpa,tiinm11111111i,pca1, . ___ .., _____ . 11tDltff,fJ,H"'-J'01111t~•11N .,._,~fll}'lll)lflik-""lht m:0mp.11cN1r.-eu• hht1e~~,9'ifillnt!.III lll,iill--.C.d1fdtndl-1t1MMll'lw, C.U.l"-Tll11P'1t--lt.22.11Ptxir1t""I. .id :wtW11611111.1bn. ... 11pttfll>llitlf ~tOl~~f«MtrdMA. RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 288901 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 8 Based upon protocols presented in AT&T’s RF Exposure: Responsibilities, Procedures & Guidelines document, dated October 28, 2014, and additional guidance provided by AT&T, the following signage is recommended on the site: ▪ Yellow 7 by 7 inch CAUTION signs on opposite sides of the light pole, 21 feet below the bottom of the antennas. Signs should denote a stay-back distance of 96 feet from the face of the antennas. No barriers are required for this site. Barriers should be constructed of weather-resistant plastic or wood fencing. Barriers may consist of railing, rope, chain, or weather-resistant plastic if no other types are permitted or are feasible. Painted stripes should only be used as a last resort and only in regions where there is little chance of snowfall. If painted stripes are selected as barriers, it is recommended that the stripes and signage be illuminated. The signage and any barriers are graphically represented in the Signage Plan presented in Appendix B. 5.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS EBI has prepared this Radiofrequency Emissions Compliance Report for the proposed AT&T telecommunications equipment at the site located at 6600 Hidden Valley Road in Carlsbad, California. EBI has conducted theoretical modeling to estimate the worst-case power density from AT&T antennas to document potential MPE levels at this location and ensure that site control measures are adequate to meet FCC and OSHA requirements, as well as AT&T’s corporate RF safety policies. As presented in the preceding sections, based on worst-case predictive modeling, the worst-case emitted power density may exceed the FCC’s general public limit within approximately 93 feet of ATT’s proposed antennas at the light fixture level. Modeling also indicates that the worst-case emitted power density will not exceed the FCC’s occupational limit at the light fixture level. To reduce the risk of exposure and/or injury, EBI recommends that access to the light pole or areas associated with the active antenna installation be restricted and secured where possible. Signage is recommended at the site as presented in Section 4.0 and Appendix B. Posting of the signage brings the site into compliance with FCC rules and regulations and AT&T’s corporate RF safety policies. 6.0 LIMITATIONS This report was prepared for the use of AT&T Mobility, LLC to meet requirements outlined in AT&T’s corporate RF safety guidelines. It was performed in accordance with generally accepted practices of other consultants undertaking similar studies at the same time and in the same locale under like circumstances. The conclusions provided by EBI and its partners are based solely on information supplied by AT&T, including modeling instructions, inputs, parameters and methods. Calculations, data, and modeling methodologies for C Band equipment Include a statistical factor reducing the power to 32% of maximum theoretical power to account for spatial distribution of users, network utilization, time division duplexing, and scheduling time. AT&T recommends the use of this factor based on a combination of guidance from its antenna system manufacturers, supporting international industry standards, industry publications, and its extensive experience. The observations in this report are valid on the date of the investigation. Any additional information that becomes available concerning the site should be provided to EBI so that our conclusions may be revised and modified, if necessary. This report has been prepared in accordance with Standard Conditions for Engagement and authorized proposal, both of which are integral parts of this report. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 202 of 247 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 288901 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 9 Appendix A Personnel Certifications January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 203 of 247 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 288901 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 10 Preparer Certification I, Karl Nicoleau, state that: ▪ I am an employee of EnviroBusiness Inc. (d/b/a EBI Consulting), which provides RF-EME safety and compliance services to the wireless communications industry. ▪ I have successfully completed RF-EME safety training, and I am aware of the potential hazards from RF-EME and would be classified “occupational” under the FCC regulations. ▪ I am fully aware of and familiar with the Rules and Regulations of both the Federal Communications Commissions (FCC) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) with regard to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Radiation. ▪ I have been trained in on the procedures outlined in AT&T’s RF Exposure: Responsibilities, Procedures & Guidelines document (dated October 28, 2014) and on RF-EME modeling using RoofMaster™ modeling software. ▪ I have reviewed the data provided by the client and incorporated it into this Site Compliance Report such that the information contained in this report is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 204 of 247 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 288901 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 11 Appendix B Compliance/Signage Plan January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 205 of 247 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 288901 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 12 Elevation Simulation Existing Sign Proposed Sign Installed Sign Yellow 7 by 7 inch CAUTION signs on opposite sides of the light pole, 12 feet below the bottom of the antennas. Signs should denote a stay-back distance of 81 feet from the face of the antennas. 96’ 21’ January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 206 of 247 ._ .... _ .. __ _ 1----+----+----+-------·. ........ • ____J . . . . • --. . . . D ............. . . . . , .......... ~ ,. - - -I - - -.I ·---.... __ _ •••• ■\"i"1u,111i1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ •••• .... . • • • . . • • • ClllD ... BUILDING= 15' Percent MPE Legend 0 0%-100% 100% -500% 0 500% -5000% ■ 5000%+ Gener al Population Limits Sula 09 Vertical 1 0 foot grid size Mid Zone Avg Carrier Colpr Code IO ATT SIGN IDENTIFICATION LEGEND AT&T NOTICE 2 Sign AT&T CAUTION 2 -Rooftop Sign AT&T WARNING 16 and 2A Signs AT&T CAUTION 26 -Tower Slgn AT&T NOTICE Small Cell Signs AT & T CAUTION 2C -Parapet Sign AT&T CAUTION Small Cell Signs AT&T TRILINGUAL NOTICE S-ign RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 288901 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 13 Light Fixture Level Simulation Existing Sign Proposed Sign Installed Sign Yellow 7 by 7 inch CAUTION signs on opposite sides of the light pole, 12 feet below the bottom of the antennas. Signs should denote a stay-back distance of 81 feet from the face of the antennas. January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 207 of 247 -~■■ll ■~■■a ■,m~■ 1----t----t---1----•E#§~ =c-+---+---+---+---+---+---+---t---t---t----t---1----t----t---l----+---t---'7.----~I ■=-==---.... ■ ■=--------·-• GROUND LEVEL=O' ===-=--=-= -•• -+-.-.-.-.-+■---.-.+-.-.---... i"~~·~~i~■--~.-.-.~ ..... ~.,---+-.-.-~-+---+----+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---t---+----+---t---+--- ■ ■ ■ ■ -----■ ■ ■ ■ ■ -----■ ■ ■ ■ --.. D ............. . . . . . . . . ............. r - - - I I ---.. GROUND LEVEL=O' caza:11 • GROUND LEVEL=O' Percent MPE Legend 0 0%-100% 100% • 500% □ 500% -5000% ■ 5000%+ Gener al Population Limits Sula 09 1 0 foot grid size [Avg 74 to 80 Feet) Carrier Color Code 10 ATT SIGN IDENTIFICATION LEGEND AT&T NOTICE 2 Sign AT&T CAUTION 2 -Rooftop Sign AT&T WARNING 18 and 2A Signs AT&T CAUTION 26 -Tower Sign AT&T NOTICE Small Cell Signs AT & T CAUTION 2C -Parapet Sign AT&T CAUTION Small Cell Signs AT&T TRILINGUAL NOTICE S"tgn RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 288901 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 14 Maintenance Building Level Simulation Existing Sign Proposed Sign Installed Sign Yellow 7 by 7 inch CAUTION signs on opposite sides of the light pole, 12 feet below the bottom of the antennas. Signs should denote a stay-back distance of 81 feet from the face of the antennas. January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 208 of 247 ■ ,_. ■ ■ ............................ GRO UND LEVEL=O' I D ............. . . . . . . . . ............ ■ r - - - I I ---.. ■ ■ ■ ••••••••• GROUND LEVEL=O' -1----+---i-----+---+----+---+----+---+----+--+----+--,_ caza:11 • j --I----+---+---+---+---+---+---- GROUND LEVEL=O' -+---+---+---+---+---+---+-----'------ ,-,__. -... II~ I l 1 I I Percent M PE Legend 1 ~0□ ~;o~ ~~;oz 500% • 5000% ■ 5000%+ Gener al Population Limits Sula 09 FarField Overlay Reflection 10 foot grid size [Avg 15 to 21 Feet) Carrier Color Code IO ATT SIGN IDENTIFICATION LEGEND AT&T NOTICE 2 Sign AT&T CAUTION 2 -Rooftop Sign AT&T WARNING 18 and 2A Signs AT&T CAUTION 26 -Tower Sign AT&T NOTICE Small Cell Signs AT & T CAUTION 2C -Parapet Sign AT&T CAUTION Small Cell Signs AT&T TRILINGUAL NOTICE S"tgn RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 288901 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 15 Appendix C Antenna Inventory January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 209 of 247 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 288901 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 16 Antenna # Operator Frequency (MHz) Azimuth (Degrees) Power Input (Watts) Transmitter Count Total ERP (Watts) Total EIRP (Watts) 1 ATT 700 50 120 1 1545.90 2535.28 1 ATT 850 50 120 1 2094.99 3435.78 1 ATT 1900 50 120 1 2692.66 4415.96 1 ATT 2100 50 120 1 3682.83 6039.84 2 ATT 3700 50 108.435 1 23997.69 39356.22 3 ATT 3500 50 108.435 1 23997.69 39356.22 4 ATT 700 50 120 1 1545.90 2535.28 5 ATT 700 170 120 1 1545.90 2535.28 6 ATT 3700 170 108.435 1 23997.69 39356.22 7 ATT 3500 170 108.435 1 23997.69 39356.22 8 ATT 700 170 120 1 1545.90 2535.28 8 ATT 850 170 120 1 2094.99 3435.78 8 ATT 1900 170 120 1 2692.66 4415.96 8 ATT 2100 170 120 1 3682.83 6039.84 9 ATT 700 280 120 1 1545.90 2535.28 10 ATT 700 280 120 1 1545.90 2535.28 10 ATT 850 280 120 1 2094.99 3435.78 10 ATT 1900 280 120 1 2692.66 4415.96 10 ATT 2100 280 120 1 3682.83 6039.84 11 ATT 3700 280 108.435 1 23997.69 39356.22 12 ATT 3500 280 108.435 1 23997.69 39356.22 • Note there are 4 AT&T panel antennas per sector at this site. For clarity, the different frequencies for each antenna are entered on separate lines. • A 75% duty cycle was applied to NR and LTE technologies. January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 210 of 247 Radio Frequency – Electromagnetic Energy (RF-EME) Jurisdictional Report Site Name: FA#: USID: Site ID: Address: Latitude: Longitude: Structure Type: RFDS ID: RFDS Technology: EBI Project Number: Report Date: Pace Job: Poinsettia Park 14292179 321857 CAL01850 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Road Carlsbad, California 92011 San Diego County 33.11390200 NAD83 -117.30756700 NAD83 Light Pole 5662803 eNode B 6222005431 October 25, 2023 MRSDL022412, MRSDL028406, MRSDL028395, MRSDL022409, MRSDL018605, MRSDL040392, MRSDL040393 The proposed AT&T installation will be in compliance with FCC regulations upon proper installation of recommended signage. Prepared for: AT&T Mobility, LLC c/o MD7, LLC 10590 West Ocean Air Drive, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92130 Prepared by: Exhibit 8 January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 211 of 247 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 321857 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 i TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.0 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (FCC) REQUIREMENTS ................................... 3 2.0 AT&T RF EXPOSURE POLICY REQUIREMENTS .................................................................... 5 3.0 WORST-CASE PREDICTIVE MODELING ................................................................................. 5 4.0 RECOMMENDED SIGNAGE/COMPLIANCE PLAN .................................................................... 7 5.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................. 8 6.0 LIMITATIONS ......................................................................................................................... 8 APPENDICES Appendix A Personnel Certifications Appendix B Compliance/Signage Plan Appendix C Antenna Inventory January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 212 of 247 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 321857 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Purpose of Report EnviroBusiness Inc. (dba EBI Consulting) has been contracted by AT&T Mobility, LLC to conduct radio frequency electromagnetic (RF-EME) modeling for AT&T Site CAL01850 located at 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Road in Carlsbad, California to determine RF-EME exposure levels from proposed AT&T wireless communications equipment at this site. As described in greater detail in Section 1.0 of this report, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has developed Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) Limits for general public exposures and occupational exposures. This report summarizes the results of RF-EME modeling in relation to relevant FCC RF-EME compliance standards for limiting human exposure to RF-EME fields. This report contains the RF EME analysis for the site, including the following: ▪ Site Plan with antenna locations ▪ Graphical representation of theoretical MPE fields based on modeling ▪ Graphical representation of recommended signage and/or barriers This document addresses the compliance of AT&T’s transmitting facilities independently and in relation to all collocated facilities at the site. Statement of Compliance A site is considered out of compliance with FCC regulations if there are areas that exceed the FCC exposure limits and there are no RF hazard mitigation measures in place. Any carrier which has an installation that contributes more than 5% of the applicable MPE must participate in mitigating these RF hazards. As presented in the sections below, based on worst-case predictive modeling, there are no modeled exposures on any accessible light fixture level and ground walking/working surface related to ATT’s proposed antennas that exceed the FCC’s occupational and/or general public exposure limits at this site. As such, the proposed AT&T installation is in compliance with FCC regulations upon proper installation of recommended signage and/or barriers. AT&T Recommended Signage/Compliance Plan AT&T’s RF Exposure: Responsibilities, Procedures & Guidelines document, dated October 28, 2014, requires that: 1. All sites must be analyzed for RF exposure compliance; 2. All sites must have that analysis documented; and 3. All sites must have any necessary signage and barriers installed. Site compliance recommendations have been developed based upon protocols presented in AT&T’s RF Exposure: Responsibilities, Procedures & Guidelines document, dated October 28, 2014, additional guidance provided by AT&T, EBI’s understanding of FCC and OSHA requirements, and common industry practice. Barrier locations have been identified (when required) based on guidance presented in AT&T’s RF Exposure: Responsibilities, Procedures & Guidelines document, dated October 28, 2014. January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 213 of 247 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 321857 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 2 The following signage is recommended at this site: ▪ Yellow 7 by 7 inch CAUTION signs on opposite sides of the light pole, 6 feet below the bottom of the antennas. Signs should denote a stay-back distance of 44 feet from the face of the antennas. The signage proposed for installation at this site complies with AT&T’s RF Exposure: Responsibilities, Procedures & Guidelines document and therefore complies with FCC and OSHA requirements. Barriers are not recommended on this site. To reduce the risk of exposure and/or injury, EBI recommends that access to the light pole or areas associated with the active antenna installation be restricted and secured where possible. More detailed information concerning site compliance recommendations is presented in Section 4.0 and Appendix B of this report. January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 214 of 247 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 321857 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 3 1.0 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (FCC) REQUIREMENTS The FCC has established Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) limits for human exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic (RF-EME) energy fields, based on exposure limits recommended by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) and, over a wide range of frequencies, the exposure limits developed by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) and adopted by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) to replace the 1982 ANSI guidelines. Limits for localized absorption are based on recommendations of both ANSI/IEEE and NCRP. The FCC guidelines incorporate two separate tiers of exposure limits that are based upon occupational/controlled exposure limits (for workers) and general public/uncontrolled exposure limits for members of the general public. Occupational/controlled exposure limits apply to situations in which persons are exposed as a consequence of their employment and in which those persons who are exposed have been made fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over their exposure. Occupational/ controlled exposure limits also apply where exposure is of a transient nature as a result of incidental passage through a location where exposure levels may be above general public/uncontrolled limits (see below), as long as the exposed person has been made fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over his or her exposure by leaving the area or by some other appropriate means. General public/uncontrolled exposure limits apply to situations in which the general public may be exposed or in which persons who are exposed as a consequence of their employment may not be made fully aware of the potential for exposure or cannot exercise control over their exposure. Therefore, members of the general public would always be considered under this category when exposure is not employment-related, for example, in the case of a telecommunications tower that exposes persons in a nearby residential area. Table 1 and Figure 1 (below), which are included within the FCC’s OET Bulletin 65, summarize the MPE limits for RF emissions. These limits are designed to provide a substantial margin of safety. They vary by frequency to take into account the different types of equipment that may be in operation at a particular facility and are “time-averaged” limits to reflect different durations resulting from controlled and uncontrolled exposures. The FCC’s MPEs are measured in terms of power (mW) over a unit surface area (cm2). Known as the power density, the FCC has established an occupational MPE of 5 milliwatts per square centimeter (mW/cm2) and an uncontrolled MPE of 1 mW/cm2 for equipment operating in the 1900 MHz frequency range. For the AT&T equipment operating at 850 MHz, the FCC’s occupational MPE is 2.83 mW/cm2 and an uncontrolled MPE of 0.57 mW/cm2. For the AT&T equipment operating at 700 MHz, the FCC’s occupational MPE is 2.33 mW/cm2 and an uncontrolled MPE of 0.47 mW/cm2. These limits are considered protective of these populations. Table 1: Limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) (A) Limits for Occupational/Controlled Exposure Frequency Range (MHz) Electric Field Strength (E) (V/m) Magnetic Field Strength (H) (A/m) Power Density (S) (mW/cm2) Averaging Time [E]2, [H]2, or S (minutes) 0.3-3.0 614 1.63 (100)* 6 3.0-30 1842/f 4.89/f (900/f2)* 6 30-300 61.4 0.163 1.0 6 300-I,500 -- -- f/300 6 1,500-100,000 -- -- 5 6 January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 215 of 247 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 321857 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 4 (B) Limits for General Public/Uncontrolled Exposure Frequency Range (MHz) Electric Field Strength (E) (V/m) Magnetic Field Strength (H) (A/m) Power Density (S) (mW/cm2) Averaging Time [E]2, [H]2, or S (minutes) 0.3-1.34 614 1.63 (100)* 30 1.34-30 824/f 2.19/f (180/f2)* 30 30-300 27.5 0.073 0.2 30 300-I,500 -- -- f/1,500 30 1,500-100,000 -- -- 1.0 30 f = Frequency in (MHz) * Plane-wave equivalent power density Based on the above, the most restrictive thresholds for exposures of unlimited duration to RF energy for several personal wireless services are summarized below: Personal Wireless Service Approximate Frequency Occupational MPE Public MPE Microwave (Point-to-Point) 5,000 - 80,000 MHz 5.00 mW/cm2 1.00 mW/cm2 Broadband Radio (BRS) 2,600 MHz 5.00 mW/cm2 1.00 mW/cm2 Wireless Communication (WCS) 2,300 MHz 5.00 mW/cm2 1.00 mW/cm2 Advanced Wireless (AWS) 2,100 MHz 5.00 mW/cm2 1.00 mW/cm2 Personal Communication (PCS) 1,950 MHz 5.00 mW/cm2 1.00 mW/cm2 Cellular Telephone 870 MHz 2.90 mW/cm2 0.58 mW/cm2 Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) 855 MHz 2.85 mW/cm2 0.57 mW/cm2 Long Term Evolution (LTE) 700 MHz 2.33 mW/cm2 0.47 mW/cm2 Most Restrictive Frequency Range 30-300 MHz 1.00 mW/cm2 0.20 mW/cm2 MPE limits are designed to provide a substantial margin of safety. These limits apply for continuous exposures and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. Po w e r D e n s i t y ( m W / c m 2) January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 216 of 247 Figure 1. FCC Limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) Plane-wave Equivalent Power Density '/00 10 5 0.2 \ -Occupational/Controlled Exposure - - - -General Population/Uncontrolled Exposure \ \ / \_ - - -_,I' / / / _,,.-- - --- ---- 0_'/~---~--~~---~---~--~~----~-~~ 0.03 0-3 1 3 1.34 30 300 Frequency (MHz) r 3,000 '1,500 30,000 i 300,000 '/00,000 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 321857 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 5 Personal Communication (PCS) facilities used by AT&T in this area operate within a frequency range of 700-1900 MHz. Facilities typically consist of: 1) electronic transceivers (the radios or cabinets) connected to wired telephone lines; and 2) antennas that send the wireless signals created by the transceivers to be received by individual subscriber units (PCS telephones). Transceivers are typically connected to antennas by coaxial cables. Because of the short wavelength of PCS services, the antennas require line-of-site paths for good propagation, and are typically installed above ground level. Antennas are constructed to concentrate energy towards the horizon, with as little energy as possible scattered towards the ground or the sky. This design, combined with the low power of PCS facilities, generally results in no possibility for exposure to approach Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) levels, with the exception of areas directly in front of the antennas. 2.0 AT&T RF EXPOSURE POLICY REQUIREMENTS AT&T’s RF Exposure: Responsibilities, Procedures & Guidelines document, dated October 28, 2014, requires that: 1.All sites must be analyzed for RF exposure compliance; 2.All sites must have that analysis documented; and 3.All sites must have any necessary signage and barriers installed. Pursuant to this guidance, worst-case predictive modeling was performed for the site. This modeling is described below in Section 3.0. Lastly, based on the modeling and survey data, EBI has produced a Compliance Plan for this site that outlines the recommended signage and barriers. The recommended Compliance Plan for this site is described in Section 4.0. 3.0 WORST-CASE PREDICTIVE MODELING In accordance with AT&T’s RF Exposure policy, EBI performed theoretical modeling using RoofMaster™ software to estimate the worst-case power density at the site light fixture level and ground-level and/or nearby rooftops resulting from operation of the antennas. RoofMaster™ is a widely-used predictive modeling program that has been developed to predict RF power density values for rooftop and tower telecommunications sites produced by vertical collinear antennas that are typically used in the cellular, PCS, paging and other communications services. Using the computational methods set forth in Federal Communications (FCC) Office of Engineering & Technology (OET) Bulletin 65, “Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields” (OET-65), RoofMaster™ calculates predicted power density in a scalable grid based on the contributions of all RF sources characterized in the study scenario. At each grid location, the cumulative power density is expressed as a percentage of the FCC limits. Manufacturer antenna pattern data is utilized in these calculations. RoofMaster™ models consist of the Far Field model as specified in OET-65 and an implementation of the OET-65 Cylindrical Model (Sula9). The models utilize several operational specifications for different types of antennas to produce a plot of spatially-averaged power densities that can be expressed as a percentage of the applicable exposure limit. A statistical power factor may be applied to the antenna system based on guidance from the carrier and system manufacturers. For this report, EBI utilized antenna and power data provided by AT&T and compared the resultant worst-case MPE levels to the FCC’s occupational/controlled exposure limits outlined in OET Bulletin 65. The assumptions used in the modeling are based upon information provided by AT&T and information gathered from other sources. There are no other wireless carriers with equipment installed at this site. January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 217 of 247 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 321857 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 6 Based on worst-case predictive modeling, there are no modeled exposures on any accessible light fixture level and ground walking/working surface related to ATT’s proposed antennas that exceed the FCC’s occupational and/or general public exposure limits at this site. Modeling indicates that the worst-case emitted power density may exceed the FCC’s general public limit within approximately 44 feet of the antenna face and the occupational limit within approximately 19 feet of the antenna face. Modeling also indicates that the worst-case emitted power density may exceed the FCC’s general population limit within approximately 6 feet below the bottom of the AT&T antennas and the occupational limit within approximately 5 feet below the bottom of the AT&T antennas. At the nearest walking/working surfaces to the AT&T antennas on the light fixture level, the maximum power density generated by the AT&T antennas is approximately 51.62 percent of the FCC’s general public limit (10.32 percent of the FCC’s occupational limit). The composite exposure level from all carriers on this site is approximately 51.62 percent of the FCC’s general public limit (10.32 percent of the FCC’s occupational limit) at the nearest walking/working surface to each antenna. It should be noted that percentage of MPE is based on spatially-averaged power densities over a height of six feet, with the height of the light fixture being centered within that spatial range. Based on worst-case predictive modeling, there are no areas at ground/street level related to the proposed AT&T antennas that exceed the FCC’s occupational or general public exposure limits at this site. At ground/street level, the maximum power density generated by the antennas is approximately 4.04 percent of the FCC’s general public limit (0.808 percent of the FCC’s occupational limit). A graphical representation of the RoofMaster™ modeling results is presented in Appendix B. Microwave dish antennas are designed for point-to-point operations at the elevations of the installed equipment rather than ground-level coverage. Based on AT&T’s RF Exposure: Responsibilities, Procedures & Guidelines document, dated October 28, 2014, microwave antennas are considered compliant if they are higher than 20 feet above any accessible walking/working surface. There are no microwaves installed at this site. January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 218 of 247 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 321857 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 7 4.0 RECOMMENDED SIGNAGE/COMPLIANCE PLAN Signs are the primary means for control of access to areas where RF exposure levels may potentially exceed the MPE. As presented in the AT&T guidance document, the signs must: ▪ Be posted at a conspicuous point; ▪ Be posted at the appropriate locations; ▪ Be readily visible; and ▪ Make the reader aware of the potential risks prior to entering the affected area. The table below presents the signs that may be used for AT&T installations. CRAN / HETNET Small Cell Decals / Signs Alerting Signs NOTICE DECAL TRILINGUAL NOTICE NOTICE 2 NOTICE SIGN CAUTION 2 – ROOFTOP CAUTION 2A CAUTION DECAL CAUTION 2B - TOWER CAUTION 2C - PARAPETS CAUTION SIGN WARNING 1B WARNING 2A January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 219 of 247 NOTICE (<i) RF energy emitted by this antenna may excttd the FCC's exposure limits for the general population. Stay at least 1 feel away from the antenna. Call AT&T at 800-638-2822. option 9 then 3, for help if you need access wi1hin lttL AT&T operates antennas al this structure. this point you are entering an area where radio frequency (RFt fie.Ida may ucNd the FCC General PopulaUon exposure limlts, Follow Hftty guldeOnH for working In iln RF anvironmenL Knp h. 1w1y from the fronts of lhe antenna ~ Conta<I AT&T at 800-638.2822. op~ 9, 3 and rollow their lns:trucUoos prior to peffo""lng any maintenance or repa rs above this poln~ This ii AT&T Sito us10 ___ _ A CAUTION RF onorgy omitted by this ant1nna may uceed tho FCC's occupational exposure limits. Stay al least 1 feet away from the antenna. Call AT&T al 800-638-2822, opUon 9 then 3, lor help II you nood access within 1 foot. JI A CAUTION £ AT&T operates antennas at this atructure. t~ls point you irt toterlng an .,., wh••• radio frequency (RF) lltld ""'f uceed tho FCC Ocwpatlonal bposu,.. I mlts Follow 11loty guldoUnn tor working In an RF environment. KHp ft. ■way from the fronts of the •ncenn■s. Cone.ct AT&T al 800.ClS.2822, opt. 9, l end fotlow their lnstn,ctions prior to perfom,fng any m1i nt.tn1nc:• or rep• "' abovt th point. Coll Stte USID ___ _ _,01- 0ACAUTION. M lf~rln,-,JllftfflltlllfMl.-0 WU!'l'Gdil~aq(IF)lttdl-,am,lllt f<t~IIOHl&,lutlhib.. ftloWw1tt7,MthH111t_..,ill1111Jf ........ , CeMMl:AT&lam631-2&2l,.,_tMMII, MdlDIIIJWdlrirlmtndlnpriofW,.....lilf ----~~1.i,,-.c. ·---·· ....... , ___ . A CAUTION. M Ont~istower: w.~-,-llfllit!H--•--,rflfff~fU~~lmh c:..u,nMll1tatJG.ffl.llll.opU011,.,.J,a W..-aeililll~prifrltPfflllfllilg ll~Clf~btJl!ldlllb,..._ l'B"Mlnllrldi..ol~lblJINtf~btll'~ lolftltilitlnlft11---.1.i11t1p(MIWI Rf_,...,_....llf.1(1"fJ111'mlf'! . ----·----. NOTICE ll'&TtpffMJlllffllllUltMa l#,o,,IOONIIIJ01ftffl1'""9i111JIU MltJl!rildlo~(Rfl~•qvu,d llltKC6f'IIMI Popul,tlollbpew,tllMll. Followwtypldtlnifal'WlllblglllMIRr ......... CGl!tiUAl&lMIOl).631-ltll,optbttM!dJ, ft,._tlltt'lns!NtUI pi:rkl pnnning iMJt INUllfMUDllf1Nll\,Dlil'fttlilpolnt. ......... __ _, ___ . ACAUTION M 4l&fOll'IJlt!.illltMIUllllillitt. ,_1'tSlli,HAl,.}IOIMtffltffll9J1iffi whfftrldio~(llf}ietdsa17rmt4tht FCCOm1p,1tioulb:posmlimits. ftllowwlrl-,gulddiM'lfwworlingllinRf -UfUCtAT&TIII00-6ll-21n,aptlalllhndJ, Wf9'kiw!flN'll5bl(lioll'spriorlOPNfonrling fllNl1tMll(tW~'#llhil!tht~ripr,IIIIN. ----n.•11111•-- A CAUTION. IA ·~"''"'""' ]'IIIIMt ~ 1111!0 wlllrtAditfltqlttleyflfJlrifS■17rntfflN fCCOm,,tiOltl u,fRllflnib. hllowwlt(Jp!tilelaworkl119ln•IIF nffNlllffl CfflKIAllTMI00-6ll-21l2.opdln9.indJ, HdlollofrtMirilru'IICtlOl'&Jlrioftoptffantat INillflftftr~""°'"''Mspolill. . ----·--·---. 11tDltff,fJ,H"'-J'01111t~••rN .,._,~fll}'lll)lflik-""lht m:0mp.11cN1r.-eu• hhe1e~~,9'ifillnt!.III • .,.--.td1fcltndl-1t1MMll'lw, C.U.IA.Tll11P'1t--lt.22.11Ptxir1t""I. .id :wtW11611111.1bn. ... 11pttfll-llitlf ~tOl~~f«MtrdMA. RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 321857 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 8 Based upon protocols presented in AT&T’s RF Exposure: Responsibilities, Procedures & Guidelines document, dated October 28, 2014, and additional guidance provided by AT&T, the following signage is recommended on the site: ▪ Yellow 7 by 7 inch CAUTION signs on opposite sides of the light pole, 6 feet below the bottom of the antennas. Signs should denote a stay-back distance of 44 feet from the face of the antennas. No barriers are required for this site. The signage is graphically represented in the Signage Plan presented in Appendix B. 5.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS EBI has prepared this Radiofrequency Emissions Compliance Report for the proposed AT&T telecommunications equipment at the site located at 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Road in Carlsbad, California. EBI has conducted theoretical modeling to estimate the worst-case power density from AT&T antennas to document potential MPE levels at this location and ensure that site control measures are adequate to meet FCC and OSHA requirements, as well as AT&T’s corporate RF safety policies. As presented in the preceding sections, based on worst-case predictive modeling, there are no modeled exposures on any accessible light fixture level and ground walking/working surface related to ATT’s proposed antennas that exceed the FCC’s occupational and/or general public exposure limits at this site. To reduce the risk of exposure and/or injury, EBI recommends that access to the light pole or areas associated with the active antenna installation be restricted and secured where possible. Signage is recommended at the site as presented in Section 4.0 and Appendix B. Posting of the signage brings the site into compliance with FCC rules and regulations and AT&T’s corporate RF safety policies. 6.0 LIMITATIONS This report was prepared for the use of AT&T Mobility, LLC to meet requirements outlined in AT&T’s corporate RF safety guidelines. It was performed in accordance with generally accepted practices of other consultants undertaking similar studies at the same time and in the same locale under like circumstances. The conclusions provided by EBI and its partners are based solely on information supplied by AT&T, including modeling instructions, inputs, parameters and methods. Calculations, data, and modeling methodologies for C Band equipment Include a statistical factor reducing the power to 32% of maximum theoretical power to account for spatial distribution of users, network utilization, time division duplexing, and scheduling time. AT&T recommends the use of this factor based on a combination of guidance from its antenna system manufacturers, supporting international industry standards, industry publications, and its extensive experience. The observations in this report are valid on the date of the investigation. Any additional information that becomes available concerning the site should be provided to EBI so that our conclusions may be revised and modified, if necessary. This report has been prepared in accordance with Standard Conditions for Engagement and authorized proposal, both of which are integral parts of this report. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 220 of 247 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 321857 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 9 Appendix A Personnel Certifications January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 221 of 247 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 321857 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 10 Preparer Certification I, Lindsey Dutton, state that: ▪I am an employee of EnviroBusiness Inc. (d/b/a EBI Consulting), which provides RF-EME safety and compliance services to the wireless communications industry. ▪I have successfully completed RF-EME safety training, and I am aware of the potential hazards from RF-EME and would be classified “occupational” under the FCC regulations. ▪I am fully aware of and familiar with the Rules and Regulations of both the Federal Communications Commissions (FCC) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) with regard to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Radiation. ▪I have been trained in on the procedures outlined in AT&T’s RF Exposure: Responsibilities, Procedures & Guidelines document (dated October 28, 2014) and on RF-EME modeling using RoofMaster™ modeling software. ▪I have reviewed the data provided by the client and incorporated it into this Site Compliance Report such that the information contained in this report is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 222 of 247 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 321857 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 11 Appendix B Compliance/Signage Plan January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 223 of 247 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 321857 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 12 Elevation Simulation Existing Sign Proposed Sign Installed Sign Yellow 7 by 7 inch CAUTION signs on opposite sides of the light pole, 6 feet below the bottom of the antennas. Signs should denote a stay-back distance of 44 feet from the face of the antennas. 44’ 6’ January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 224 of 247 ......... • A CAUTION ■ :;!~--~= . :::-::.:::::-.. _ .. _ . ----,-----+------:. =------.. -·---·----·· . ·---. .......... • -■ . . . . • __. . . . . .... D ............. . . . . , .......... ~ ,. - - -I - - -■I •••• \'i"1illi-,.,.-,.--~-n Percent M PE Legend .~~!!!!!~~'1=:='~==~=="''l==~=====::!::=) □ 0% -100% □ 100% -500% • • • . . • • • . •• ClllD ... □ 500% -5000% ■ 5000% + General Population Lrmrts Sula 09 Vertical Duty Cycle Enabled 1 0 foot grid size Mid Zone Avg Carrier Color Code IO ATT SIGN IDENTIFICATION LEGEND AT&T NOTICE 2 Sign AT&T CAUTION 2 -Rooftop Sign AT&T WARNING 16 and 2A Signs AT&T CAUTION 26 -Tower Slgn AT&T NOTICE Small Cell Signs AT & T CAUTION 2C -Parapet Sign AT&T CAUTION Small Cell Signs AT&T TRILINGUAL NOTICE S-ign RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 321857 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 13 Light Fixture Level Simulation Existing Sign Proposed Sign Installed Sign Yellow 7 by 7 inch CAUTION signs on opposite sides of the light pole, 6 feet below the bottom of the antennas. Signs should denote a stay-back distance of 44 feet from the face of the antennas. January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 225 of 247 I ::?~~1, I I t----t-------,..-------~;~~::-f "',1 I ,_____,1----,----,.--: ==-=--=-: "'h -GROUND LEVEL=O' ill -l------1-----l---f--------J----+----t----t------t-------t---r--i- ■ ■ -■■■■■ ■■■■■ •••• \i''l'IM'li41 ■■■■h ■ ••••• .J. I ------! ::.-----1------+-----+---+--+--+--+---+--+--+--+---t--t--t--rl ■ ■ ■ -■ ■ ■ ■ ■ D ............. . . : : ~--········: r - - - I I ---.. caza:11 • Percent MPE Legend 0 0%-100% EiJ 1 00% -500% 0 500% -5000% ■ 5000%+ General Population Limits Sula 09 Duty Cycle Enabled 1 0 foot grid size [Avg: 70.25 to 76.25 Feet] Carrier Color Code IO ATT SIGN IDENTIFICATION LEGEND AT&T NOTICE 2 Sign AT&T CAUTION 2 -Rooftop Sign AT&T WARNING 18 and 2A Signs AT&T CAUTION 26 -Tower Sign AT&T NOTICE Small Cell Signs AT & T CAUTION 2C -Parapet Sign AT&T CAUTION Small Cell Signs AT&T TRILINGUAL NOTICE S-tgn RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 321857 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 14 Maintenance Building Level Simulation Existing Sign Proposed Sign Installed Sign Yellow 7 by 7 inch CAUTION signs on opposite sides of the light pole, 6 feet below the bottom of the antennas. Signs should denote a stay-back distance of 44 feet from the face of the antennas. January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 226 of 247 -1-----+--+---+--+---+----i--t---t-----i--;------i-ill GROUND LEVEL=O' - I ~ I -I' ----I ECTO -----------+--I I I I -,--..---1 ADJ LIGHT POLE = 25'':;,,..-..;:----t--..=;,:,-.....,-2:----IGHT POLE Lt • 1 SEC ~~iil:;l;ir==..,_,;;~~~~~-~1 ~::i •••••••• ■ ■ .. .,!.:~!!-: ==-~~ ■ 1---+--+---+-----t-i■ :;--_::::.::---... -"'. r.;c.-+----i--t--- ■ =----------■ :=:a __ --==-: 1---~.-.-•• -+--+---+.~i'"~~lllil~■-■-■4■-■-■-■-+--■-■-■-■r■-~-+-­ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ .... ■ ■ ■ 1---+----GROUND LEVEL=01''--1-----1------+----+--+-- I T D ............. . . : : ~--········: r - - - I I ---.. caza:11 • ' SIGN IDENTIFICATION LEGEND AT&T NOTICE 2 Sign AT&T CAUTION 2 -Rooftop Sign AT&T WARNING 18 and 2A Signs AT&T CAUTION 26 -Tower Sign AT&T NOTICE Small Cell Signs AT & T CAUTION 2C -Parapet Sign AT&T CAUTION Small Cell Signs AT&T TRILINGUAL NOTICE S-tgn RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 321857 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 15 Appendix C Antenna Inventory January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 227 of 247 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 321857 Site No. CAL01850 EBI Project No. 6222005431 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California EBI Consulting  21 B Street  Burlington, MA 01803  1.800.786.2346 16 Antenna # Operator Frequency (MHz) Azimuth (Degrees) Power Input (Watts) Transmitter Count Total ERP (Watts) Total EIRP (Watts) 1 ATT 700 50 40 4 2239.34 3672.52 1 ATT 850 50 40 4 2323.38 3810.34 1 ATT 1900 50 40 4 4910.44 8053.11 1 ATT 3500 50 30 4 9530.59 15630.17 2 ATT 700 50 40 4 2239.34 3672.52 2 ATT 2100 50 40 4 5560.58 9119.35 2 ATT 3700 50 30 8 23886.36 39173.63 3 ATT 700 170 40 4 2239.34 3672.52 3 ATT 850 170 40 4 2323.38 3810.34 3 ATT 1900 170 40 4 4910.44 8053.11 3 ATT 3500 170 30 4 9530.59 15630.17 4 ATT 700 170 40 4 2239.34 3672.52 4 ATT 2100 170 40 4 5560.58 9119.35 4 ATT 3700 170 30 8 23886.36 39173.63 5 ATT 700 280 40 4 2239.34 3672.52 5 ATT 850 280 40 4 2323.38 3810.34 5 ATT 1900 280 40 4 4910.44 8053.11 5 ATT 3500 280 30 4 9530.59 15630.17 6 ATT 700 280 40 4 2239.34 3672.52 6 ATT 2100 280 40 4 5560.58 9119.35 6 ATT 3700 280 30 8 23886.36 39173.63 • Note there are 2 AT&T panel antennas per sector at this site. For clarity, the different frequencies for each antenna are entered on separate lines. • A 75% duty cycle was applied to NR technologies. January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 228 of 247 Generator Noise Assessment Letter for AT&T Site Number: CAL01850 Site Name: Poinsetta Park Address: 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Rd. Carlsbad, California October 28, 2022 1.Site Description: Site CAL01850 includes a proposed Wireless Facility monopole located in Carlsbad, California. This project involves the installation of one emergency back-up generator inside a ground level equipment compound, located at 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Rd. in Carlsbad, California. 2.Purpose: This letter provides calculated sound pressure levels from the proposed emergency back-up generator when measured at identified receiving property lines. Calculations were performed using site drawings dated September 6, 2022, information provided by MD7, and data from the equipment manufacturer, per the calculation methodology shown in Appendix A. Subsequent changes to the site design may yield changes in the projected post construction noise levels or compliance with applicable regulations and guidelines. 3.Regulatory Setting The City of Carlsbad limits noise in residential use areas to 60 dBA CNEL (Community Noise Exposure Limit). The CNEL applies penalty factors to noise occurring during certain times of the evening and/or nighttime. A 5 dB penalty is added to noise occurring during the evening (7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and a 10 dB penalty is added for noise occurring during nighttime hours between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Table 1 – Carlsbad Exterior Noise Limits* Receiving Land Use Category Exterior Noise Standard Residential 60 dBA CNEL *Adapted from the Carlsbad Noise Guidelines Manual, July 2013. Exhibit 9 January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 229 of 247 4. Relevant Proposed Equipment The proposed site design includes installation of one (1) emergency back-up generator. Calculations were performed to project the noise contribution of the generator when operating at full load at the nearest receiving property line identified through review of the site drawings and aerial photographs. Noise properties of the proposed generator are described in Table 2. Receiving property line locations and calculated generator noise levels are described in Table 3. The following generator is proposed for installation at this site: Table 2 – Proposed Equipment Quantity Description Manufacturer Model Number Sound Pressure Level (dBA) Distance (feet) 1 20 kW Diesel Emergency Back-up Generator Generac SDC020 2.2L 65 21 *Manufacturer acoustic data specifies an average sound pressure level per each unit when measured at a distance of seven (7) meters. See Appendix B. Available specifications and product information were reviewed for the equipment listed in Table 2. Any other equipment that may be proposed such as equipment cabinets, air conditioners, RRUs, antennas, coaxial cables and battery cabinets, are excluded from this study. Other exclusions include ambient noise, existing equipment, fencing, walls, landscaping, topography and property line setbacks. The proposed generator will only run for routine cycling/testing for a duration of no more than fifteen (15) minutes one (1) time per week during daytime hours, or in the event of a loss of power. For the purposes of this study, the generator was assumed to be running at full-load 24-hours per day in order to simulate a worst-case scenario. January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 230 of 247 5.Calculated Sound Levels. Sound level propagation calculations were performed to determine the sound pressure level of the proposed generator when measured at the distances referenced below. The source and receiver were assumed to be at the same reference height in order to account for balconies, open windows and changes in elevation at adjacent properties. All calculations shown in Table 3 assume a free-field environment with no ground absorption, reflecting surfaces, barriers, or other obstructions. Actual results may vary due to field and environmental conditions. Table 3 – Calculated Sound Pressure Levels Generac SDC020 2.2L / 20 kW Diesel Emergency Back-up Generator Receiving Land Use Category Property Line Direction from Proposed Generator Estimated Distance to Proposed Generator (feet) Calculated Generator Contribution at Property Line (dBA CNEL) Lowest Applicable Noise Limit (dBA CNEL) Residential* South 180 53.8 60 *All other property lines receivers are located considerably farther away from the proposed generator. 6.Statement of Compliance Based on the results of this analysis, and as presented in Table 3, EBI concludes that the noise produced from operation of the proposed emergency back-up generator will comply with the Carlsbad Exterior Noise Limits at all receiving property line locations. 7.Limitations This report was prepared for the use of MD7 and AT&T. It was performed in accordance with generally accepted practices of other consultants undertaking similar studies at the same time and in the same locale under like circumstances. The conclusions provided by EBI are based solely on the information provided by the client. The observations in this report are valid on the date of the investigation. Calculations contained in this report should be considered accurate to within one decibel. Any additional information that becomes available concerning the site should be provided to EBI so that our conclusions may be revised and modified, if necessary. This report has been prepared in accordance with Standard Conditions for Engagement and authorized proposal, both of which are integral parts of this report. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 231 of 247 Appendix A Calculation Methodology January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 232 of 247 NOISE CALCULATION METHODOLOGY All sounds originate from a source. The sound energy, produced by a source, creates variations in air pressure which travel in all directions much like a wave ripples across the water. The “loudness” or intensity of a sound is a function of the sound pressure level, defined as the ratio of two pressures: the measured sound pressure from the source divided by a reference pressure (i.e. threshold of human hearing). Sound level measurements are most commonly expressed using the decibel (dB) scale. The decibel scale is logarithmic to accommodate the wide range of sound intensities to which the human ear is capable of responding. On this scale, the threshold of human hearing is equal to 0 dB, while levels above 140 dB can cause immediate hearing damage. One property of the decibel scale is that the combined sound pressure level of separate sound sources is not simply the sum of the contributing sources. For example, if the sound of one source of 70 dB is added to another source of 70 dB, the total is only 73 dB, not a doubling to 140 dB. In terms of human perception of sound, a 3 dB difference is the minimum perceptible change for broadband sounds (i.e. sounds that include all frequencies). A difference of 10 dB represents a perceived halving or doubling of loudness. Environmental sound is commonly expressed in terms of the A-weighted sound level (dBA). The A- weighting is a standard filter to make measured sound levels more nearly approximate the frequency response of the human ear. Table 1 and Figure 1 show the adjustments made at each octave band frequency to contour un-weighted sound levels (dB) to A-weighted sound levels (dBA). This frequency response is defined in the American National Standards Institute Standard No. 5.1 and most other relevant standards related to measurement of noise levels. Table 1 A-Weighted Octave Band Adjustment (+/- dB) Octave Band Center Frequency (Hz) 32 64 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 16000 A-weighting Adjustment (±dB) -39.4 -26.2 -16.1 -8.6 -3.6 0.0 +1.2 +1.0 -1.1 -6.6 January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 233 of 247 +20 +10 0 ~ -10 C: ~ -20 \ '· -30 (8) \ (JJ!ll defioild) \ -40 -50 10 100 1000 10k 100k A-weighting (blue), 8 (Yellow), C (r~). ~~d D-welgt,t og (blk) FIGURE 1 - WEIGHTED OCTAVE BAND ADJUSTMENTS (±dB) Environmental sound varies depending on environmental conditions. Some sounds are sharp impulses lasting for short periods, while others rise and fall over longer periods. There are various measures (metrics) of sound pressure designed for different purposes. The Leq, or equivalent sound level, is the steady-state sound level over a period of time that has the same acoustic energy as the fluctuating sound that was measured over the same period. The Leq is commonly referred to as the average sound level and is calculated automatically by the sound level meter using methods defined in ANSI S1.4-19831. Manufacturer-provided data for noise-generating equipment typically includes a measured sound pressure level (Lp), expressed in A-weighted decibels, taken at a specific distance from the equipment, known as a reference distance. For the purposes of this report, L1 refers to the measured sound level, and r1 refers to the reference distance from the source. Sound varies inversely as the square of the distance from the source increases. This property of sound propagation is used to determine the sound levels at various distances from the source when L1 and r1 have been provided. In an unobstructed free-field environment, without any barriers or reflecting surfaces, sounds pressure drops by 6 dBA with each doubling of distance. This relationship is expressed in the following equation: 𝐿𝐿2 =𝐿𝐿1 −|20 ∗log �𝑟𝑟1𝑟𝑟2�| Where r2 refers to the distance at distance 2 and L2 refers to the sound level in dBA at distance 2. When multiple sound sources are combined, the LP values for each source must first be converted to sound power (LW). 𝐿𝐿𝑊𝑊=𝐿𝐿𝑃𝑃+ |10 ∗log �𝑄𝑄4𝜋𝜋 ∗ 𝑟𝑟2�| In this report, EBI has assumed Q (directionality) is equal to 1 to represent full-sphere propagation. The resultant LW values are then added together, using logarithmic decibel addition, where 𝐿𝐿∑refers to the total level, and L1, L2, etc. refer to the sound power of different individual sources. 𝐿𝐿∑=10 ∗ 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙10 �10𝐿𝐿110 +10𝐿𝐿210 +⋯10𝐿𝐿𝑛𝑛10�𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 1 American National Standards Institute, ANSI S1-4-1983, American National Standard Specification for Sound Level Meters, 1983 January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 234 of 247 Appendix B Equipment Specifications January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 235 of 247 Part No. A0001352186 Rev. A 2/17/21 SOUND ATTENUATED ENCLOSURE D2.2, Generac SDC020 SO U N D D A T A 1 of 1 Generac Power Systems, Inc. | P.O. Box 8 | Waukesha, WI 53187 P: (262) 544-4811 © 2021 Generac Power Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. All specifications are subject to change without notice. NO-LOAD, dB(A)DISTANCE: 7 METERS MICROPHONE LOCATION OCTAVE BAND CENTER FREQUENCY (Hz) 31.5 63 125 250 500 1,000 2,000 4,000 8,000 dB(A) FRONT 20 40 53 50 50 50 46 44 35 56 2 19 43 50 50 55 51 48 44 38 57 RIGHT 18 50 47 51 56 50 48 46 37 58 4 21 56 49 50 53 53 50 46 38 59 REAR 21 56 51 51 50 50 46 44 35 58 6 20 56 49 50 54 54 48 43 35 60 LEFT 18 53 47 52 59 53 50 47 39 61 8 19 43 54 52 55 54 48 44 38 59 AVERAGE 20 50 50 51 54 52 48 45 37 59 FULL-LOAD, dB(A)DISTANCE: 7 METERS MICROPHONE LOCATION OCTAVE BAND CENTER FREQUENCY (Hz) 31.5 63 125 250 500 1,000 2,000 4,000 8,000 dB(A) FRONT 21 57 65 52 55 53 50 50 40 66 2 19 59 61 52 57 55 51 51 43 65 RIGHT 19 59 59 54 57 54 52 52 44 64 4 21 60 58 54 55 54 52 51 42 64 REAR 23 58 59 52 53 52 49 49 38 62 6 21 60 55 53 57 55 52 49 39 64 LEFT 19 62 58 55 60 55 53 51 43 66 8 19 60 64 55 57 56 52 51 44 67 AVERAGE 20 59 60 53 57 54 51 51 42 65 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 FRONT 2 RIGHT 4 REAR 6 LEFT 8 dB ( A ) • All positions at 23 feet (7 meters) from side faces of generator set. • Test conducted on a 100 foot diameter asphalt surface. • Sound pressure levels are subject to instrumentation, installation and testing conditions. • Sound levels are ±2 dB(A). FRONT REAR RIGHT LEFT 2 4 6 8 January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 236 of 247 GENERAc· 11NcusTRIAL I POWER DRIVING DIRECTIONS FROM AT&T OFFICE VICINITY MAP GENERAL NOTES DRAWING INDEX APPROVALSCAL01850 POINSETTIA PARK NEW SITE BUILD FA NUMBER: 14292179 6600 "A" HIDDEN VALLEY RD., CARLSBAD, CA 92011 Sheet No: Drawn by: Sh e e t T i t l e : Checked by: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION So l u t i o n s D o n e R i g h t DescriptionRev.Date: 90% ZD0 08-05-22 100% ZD1 09-06-22 100% ZD2 10-31-22RF CHANGES 100% ZD3 12-15-22CITY COMMENTS 100% ZD4 03-21-23CITY COMMENTS 58 5 5 C O P L E Y D R . S T E 1 0 0 , SA N D I E G O , C A 9 2 1 1 1 07-31-235100% ZDCITY COMMENTS 10-16-236100% ZDENCL. TRELLIS www.cbyd.com SI5& SITE INFORMATION PROJECT TEAM PROJECT DESCRIPTION CODE COMPLIANCE · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · TI T L E S H E E T T1 CUP 2022-0023/CDP 2022-0070 January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 237 of 247 2022 OOFORNIA AOMINISTRATWE CODE, C.C.R., TITLE 24, PART 1 2022 OOFORNIA BUILDING CODE, C.C.R., TITlE 24, PART 2, VOLUMES 1 &: 2 2022 OOFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE, C.C.R., TITlE 24, PART 3 2022 OOFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE, C.C.R., TITLE 24, PART 4 2022 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE, C.C.R., TITLE 24, PART 5 2022 OOFORNIA ENERGY CODE, C.C.R., TITLE 24, PART 6 2022 OOFORNIA FIRE CODE, C.C.R., TITLE 24, PART 9 2022 CALIFORNIA REFERENCED STANDARDS CODE, C.C.R., TITLE 24, PART 12 TIA-222, REVISION H IN THE EVENT OF CONFLICT, THE 1.tosr RESTRICTIVE CODE SHALL PREVAIL AT&T WIRELESS PROPOSES TO BUILD A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILflY. THE SCOPE CONSISTS OF THE FOLLOWING: REMOVAL OF (E) 78' -o• TALL LIGHT POLE C3 REMOVAL OF (E) TRASH ENCLOSURE CONSTRUCTION OF 78' -o• TALL LIGHT POLE AS REPLACEMENT TO TIHE (E) LIGHT POLE C3 TO BE REMOVED CONSTRUCTION OF 8' -o• HIGH CMU WALL EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE AS REPLACEMENT TO THE (E) TRASH ENCLOSURE TO BE REMOVED INSTALLATION OF CYLINDRICAL FRP SHROUD FOR THE ANTENNAS AND PERFORATED CYLINDRICAL METAL SHROUD FOR THE RRUs AND SURGE PROTECTORS INSTALLATION OF (2) PAINEL AINTENNAS PER SECTOR. TOTAL OF (6) INSTALLATION OF (9) REMOTE RADIO UNITS (RRU) INSTALLATION OF (3) SURGE PROTECTORS AT TIHE ANTENNA AREA INSTALLATION OF (2) SURGE PROTECTORS AT TIHE EQUIPMENT AREA INSTALLATION OF (1) VERTIV DC POWER PLANT INSTALLATION OF (2) PURCELL CABINET INSTALLATION OF (1) GPS ANTENNA INSTALLATION OF (1) GENERATOR INSTALLATION OF (2) FIBER CABLE TRUNKS AND (9) DC POWER CABLE TRUNKS. INSTALLATION OF TELCO / FIBER SERVICE INSTALLATION OF A NEW 200A AC ELECTRICAL SERVICE PROPERlY OWNER: APPLICANT: APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE: ZONING JURISDICTION: ZONING DISTRICT: LATITUDE (NAD 83): LONGITUDE (NAD 83): PARCEL #: OCCUPANCY GROUP: CONSTRUCTION TYPE: POWER COMPANY: CITY OF CARLSBAD AT & T WIRELESS 5855 COPLEY DR. STE 100, SAN DIEGO, CA 92111 MD7 10590 W. OCEAN AIR DRIVE, STE. 250 SAN DIEGO, CA 92130 CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF CARLSBAD 3S 6' 50.D472" N 117 18' 27.2412" W 214-140-13-00 LI-UNMANNED V-8 SDG&E TELEPHONE COMPANY: AT&T PROJECT MANAGER: MD7 10590 W. OCEAIN AIR DRIVE, STE. 250 SAN DIEGO, CA 92130 PHONE: (858) 799-7850 MD7.COM ZONING / SITE ACQUISITION: MD7 10590 W. OCEAIN AIR DRIVE, STE. 250 SAN DIEGO, CA 92130 PHONE: (858) 799-7850 MD7.COM RF ENGINEER: JORGE MELCHOR AT&T 5855 COPLEY DR. STE 100, SAN DIEGO, CA 92111 PHONE: (858) 762-2161 EMAIL: JM934@ATT.COM ENGINEERING: TELECOM MANIAGEMENT GROUP 302 WASHINGTON ST. # 150-6850 SAIN DIEGO, CA 92103 PHONE: (858) 248-7678 EMAIL: EDGAR.ORTIZ@TELECOMMG.COM CONSTRUCTION: BECHTEL INFRASTRUCTURE AND POWER CORPORATION 1 6808 ARMSTRCONG AVE., STE. 225 IRVINE, CA 92606 PHONE: (949) 212-4644 EMAIL: SGKINDRE@BECHTEL.COM Costco Gas s1ation Q Meats Q ,eapointe Resort Po·sche Carlsbad 9 tlaEJ > tlrtJitt0ne Rd PoInsen,a KIndercare ,' Polnset11a Park i ii' ~ C "" -ii! ~ .. ~ 8ll!'II0001 8-:, Dr q MAJ>C ProJ cl - Laurel Tree .Apar mems ii \ .. ; l '2 f Ale~ander & Sons \ 9 vi BelleflOYr'et g:d Abella Ave -i !l. • C Jam s G org & The ft Bm,sh Real Estate Team "" North Coast Calvary Chapel HInon cansoaa T ~ Fa1rf1eld Inn & T Surles by Mamon San FASHIONPHILE B Showroom Y !\! Tnton SI Ii- Carlsbad Photo -San ft, Diego Wedding and "" f .. __, ~ ,. 'II ~ .., ' ,;. \ " \ • <!l "), f 9 coast Kids Preschool • ~ ,0 Pacific Rim "" Elementary School # CM'lln.o Ile L-o.• ~ ~ 0: ~ ! 0 ~ ~ ;:, ,! !5 ~ .9l .. ;,. ~ [ Ii' Oarold Dft Pieper, At orney T C0rh1 Orchidle AVIARA 11arbor Pomte C, i-,,.t ~ S <'~en Uncoln, Lincoln Realty Group q --' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' , ' ' ' ' ' ' ' DIRECTIONS FROM AT&T OFFICE: -MO 16 lalleook,"IJ c r:h1ttlm A mPn m Carlsbad Fire staUon 4 9 · Hotels g g !'. m ~ 1>0\l'set\il• 1.11 \ cus10m Floor Designs 9 Lotus Susta,nables C, /•, . ' / ' ' ' : .. ) I l1t ( y Euc ' ' ' • • ' ' ' ' ' ' ' r ... 0 ~ .,, 0 i 0 ~ .., ;J I/ Yl)tUS Grov Trail ..... ~ ~ ,_o 6-s-,.~ .# ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I q Fara's ', • I Hom ,, I GET ON 1-805 N FROM COPLJEY DR, HICKMAN FIELD DR AND CONVOY CT. HEAD SOUTHWEST TOWARD COPLEY DR. RESTRICTED USAGE ROAD. TURN LEFT ONTO COPLEY DR. TURN RIGHT ONTO HICKMAN FIELD DR. TURN LEFT ONTO CONVOY CT. TURN RIGHT ONTO SHAWLINE ST. USE THE RIGHT LANE TO TURN RIGHT AFTER ARBY'S (ON THE LEFT). USE THE RIGHT LANE TO TAKE THE RAMP ONTO 1-805 N. TAKE 1-5 N TO POINSETTIA LN IN CARLSBAD. TAKE EXIT 45 FROM 1-5 N. MERGE ONTO 1-805 N. MERGE ONTO 1-5 N. TAKE EXIT 45 FOR POINSETTIA LN TOWARD AVIARA PKWY. TAKE PASEO DEL NORTE AND HIDDEN VALLEY RD TO YOUR DESTINATION. TURN RIGHT ONTO POINSETTIA LN. USE THE LEFT 2 LANES TO TURN LEFT ONTO PASEO DEL NORTE. TURN RIGHT ONTO CAMINO DE LAS ONDAS. TURN LEFT ONTO HIDDEN VALLEY RD. TURN LEFT ONTO PLUM TREE RD. TURN LEFT. DESTINATION WILL BE ON THE LEFT. THE FACILITY IS UNMANNED AND NOT FOR HUMAN HABITATION. A TECHNICIAN WILL VISIT THE SITE AS REQUIRED FOR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE. THE PROJECT WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT DISTURBANCE OR EFFECT ON DRAINAGE; NO SANITARY SEWER SERVICE, POTABLE WATER, OR TRASH DISPOSAL IS REQUIRED AND NO COMMERCIAL SIGNAGE IS PROPOSED. THE FOLLOWING PARTIES HEREBY APPROVE AND ACCEPT THESE DOCUMENTS AND AUTHORIZE THE CONTRACTOR TO PROCEED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION DESCRIBED HEREIN. ALL DOCUMENTS ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE LOCAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND MAY IMPOSE CHANGES OR SITE MODIFICATIONS. AT&T RF ENGINEER: __________________ DATE: AT&T CONSTIRUCTION: __________________ DATE: AT&T PROJECT MGR.: ------------------DATE: CIVIL VENDOR: DATE: ------------------ PLANNER: __________________ DATE: SITE ACQUISITON: __________________ DATE: SITE OWNER: __________________ DATE: SHEET NO: SHEET TITLE T1 21 22 23 24 25 Z6 Z7 28 D1 D2 TITLE SHEET SITE PLAN ENLARGED SITE PLAIN EQUIPMENT PLAN ANTENNA/ RRU PLAN AND SCHEDULE SITE ELEVATIONS SITE ELEVATIONS SITE ELEVATIONS SITE ELEVATIONS SITE DETAILS SITE DETAILS ••• NOTHING FOLLOWS ••• DOW WHAT'S BELOW ALWAYS CALL 811 o BEFORE YOU DIG It's fast. It's free. It"s the law. NOTE: 48 HOURS PRIOR TO DIGGING, CONTRACTOR TO NOTIFY ALL UTILITY COMPANIES TO LOCATE ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. ERO/RP ERO Sheet No: Drawn by: Sh e e t T i t l e : Checked by: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION So l u t i o n s D o n e R i g h t DescriptionRev.Date: 90% ZD0 08-05-22 100% ZD1 09-06-22 100% ZD2 10-31-22RF CHANGES 100% ZD3 12-15-22CITY COMMENTS 100% ZD4 03-21-23CITY COMMENTS 58 5 5 C O P L E Y D R . S T E 1 0 0 , SA N D I E G O , C A 9 2 1 1 1 07-31-235100% ZDCITY COMMENTS 10-16-236100% ZDENCL. TRELLIS 1" = 70'-0"SITE PLAN 1 SI T E P L A N Z1 LEGEND MONUMENTS SEE ENLARGED SITE PLAN ON SHEET Z2 A.P.N.# 214-140-13-00 BEACON BAY DR. ℄ HI D D E N V A L L E Y R D . ℄ (P) AT&T U/G TELCO FIBER CONDUIT FROM (E) MANHOLE NEAR PARK ENTRANCE TO AT&T EQUIP. ENCLOSURE LOCATION. APPROX. LENGTH ± 1,600 FT (P) AT&T JOINT UTILITY TRENCH WITH U/G ELECTRICAL POWER CONDUIT & CONDUCTORS (APPROX. LENGTH ± 240 FT) JOINED WITH U/G TELCO FIBER CONDUIT. (P) AT&T NON-EXCLUSIVE ACCESS ROUTE (E) TRASH ENCLOSURE TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED (P) AT&T ANTENNAS & RRUS ON (P) 78'-0" TALL LIGHT POLE, SEE PLAN ON SHEET Z4 (P) LIGHT POLE WITH CYLINDRICAL SHROUD "RADOME" January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 238 of 247 -x-x- CENTER LINE PROPERlY LINE EASEMENT LINE CHAIN-LINK FENCE FD. MONUMENT 0• 35' 70' 24"x36" SCALE: 1" = 70' -o· ,. --11 "xl 7" SCALE: 1" = 140' -o· • • 140' -I -O"l CD r---- N n 1,3: 0 0 n n . 0 0 1z I n I LO 0 I fe s 0 0 I ri 18 z WHITESAIL ST. •-·-·-·-·-·-·-· ·-·-·- N89"27'00"W 1173.93' ---~ (E) HANDRAIL L ,.---F '----N89'00'19''W 212.01' R = 5 D. O O' L\=89'45'50" L= 78.35' (E) PATHWAY \_(E) BASEBALL FIELD\ ! N88'58'33"W w m -vO -[XJ (E) BUILDING 1170,74' (E) BUILDING w KETCH WY. I C0 ' -r---- FD. MONUMENT W/ BRASS DISC MARKED "LS 5347" SEE CITY OF CARLSBAD TRACT 92-01 COSTA DO SOL MAP NO. 13282 ~o -0 N . -(.() • C0 -'C/-0 z __ _J (E) MANHOLE NEAR SIDEWALK, TELCO FIBER POC (E) LIGHT POLE (E) ELECTRICAL PULLBOX (E) TREE, TYP. -N89'00' 19 "W 752.17' w (E) ACCESS DRIVEWAY I LPLUM TREE ~-17'59"w 22 9.55' I ~~-b~TANDARD STREET WELL I MONUMENT MARKED "R.C.E. 27214 • SEE CARLSBAD TRACT NO. 92-02 (B) MAP NO. 13842 LO r---- N 0) 0 w C- LO N v b 0 1 z w m - (E) CURB AND GUTTC:R, TYP. N00'42'57''E 25.16' I _N :::i' I m en ;' n 0 -0 z N -I _n ::(l 1 FD. MONUMENT W/ BRASS DISC MARKED "LS 5347" SEE CITY OF CARLSBAD TRACT 92-01 COSTA DO SOL MAP NO. 13282 N . 'CJ-LO • r----□-0 z RD. ERO/RP ERO Sheet No: Drawn by: Sh e e t T i t l e : Checked by: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION So l u t i o n s D o n e R i g h t DescriptionRev.Date: 90% ZD0 08-05-22 100% ZD1 09-06-22 100% ZD2 10-31-22RF CHANGES 100% ZD3 12-15-22CITY COMMENTS 100% ZD4 03-21-23CITY COMMENTS 58 5 5 C O P L E Y D R . S T E 1 0 0 , SA N D I E G O , C A 9 2 1 1 1 07-31-235100% ZDCITY COMMENTS 10-16-236100% ZDENCL. TRELLIS 1" = 20'-0"ENLARGED SITE PLAN 1 EN L A R G E D SI T E P L A N Z2 (E) TRASH ENCLOSURE TO BE REMOVED (E) POLE C3, ±78' HIGH STADIUM LIGHT POLE TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED LEGEND (P) AT&T CMU WALL ENCLOSURE, SEE EQUIPMENT PLAN ON SHEET Z3 (P) AT&T ANTENNAS & RRUS ON (P) 78'-0" TALL LIGHT POLE, SEE PLAN ON SHEET Z4 (P) FIBER/DC POWER TRENCH (APPROX. 45'-0") SEC T O R ' A ' AZIM U T H 5 0 ° SE C T O R ' B ' A Z I M U T H 1 7 0 ° SECTOR ' C ' AZIMUTH 2 8 0 ° (E) GROUND ELEVATION AT THE (P) POLE LOCATION = AMSL (151.60') (P) AT&T U/G TELCO FIBER CONDUIT FROM (E) MANHOLE NEAR PARK ENTRANCE TO AT&T EQUIP. ENCLOSURE LOCATION. APPROX. LENGTH ± 1,600 FT. SEE FULL ROUTE ON SHEET Z1 (P) AT&T JOINT UTILITY TRENCH WITH U/G ELECTRICAL POWER CONDUIT & CONDUCTORS (APPROX. LENGTH ± 240 FT) JOINED WITH U/G TELCO FIBER CONDUIT. (P) AT&T METER PEDESTAL, 200A, 120/208V, 1Φ, 3 WIRE, 5 CLIP, ON CONCRETE PAD (P) U/G ELECTRICAL CONDUIT & CONDUCTORS FROM (E) TRANSFORMER TO (P) AT&T METER PEDESTAL, APPROX. LENGTH 10 FT. PROVIDE (2) BOLLARDS IN FRONT OF METER PEDESTAL FOR PROTECTION January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 239 of 247 CENTER LINE ---PR0PER1Y LINE ---EASEMENT LINE -x-x-CHAIN-LINK FENCE ■------■ CMU WALL ~ (E) SIGNAGE -CATCH BASIN (8 TREE -BUSH Ee) (E) STREET LIGHT 24"x36" SCALE: 1" = 2o:-o: 11 "xl 7" SCALE: 1 • = 40 -0 10· 20· ----40' -I ' .\. '\. '\ .\. • '\ \ . ( ____ _ {Lb.. '\JV TREE \ · . . . . ',., \_BASEBALL FIELD~ -■-·- LIGHT POLE, TY:i. ±30' HIGH TREE ·-·-·- i ■-·-·-·-· _____ .J 0 lri CATCH · TREE, TYP.Y BA~~!Sthe,;;' ~~ SEWER MANHOLE, PATHWAY GUTTER TY:i. LIGf-T POLE, -yp_ CMU WALL I 1 I \_(E) BASEBALL FIELD~ l I (E) CHAIN-LINK~ ! (E) M/\INTEN/\NCE BUILDING FENCE, TYP. ~ (E) CAGED WATER VALVE (E) VALV~ POST (E) ±42' HIGH TREE TAB_E & BENCH, TYP. (E) GATE I I i I I I I ♦ (E) ±35' HIGH TREE ACCESS~ / (E) CONCRETE / f-=::::~::::_::_::_::_-:_":_it~~s:w;A=L~E=-~=-dr -,, -7 I 1 -'v L,_J I I~ LIGHT POLE, TYP. I I] \DISABL~D LOGO, TYP. (E) PARKING AREA ------"s;-----t---- 0 I I I (E) HANDRAIL l (E) STADIUM LIGHT POLE LIGHT POLE,\ TYP. \, !FF-n---, BLEACHER," TYP. \ 0 0 I I I i i I 1 I i I i I I I I I I (E) DRAIN, TYP. (E) RESTROOM CMU WALL PLANTER \_BASEBALL FIELD~ ACCESS DOOR ·-·-·-·-··-r1·-- 0 El 1~~§~ 0 ~~--:;--0 -------v--'8 i-i-i-i-i-1-1-1-1 1-1-1-1-1-i-1-1-1-1-i-i-l-i 0 ELECTR CAL PULLBOX, TYP. (E) BUILDING CROWN CASTLE PULLBOX (E) AT&T PULLBOX (E) SDGE TRANSFORMER NO. D12L426, 304 (E) BUILDING SIGNAGE, TYP. ± 79' HIGH DRIVEWAY ACCESS \_RCV PULLBOX N88"58'33"W 1170.74' Qj LIGHT POLE 1-i-1 ERO/RP ERO Sheet No: Drawn by: Sh e e t T i t l e : Checked by: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION So l u t i o n s D o n e R i g h t DescriptionRev.Date: 90% ZD0 08-05-22 100% ZD1 09-06-22 100% ZD2 10-31-22RF CHANGES 100% ZD3 12-15-22CITY COMMENTS 100% ZD4 03-21-23CITY COMMENTS 58 5 5 C O P L E Y D R . S T E 1 0 0 , SA N D I E G O , C A 9 2 1 1 1 07-31-235100% ZDCITY COMMENTS 10-16-236100% ZDENCL. TRELLIS 1/2" = 1'-0"EQUIPMENT PLAN 1 EQ U I P M E N T P L A N Z3 (P) VERTIV DC POWER PLANT CABINET (P) STACKED PURCELL CABINET, TOTAL OF (2) (P) 4"Ø STUB-UP, TYP. (P) TELCO CABINET (P) CIENA (P) DISCONNECT SWITCH (P) AC MAIN PANEL W/ GENERATOR RECEPTACLE (P) GPS ANTENNA (P) 8'-0" TALL CMU WALL ENCLOSURE, COLOR AND TEXTURE TO MATCH (E) MAINTENANCE BUILDING (P) 4"Ø BOLLARD, TYP. OF (5) (P) CURB TO MATCH EXISTING (P) DC-12 SURGE PROTECTOR, STACKED, TOTAL OF (2) (P) 20 kW GENERATOR WORK SPACE DEPTH, 5'-0" WORK SPACE DEPTH, 5'-0" WORK SPACE DEPTH, 5'-0"WO R K SP A C E , 1 6 " (P) 6'-0" WIDE DOUBLE LEAF ACCESS GATE CEC REQ'D WORK SPACE DEPTH, 3'-0" (P) H-FRAME (P) AT&T ENCLOSURE CONCRETE SLAB-ON-GRADE WITH FINISH SURFACE ±6" ABOVE (E) ROAD LEVEL (OR LEVEL TO THE (E) CURB'S TOP FINISH SURFACE). NOTE: THE (E) CONCRETE AND ASPHALT ROAD PAVEMENT WITHIN THE (P) AT&T ENCLOSURE TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH THE NEW CONCRETE SLAB-ON-GRADE (P) H-FRAME (P) METAL TRELLIS, PAINTED GREEN MATCHING THE ROOF COLOR OF THE ADJACENT (E) BUILDING STRUCTURE January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 240 of 247 24"x36" SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" 11"x17" SCALE: 1/4" = ,·-o· O" 1' 2' I'" - --. - V -'ii,-------- / ' 4' -, . . . . ~ =--. --4- <D \ . \ I ". . • ,. 4' -o" 4'-o" r I \ I I I \ \ I / / -·1 I ., 4 <I. . <J <l C) 1 () Ll <l 0 <l <J Ll <l . <J <l <J <l <J <J Ll Ll <J ""'----(E) CURB <J <l <l <J <l <l <J <J Ll <J <l <l <l <l r Ll . <J " f 6' -0" <l <J • <J <J <J (P) AT&T LEASE AREA ,,s <l Ll " <J <J <l <J <J "Ll t <l <l <1 (E) CONCRETE <J <l <l <J <l <l <J PAVEMENT ~ Ll <J <l <l <J <l <l <J Ll <J Ll <J <J <l <l <J ' Ll <l <J Ll <l <J <l <J <l zi'.l <J <J <l - ; I \_(E) PATH WALK~ ,___-(E) PARKING STRIPE - \_(E) ASPHALT PAVEMENT ~ i:;S n:: <( w • Ul 0 i:;S I ':.t- _J ~ ~ ~ ~ a.. ._..., ERO/RP ERO Sheet No: Drawn by: Sh e e t T i t l e : Checked by: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION So l u t i o n s D o n e R i g h t DescriptionRev.Date: 90% ZD0 08-05-22 100% ZD1 09-06-22 100% ZD2 10-31-22RF CHANGES 100% ZD3 12-15-22CITY COMMENTS 100% ZD4 03-21-23CITY COMMENTS 58 5 5 C O P L E Y D R . S T E 1 0 0 , SA N D I E G O , C A 9 2 1 1 1 07-31-235100% ZDCITY COMMENTS 10-16-236100% ZDENCL. TRELLIS 1" = 1'-0"ANTENNA PLAN / SCHEDULE 1 AN T E N N A / R R U P L A N AN D S C H E D U L E Z4 NOTES: 1. CONTRACTOR TO CONFIRM AND VERIFY THE REQUIRED RRUS, EQUIPMENT MODELS, COAX SIZE, RF WIRING CONNECTION AND DETAILS WITH THE FINAL RFDS FROM SAQ MANAGER OR AT&T RF ENGR 2. EXISTING LIGHT FIXTURE NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY. PROPOSED ANTENNA / RRU SCHEDULE SECTOR ANTENNA MODEL AZ TIP HEIGHT RADCENTER TECHNOLOGY RRU's / QTY.TMA / MULTIPLEXER / FILTER TRANSMISSION TYPE / LENGTH Al p h a A1 NHHS4-65B-R3B 50° 67'-11" 64'-11" LTE 700/1900/AWS5G 850/1900/AWS 4449 B5/B12 (1) | 8843 B2/B66A (1)-FIBER / ± 100' A2 NHHS4-65B-R3B 50° 59'-11" 56'-11" FIRSTNET 4449 B5/B12 (1)-FIBER / ± 100' A3 -------- A4 -------- Be t a B1 NHHS4-65B-R3B 170° 67'-11" 64'-11" LTE 700/1900/AWS 5G 850/1900/AWS 4449 B5/B12 (1) | 8843 B2/B66A (1)-FIBER / ± 100' B2 NHHS4-65B-R3B 170° 59'-11" 56'-11" FIRSTNET 4478 B14 (1)-FIBER / ± 100' B3 -------- B4 -------- Ga m m a C1 NHHS4-65B-R3B 280° 67'-11" 64'-11" LTE 700/1900/AWS 5G 850/1900/AWS 4449 B5/B12 (1) | 8843 B2/B66A (1)-FIBER / ± 100' C2 NHHS4-65B-R3B 280° 59'-11" 56'-11"FIRSTNET 4478 B14 (1)-FIBER / ± 100' C3 -------- C4 -------- SECTOR ' C ' AZIMUTH 2 8 0 ° ANTENNA / RRU ELEVATION WITHIN (P) CYLINDRICAL SHROUD ("RADOME") SEC T O R ' A ' AZIM U T H 5 0 ° SE C T O R ' B ' A Z I M U T H 1 7 0 ° 1ST LEVEL ANTENNA PLAN 2ND LEVEL ANTENNA PLAN (P) AT&T NHHS4-65B-R3B, (1) PER SECTOR, (3) TOTAL (P) (3) 8843 RRUs MOUNTED ON STEEL PLATE (P) 4'-0"Ø x 18'-0" H FRP SHROUD (P) ±78'-0" TALL LIGHT POLE LOWER LEVEL RRU PLAN UPPER LEVEL RRU PLAN (P) 4'-0"Ø x 12'-0" H PERFORATED METAL SHROUD (P) ±78'-0" TALL LIGHT POLE (±8" DIA. PER STRUCTURAL) (P) 2"Ø STD. STEEL PIPE @ ELEV. 67'-3" TOP OF (P) RADOME OPEN ON TOP WITH BIRD SCREEN (P) 4'-0"Ø x 18'-0" H FRP SHROUD (P) AT&T NHHS4-65B-R3B, (1) PER SECTOR, (3) TOTAL (P) ANTENNA MOUNTING BRACKET (SITEPRO1 WITH PART# UTSM-L), TYP. TOP OF (P) ANTENNAS @ ELEV. 66'-11" (P) AT&T NHHS4-65B-R3B, (1) PER SECTOR, (3) TOTAL (P) STACKED RRUs AND SURGE PROTECTOR, (3) 4449, (3) 4478 AND (3) SURGE PROTECTORS (P) 4'-0"Ø x 12'-0" H PERFORATED METAL SHROUD (P) AT&T NHHS4-65B-R3B, (1) PER SECTOR, (3) TOTAL (P) 4'-0"Ø x 18'-0" H FRP SHROUD (P) ±78'-0" TALL LIGHT POLE @ ELEV. 37'-3" BOTTOM OF (P) RADOME (P) 4'-0"Ø x 12'-0" H PERFORATED METAL SHROUD (STAGGERED 40% OPEN) 1/2" = 1'-0"SCALE 1" = 1'-0"SCALE 1" = 1'-0"SCALE 1" = 1'-0"SCALE 1" = 1'-0"SCALE (P) ±78'-0" TALL LIGHT POLE (P) ±78'-0" TALL LIGHT POLE (P) 1/4" STEEL PLATE WITH PRE HOLES FOR RRU MOUNTING (P) 2"Ø X 8'H STD. STEEL PIPE (P) ±78'-0" TALL LIGHT POLE (±8" DIA. PER STRUCTURAL) (P) RRU MOUNTING BRACKET (SITEPRO1 WITH PART# UTSM-L), TYP. (3) 4449 RRU (3) 8843 RRU (3) 4478 RRU (3) DC-9 SURGE PROTECTOR (P) 1/4" STEEL PLATE WITH PRE HOLES FOR RRU MOUNTING (P) DC-9 SURGE PROTECTOR (P) RRUs, TYP. (P) ±78'-0" TALL LIGHT POLE (±8" DIA. PER STRUCTURAL) RRU MOUNTING BRACKET, TYP. RRU MOUNTING SECTION 3/4" = 1'-0"SCALE January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 241 of 247 ~, - . , ~~ x 11 x' ~ "' -. J "' • • "' "' ~~ r r r. i r. i ~~ ~ • • II I I ~ ~ I I 00 . ' 0 • "' -" : . .. . . -I S - I 0 = .. . . -I S - I 0 = <, '- -- - - ff i ,t , 10i r l T H 9 i fT l fT l :, : , :, : , 0 0 ... . . . _ :, : , -, , \ .. . . -" ' : I 0 = .. . . -" ' : I 0 = 8, © 0 © © ' © n J © ~ .. Ill Ill Ill Ill I II I I I I Ill "' ~ ~ " "' I " I o o I I o " 0 I- ' I O r I O r I 0 1- ' ~ I I I I I I I I I O I I O I I O I I O I I I I l\ l ±3 ' - o " i. ±2 ' - 8 " i. ±2 ' - 8 " (2 ' MI N . 4' MA X . 1Y P . ) (2 ' MI N . 4' MA X . 1Y P . ) '~ ~~ ~~ ; - -- - - -- - 30 ' - o " (P ) CY L I N D R I C A L SH R O U D PE R ST R U C T U R A L 12 ' -o " 18 ' -o " (P ) PE R F O R A T E D ME T A L (P ) FR P CY L I N D R I C A L SH R O U D CY L I N D R I C A L SH R O U D 1 • -5 " 1 • -2 " 1 '- 2 " 1 • -2 ' ' 5' -o " 2' - o " 4" c: = = =; c = :: : J I L J '-- - nL J n L □ LJ □ c' - - -- ~- ~ ~- - ,- - r- - - - - - - 7 - ~ 3 ~ 3 ~ '? '- s r - - - ~ '- - , - - ~ I I J er g - ; = ~ L JI I L J r( -, n , , 1 11 11 . W .. . . . - - r n D n L :r : : I ,, lo: : ; : : ; :- o : ; : +.. . I - ·- - ~-1 ~ - - 9 - - - ,. . . - I LJ L - - - - :~ r - ~ -- - I I~ L 10 - 0 t $ I 3 ' I 3 ' I .J . -- 17 ... . r _ .. . , _ _ ., , _ 1 -- - - a - -- E - _ {_ - - - J: = ~~ ~ ~~ : : : : : : : : : ; ; : : : : ; ~ ~ ; : : : : : ; 51 ' = ;! ~ - - c- =; ~ ~ ; : i _ ; ; ~ ~~ ;. . . ; ; ~ ~ ~~ - - ~ u~ " " 111 1~ 0 u~3~ 3 ~ 7 I - ~- ·7 =; = ; : i i " ,. . . . . . . _ - - - - - , "' · q 1~" ~ ' 113, , 3 , / / 1 I L j l ' n □ n I n u n L n D\ ~ ~- - - - - - - , - - - - - - - - - - ' I _, J f ··~ - • I ~a J \ I ~ ~ 11 0 \ o JA § . h ! ! : E ~ QM MD ~ 10 5 9 0 WE S T OC E A N AI R DR I V E , SU I T E 25 0 SA N DI E G O , CA 92 1 3 0 ~ »_ . 1 at & t \: ? ~ 7J ~ (/ ) I ;; a 0 -IS - _ C I 0 0 0 • ~ ~ rr l ;; a Sheet No: Drawn by: Sh e e t T i t l e : Checked by: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION So l u t i o n s D o n e R i g h t DescriptionRev.Date: 90% ZD0 08-05-22 100% ZD1 09-06-22 100% ZD2 10-31-22RF CHANGES 100% ZD3 12-15-22CITY COMMENTS 100% ZD4 03-21-23CITY COMMENTS 58 5 5 C O P L E Y D R . S T E 1 0 0 , SA N D I E G O , C A 9 2 1 1 1 07-31-235100% ZDCITY COMMENTS 10-16-236100% ZDENCL. TRELLIS 1/8" = 1'-0"(P) NORTH ELEVATION 2 SI T E E L E V A T I O N S Z5 (E) GROUND LEVEL @ ELEV. -0'-10" (151.60' AMSL) (P) DC-9 SURGE PROTECTOR, TOTAL OF (3) TOP OF (E) LIGHT FIXTURES @ ELEV. ±77'-0" (229.41' AMSL) BOTTOM OF (E) LIGHT FIXTURES @ ELEV. ±73'-3" (225.66' AMSL) REFERENCE LINE @ ELEV. 0'-0" (152.41' AMSL) 1/8" = 1'-0"(E) NORTH ELEVATION 1 TOP OF (E) LIGHT POLE @ ELEV. ±78'-0" (230.28' AMSL) (E) GROUND LEVEL @ ELEV. -0'-10" (151.60' AMSL) (P) AT&T 8'-0" TALL CMU WALL ENCLOSURE, COLOR AND TEXTURE TO MATCH (E) MAINTENANCE BUILDING (P) GPS ANTENNA TOP OF (E) LIGHT FIXTURES @ ELEV. ±77'-0" (229.41' AMSL) BOTTOM OF (E) LIGHT FIXTURES @ ELEV. ±73'-3" (225.66' AMSL) REFERENCE LINE @ ELEV. 0'-0" (152.41' AMSL) TOP OF FOUNDATION / TOP OF (P) LIGHT POLE @ ELEV. ±78'-0" (230.28' AMSL) TOP OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 67'-11" RAD CENTER OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 64'-11" TOP OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 59'-11" RAD CENTER OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 56'-11" BOTTOM OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 53'-11" (E) POLE C3, ±78' HIGH STADIUM LIGHT POLE TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED (P) AT&T NHHS4-65B-R3B, (1) PER SECTOR, (3) TOTAL (P) STACKED RRUs, (3) PER SECTOR, TOTAL OF (9) (P) 4'-0"Ø x 30'-0" H CYLINDRICAL SHROUD (P) ±78'-0" HIGH STADIUM LIGHT POLE (E) TRASH ENCLOSURE TO BE REMOVED BOTTOM OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 61'-11" (P) AT&T NHHS4-65B-R3B, (1) PER SECTOR, (3) TOTAL BOTTOM OF (P) SHROUD @ ELEV. 38'-3" (P) METAL TRELLIS, PAINTED GREEN MATCHING THE ROOF COLOR OF THE ADJACENT (E) MAINTENANCE BUILDING January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 242 of 247 24"•36" SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" I 6.. 1 ·-0· 11"x17"SCALE:11 = 24"x36" SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 11 xl 7 SCALE: • '. 1/16"= 1 '-0" 4' -- 4' -- 8' -- 8' -- (E) TREES, TYP. •Q,:. •• :, . . 16' -, \_ I I (E) TREES, TYP. • • • Q ; • N \_ 16' -, = 0 I U"l Cl !t= ::::, • 0 0 e::: I :::c ao V1 ~ a.. e::: LL Cl ::::, 0 b e::: :::c I V1 N _J ~ ~ . (E) LIGHT FIXTURE, TYP. n n I 1 11 1 I I I I U11U n 11n I 1111 I I I I ~-I ILJ ~ l .. (E) MAINTENANCE BUILDING (E) LIGHT FIXTURE, TYP. (E) MAINTENANCE BUILDING r ~~ 0~ u~ w~ ..J~ w~ .... ~ 0 ERO/RP ERO Sheet No: Drawn by: Sh e e t T i t l e : Checked by: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION So l u t i o n s D o n e R i g h t DescriptionRev.Date: 90% ZD0 08-05-22 100% ZD1 09-06-22 100% ZD2 10-31-22RF CHANGES 100% ZD3 12-15-22CITY COMMENTS 100% ZD4 03-21-23CITY COMMENTS 58 5 5 C O P L E Y D R . S T E 1 0 0 , SA N D I E G O , C A 9 2 1 1 1 07-31-235100% ZDCITY COMMENTS 10-16-236100% ZDENCL. TRELLIS SI T E E L E V A T I O N S Z6 1/8" = 1'-0"(P) EAST ELEVATION 2 (E) GROUND LEVEL @ ELEV. -0'-10" (151.60' AMSL) TOP OF (E) LIGHT FIXTURES @ ELEV. ±77'-0" (229.41' AMSL) BOTTOM OF (E) LIGHT FIXTURES @ ELEV. ±73'-3" (225.66' AMSL) REFERENCE LINE @ ELEV. 0'-0" (152.41' AMSL) 1/8" = 1'-0"(E) EAST ELEVATION 1 TOP OF (E) LIGHT POLE @ ELEV. ±78'-0" (230.28' AMSL) (E) GROUND LEVEL @ ELEV. -0'-10" (151.60' AMSL) REFERENCE LINE @ ELEV. 0'-0" (152.41' AMSL) TOP OF FOUNDATION / (E) POLE C3, ±78' HIGH STADIUM LIGHT POLE TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED (P) AT&T 8'-0" TALL CMU WALL ENCLOSURE, COLOR AND TEXTURE TO MATCH (E) MAINTENANCE BUILDING (P) GPS ANTENNA (P) 4"Ø BOLLARD, TYP. OF (5) (E) TRASH ENCLOSURE TO BE REMOVED (E) BOLLARD TO BE REMOVED (P) DC-9 SURGE PROTECTOR, TOTAL OF (3) TOP OF (E) LIGHT FIXTURES @ ELEV. ±77'-0" (229.41' AMSL) BOTTOM OF (E) LIGHT FIXTURES @ ELEV. ±73'-3" (225.66' AMSL) TOP OF (P) LIGHT POLE @ ELEV. ±78'-0" (230.28' AMSL) (P) AT&T NHHS4-65B-R3B, (1) PER SECTOR, (3) TOTAL (P) STACKED RRUs, (3) PER SECTOR, TOTAL OF (9) (P) 4'-0"Ø x 30'-0" H CYLINDRICAL SHROUD (P) ±78'-0" HIGH STADIUM LIGHT POLE (P) AT&T NHHS4-65B-R3B, (1) PER SECTOR, (3) TOTAL TOP OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 67'-11" RAD CENTER OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 64'-11" TOP OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 59'-11" RAD CENTER OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 56'-11" BOTTOM OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 53'-11" BOTTOM OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 61'-11" BOTTOM OF (P) SHROUD @ ELEV. 38'-3" (P) METAL TRELLIS, PAINTED GREEN MATCHING THE ROOF COLOR OF THE ADJACENT (E) MAINTENANCE BUILDING January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 243 of 247 24"•36" SCA • 11• LE. • 1 7" SCALE: 24"x36" SCALE: 11 "•17" SCALE: 1/8• = 1'-0" 1/16"= 1,_0• 1/8• = 1'-0" 1/16"= 1,_0• 4' -- 4' -- 8' -- 8' -- 16' -, 16' -, \_ • 0 I ll'J • 0 I . co ~ • 0 I N ~ (E) LIGHT FIXTURE , c::::, => 0 a::: ::c en a... a::: LL. c::::, => 0 a::: ::c en TYP. ·1:::,,.,.•, " -;,,: .. ~ " .. • N I N (E) LIGHT FIXTURE, TYP . (E) TREES, TYP. REEN fflL-------@1 l------------1 -----------( E) MAI NTENAN c E BUILDING (E) MAINTENANCE BUILDING - ERO/RP ERO AT&T operates telecommunications antennas at this location. Remain atleast 3 feet away from any antenna and obey all posted signs.Contact the owner(s) of the antenna(s) before working closer than 3 feetfrom the antenna.Contact AT&T at ______________ prior to performing anymaintenance or repHEXs near AT&T antennas. This isSite#____________Contact the management office if this door/hatch/gate is found unlocked. En esta propiedad se ubican antenas de telecomunicationes operadas por AT&T.Favor mantener una distancia de no menos de 3 pies y obedecer todos los avisos.Comuniquese con el propictario o los propicatarios de las antenas antes detrabajar o caminar a una distancia de menos de 3 pies de la antena.Comuniquese con AT&T _______antes de realizar cualquier mantenimiento oreparaciones cerca de la antenas de AT&T.Esta es la estacion base numero_______Favor comunicarse con la oficina de la administracion del edificio si esta puerta ocompuerta se encuentra sin candado. INFORMATION INFORMACION 02 3W Sheet No: Drawn by: Sh e e t T i t l e : Checked by: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION So l u t i o n s D o n e R i g h t DescriptionRev.Date: 90% ZD0 08-05-22 100% ZD1 09-06-22 100% ZD2 10-31-22RF CHANGES 100% ZD3 12-15-22CITY COMMENTS 100% ZD4 03-21-23CITY COMMENTS 58 5 5 C O P L E Y D R . S T E 1 0 0 , SA N D I E G O , C A 9 2 1 1 1 07-31-235100% ZDCITY COMMENTS 10-16-236100% ZDENCL. TRELLIS SI T E E L E V A T I O N S Z7 1/8" = 1'-0"(P) SOUTH ELEVATION 2 (E) GROUND LEVEL @ ELEV. -0'-10" (151.60' AMSL) TOP OF (E) LIGHT FIXTURES @ ELEV. ±77'-0" (229.41' AMSL) BOTTOM OF (E) LIGHT FIXTURES @ ELEV. ±73'-3" (225.66' AMSL) REFERENCE LINE @ ELEV. 0'-0" (152.41' AMSL) 1/8" = 1'-0"(E) SOUTH ELEVATION 1 TOP OF (E) LIGHT POLE @ ELEV. ±78'-0" (230.28' AMSL) (E) GROUND LEVEL @ ELEV. -0'-10" (151.60' AMSL) REFERENCE LINE @ ELEV. 0'-0" (152.41' AMSL) TOP OF FOUNDATION / (E) POLE C3, ±78' HIGH STADIUM LIGHT POLE TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED (P) AT&T 8'-0" TALL CMU WALL ENCLOSURE, COLOR AND TEXTURE TO MATCH (E) MAINTENANCE BUILDING (P) 6'-0" WIDE DOUBLE LEAF ACCESS GATE (P) GPS ANTENNA (P) 4"Ø BOLLARD, TYP. OF (5) (E) TRASH ENCLOSURE TO BE REMOVED (E) BOLLARDS TO BE REMOVED (P) DC-9 SURGE PROTECTOR, TOTAL OF (3) TOP OF (E) LIGHT FIXTURES @ ELEV. ±77'-0" (229.41' AMSL) BOTTOM OF (E) LIGHT FIXTURES @ ELEV. ±73'-3" (225.66' AMSL) TOP OF (P) LIGHT POLE @ ELEV. ±78'-0" (230.28' AMSL) (P) STACKED RRUs, (3) PER SECTOR, TOTAL OF (9) (P) ±78'-0" HIGH STADIUM LIGHT POLE TOP OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 67'-11" RAD CENTER OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 64'-11" TOP OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 59'-11" RAD CENTER OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 56'-11" BOTTOM OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 53'-11" (P) AT&T NHHS4-65B-R3B, (1) PER SECTOR, (3) TOTAL (P) 4'-0"Ø x 30'-0" H CYLINDRICAL SHROUD BOTTOM OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 61'-11" (P) AT&T NHHS4-65B-R3B, (1) PER SECTOR, (3) TOTAL BOTTOM OF (P) SHROUD @ ELEV. 38'-3" (P) METAL TRELLIS, PAINTED GREEN MATCHING THE ROOF COLOR OF THE ADJACENT (E) MAINTENANCE BUILDING January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 244 of 247 24"•36" SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 11"x17" SCALE: 1/16"= 1•-0• 4' --8' --16' -, (E) MAINTENANCE BUILDING (E) MAINTENANCE BUILDING (E) LIGHT FIXTURE, TYP. • 0 I I{) c:::, => !t= • 0 0 a::: I ::c . Vl co ~ a... a::: LL. c:::, => 0 • a::: 0 ::c I Vl N _J ~ ~ :::;; (E) LIGHT FIXTURE, TYP . n n 11111111 111 II 111~111 u u nttn 111 111 1111111 111 111 utf u . ~irr N >k--!!!!!----- 1 N,-'k--!llll-- • 0 I TREES, TYP. TREES, TYP . \ 1 <:,fl:~ e,(;> ~~:;,;;,,1~:;;;t ··~•"-<c,.~e ~" "<='. g '\ '"!, ... J'IJ ~ e, .. ,;,,;;;;; ', RP ERO/EA Sheet No: Drawn by: Sh e e t T i t l e : Checked by: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION So l u t i o n s D o n e R i g h t DescriptionRev.Date: 90% ZD0 08-05-22 100% ZD1 09-06-22 100% ZD2 10-31-22RF CHANGES 100% ZD3 12-15-22CITY COMMENTS 100% ZD4 03-21-23CITY COMMENTS 58 5 5 C O P L E Y D R . S T E 1 0 0 , SA N D I E G O , C A 9 2 1 1 1 07-31-235100% ZDCITY COMMENTS 10-16-236100% ZDENCL. TRELLIS SI T E E L E V A T I O N S Z8 1/8" = 1'-0"(P) WEST ELEVATION 2 (E) GROUND LEVEL @ ELEV. -0'-10" (151.60' AMSL) TOP OF (E) LIGHT FIXTURES @ ELEV. ±77'-0" (229.41' AMSL) BOTTOM OF (E) LIGHT FIXTURES @ ELEV. ±73'-3" (225.66' AMSL) REFERENCE LINE @ ELEV. 0'-0" (152.41' AMSL) 1/8" = 1'-0"(E) WEST ELEVATION 1 TOP OF (E) LIGHT POLE @ ELEV. ±78'-0" (230.28' AMSL) (E) GROUND LEVEL @ ELEV. -0'-10" (151.60' AMSL) REFERENCE LINE @ ELEV. 0'-0" (152.41' AMSL) TOP OF FOUNDATION / (P) AT&T 8'-0" TALL CMU WALL ENCLOSURE, COLOR AND TEXTURE TO MATCH (E) MAINTENANCE BUILDING (P) 4"Ø BOLLARD, TYP. OF (5) (E) POLE C3, ±78' HIGH STADIUM LIGHT POLE TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED (E) TRASH ENCLOSURE TO BE REMOVED (E) BOLLARDS TO BE REMOVED (P) DC-9 SURGE PROTECTOR, TOTAL OF (3) TOP OF (E) LIGHT FIXTURES @ ELEV. ±77'-0" (229.41' AMSL) BOTTOM OF (E) LIGHT FIXTURES @ ELEV. ±73'-3" (225.66' AMSL) TOP OF (P) LIGHT POLE @ ELEV. ±78'-0" (230.28' AMSL) (P) STACKED RRUs, (3) PER SECTOR, TOTAL OF (9) (P) ±78'-0" HIGH STADIUM LIGHT POLE TOP OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 67'-11" RAD CENTER OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 64'-11" TOP OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 59'-11" RAD CENTER OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 56'-11" BOTTOM OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 53'-11" (P) AT&T NHHS4-65B-R3B, (1) PER SECTOR, (3) TOTAL (P) 4'-0"Ø x 30'-0" H CYLINDRICAL SHROUD BOTTOM OF (P) ANTENNA @ ELEV. 61'-11" (P) AT&T NHHS4-65B-R3B, (1) PER SECTOR, (3) TOTAL BOTTOM OF (P) SHROUD @ ELEV. 38'-3" (P) METAL TRELLIS, PAINTED GREEN MATCHING THE ROOF COLOR OF THE ADJACENT (E) MAINTENANCE BUILDING January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 245 of 247 24"•36" SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 11"x17" SCALE: 1/16"= 1'-0" 24"x36" SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 11"x17" SCALE: 1/16"= 1'-0" 4' -- 4' -- 8' -- 8' -- 16' -, (E) TREES, 16' -, (E) MAINTENANCE BUILDING (E) MAINTENANCE BUILDING \_ (E) TREES. !Yr.\ • • ,. 0 ••• ~ ~ \ . . .. , ... I I I (E) LIGHT FIXTURE, TYP. ... ~ (E) LIGHT FIXTURE, TYP. = 0 I t.n r, n I 1 11 11 I I 11 c::, ~11U ::::> ~t= • 0 0 a::: n 11n I ::c co (/) ~ 0... I 11111 a::: LL I I 11 c::, LJI I", ~ l ::::> 0 = a::: 0 ::c I (/) N ~ ~, ... ,.,"lc"=L_ "'i~-'-..,___....r='·<]S'i:,S}:;. "t.,~ ,,., ~-·.0 <> ' .'iif;•, RP ERO/EA V 'J, \1., Sheet No: Drawn by: Sh e e t T i t l e : Checked by: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION So l u t i o n s D o n e R i g h t DescriptionRev.Date: 90% ZD0 08-05-22 100% ZD1 09-06-22 100% ZD2 10-31-22RF CHANGES 100% ZD3 12-15-22CITY COMMENTS 100% ZD4 03-21-23CITY COMMENTS 58 5 5 C O P L E Y D R . S T E 1 0 0 , SA N D I E G O , C A 9 2 1 1 1 07-31-235100% ZDCITY COMMENTS 10-16-236100% ZDENCL. TRELLIS SI T E D E T A I L S D1 COMMSCOPE NHHS4-65B-R3B NTSNOT USED 2NTSNOT USED 1 NTS(P) SURGE PROTECTOR SPECIFICATIONS 6NTS(P) ANTENNA SPECIFICATIONS 3 NTS(P) RRU SPECIFICATIONS 5 ERIC S S O N ERICSSON 4478 ERICSSON 4449 ERICSSON 8843 m m RAYCAP DC9-48-60-8C-EV NTS(P) GPS ANTENNA 8 NTSNOT USED 9 NTSNOT USED 10NTSNOT USED 4 RAYCAP DC12-48-60-0-25E NTS(P) SURGE PROTECTOR SPECIFICATIONS 7 COMMSCOPE: BSAMNT-3 January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 246 of 247 DIMENSIONS, LxWxD: WEIGHT (W/OUT MOUNTING KIT): RF CONNECTOR INTERFACE: RF CONNECTOR QTY. WIND SPEED, MAX.: D PLAN 1828 x 350 x 208mm (71.969" X 13.78" X 8.189") 27 kg. (59.525 lbs) 4.3-10 FEMALE 14-(8) HIGH, ( 4) MID AND (2) LOW 241 km/h I 150 mph ................ FRONT SIDE WEIGHT: 6.2 kg. (13.7 lbs) ,- I ""' CX) - :a. -,---- 25 ~. ,I• ' 50 MIN. ' 53 MAX. ' tt V ·, CX) j N - -8 I'. ./ llb!I!. \M ;I~; B::T, r-, - 58 Nm 82, 866A DIMENSIONS, WxDxH: 335x277x380mm 13.2''x10.9"x14.9" WEIGHT: MAX WIND LOAD: BREAKER SIZE: 72 lbs (32.6 Kg) EXCL. HARDWARE @ 50M/SEC = 260N 2x30A, DC POWER CONSUMPTION= 1520W POWER SUPPLY: -48 VDC 3-WIRE (2 WIRE WITH ADAPTER) 85, 812 DIMENSIONS, WxDxH: 335x240x455mm 13.19"x9.44"x17.9" WEIGHT: MAX WIND LOAD: BREAKER SIZE: 71 lbs (32 Kg) EXCL. HARDWARE @ 50M/SEC = 260N 814 DIMENSIONS, WxDxH: WEIGHT: MAX WIND LOAD: BREAKER SIZE: DIMENSIONS, LxWxH: 2x25A, DC POWER CONSUMPTION=1440W 13.4 "x8.26"x 18.1" 59.4 lbs (27 Kg) @ 50M/SEC = 260N 25A 464x260x797mm NOMINAL OPERATING VOLTAGE: ( 18.28"x10.24x31 .4") 48 VDC NOM. DISCHARGE CURRENT: MAX. DISCHARGE CURRENT: MAX. CONTINUOUS OPERATING VOLTAGE: VOLTAGE PROTECTION RATING: 20 kA 8/20 s 60 kA 8/20 s 60 VDC 330 V WIND LOADING: 150 MPH SUSTAINED (105.7 lbs) TOTAL WEIGHT: 195 MPH GUST (213.6 lbs) 26.2 lbs DIMENSIONS, WxDxH: 461.39x509.52x161.71 mm ( 18.17"x6.37"x20.06") ENCLOSURE TYPE: NEMA 4X RATED TOTAL WEIGHT: 56.3 LBS [25.54 KG] 20· -'le---].-----• 18.17" ,j • ..... ,,-0 • ~ . .. I U " " .. ' ~ I 6.37" □ LI U ~ FRONT VIEW SIDE VIEW MOUNTING BRACKET I ~SURGE PROTECTOR ·u 51 it•~I ,l 21.00" J, BOTTOM VIEW (P) METAL TRELLIS HSS TUBE (2) 1 / 4"0 THRU BOLTS, TYP. 7\ ~r ---N~:EW GPS ANTENNA ✓ ,----STEEL PIPE, PER MFR V P1000 UNISTRUT 12" LENGTH, TYP. Ai=t~=ll'~l~_,~--f~IPE CLAMP, TYP. - ERO/RP ERO Sheet No: Drawn by: Sh e e t T i t l e : Checked by: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION So l u t i o n s D o n e R i g h t DescriptionRev.Date: 90% ZD0 08-05-22 100% ZD1 09-06-22 100% ZD2 10-31-22RF CHANGES 100% ZD3 12-15-22CITY COMMENTS 100% ZD4 03-21-23CITY COMMENTS 58 5 5 C O P L E Y D R . S T E 1 0 0 , SA N D I E G O , C A 9 2 1 1 1 07-31-235100% ZDCITY COMMENTS 10-16-236100% ZDENCL. TRELLIS SI T E D E T A I L S D2 NTS(P) DC POWER CABINET SPECIFICATIONS 1 Outdoor NetSure 512 DC Power System ™ FLX21-2520 FlexSure® WS OUTDOOR ENCLOSURE NTS(P) PURCELL CABINET SPECIFICATIONS 2 NTSNOT USED 8 NTSNOT USED 7 NTSNOT USED 9NTS(P) GENERATOR SPECIFICATIONS 3 SDC020 | 2.2L | 20 kW NTS(P) MAIN AC PANEL SPECIFICATIONS 4 CIENA 3931 NTS(P) CIENA SPECIFICATIONS 5 NTSNOT USED 6 Intersect™, Inc. PTLC-ATS-3S-12200-CL-ATT January 17, 2024 Item #1 Page 247 of 247 THE NETXTEND FLEX SERIES -48VDC/+24VDC POWER/BATTERY ENCLOSURE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS BATTERY: BATTERY FOR TELECOM & ELECTRIC UTILITY APPLICATIONS 72"x32"x39" DIMENSIONS, HxWxD: WEIGHT: 752 LB (314 KG) WITHOUT BATTERIES AND RECTIFIERS MOUNTING: 2500 LB (1134 KG) WITH FULL COMPLEMENT OF BATTERIES PAD OR PLATFORM CD CD (D n N OCJ N c~ 6X0.750~ 2.68 28 18 N; 0SP r;x IITILJIY ~ 3.50 • ( l lQQQ(I'). . • • 0 0 CD co 0 -• • . 22.83 4.5 ANCHORAGE PLAN r/J 1. ITT "" cr, co N N 0 r--: cr, n N 0 EQUIPMENT COMPARTMENT BATTERY COMPARTMENT (EQUIPPED W/ (3) BATTERY HEATER PADS) CABINET PLINTH W/ AT&T MOBILITY # NEQ.15998 DIMENSIONS, WxDxH: 25.27"x29.99"x39. 70" COLOR: MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE: ULTRA LIGHT GRAY POLYESTER POWDER COAT FINISH 46" C WEIGHT: MOUNTING OPTIONS: 140 LBS (ENCLOSURE ONLY) ±207 LBS (FULLY LOADED) POLE, 4" OR 12" RISER PLINTH, WALL/H-FRAME PAD, STACKING -NO ADDITIONAL KIT REQUIRED FLX21-2520 IS STACKABLE ON TOP OF FLX12-2420 & FLX16-2520 ENCLOSURES 1. 21.5 1. 1 BOLT CENTER DIST 1 VJ 0 Ck:'. .,,w . 1-<0 Z ~w 0 '::i 0 - I - - - FRONT ANCHORAGE PLAN STANDBY POWER RATING 20 kW, 25 kVA, 60 Hz I LEVEL 2 SOUND ATTENUATION ENCLOSURE RUN TIME HOURS: 64.4 USABLE CAPACITY GAL (L) 103 (390) L x W xH in (mm) 56 x 34.5 x 99.1 (1422 X 876 X 2515) WEIGHT lbs (kg): 2090 (948) (WET ENGINE/DRY TANK) SOUND LEVEL: 71 dBA USE HEX BOLT 1/2-13, 1.25" LONG W/ SPLIT AND LOCK WASHERS ON 4 PLACES WHERE LIFTING EYE BOLTS WERE LOCATED----~< (P) PURCELL CABINET STACK MOUNTED RISER PLINTH PER MFR., SEE MOUNTING OPTIONS FUEL SYSTEM FUEL TYPE: FUEL SPECIFICATIONS: ULTRA LOW SULFUR DIESEL FUEL ASTM ENGINE TYPE: CONFORMS TO UL STD 2200 FUEL TANK IS UL 142 LISTED DIESEL BATTERY HEATER CONTROL UNIT - - HEAT EXCHANGER 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 oO (J 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 (J 0 0 240/120, 200A, 3-src PTLC ASCO Series 300-G ATS NEQ.20110 DIMENSIONS, TOTAL WEIGHT: UL 891 LISTED 32"H x 22''w x 1 o" D 80 lbs (APPROX.) CABINET WITH CAMLOK CONNECTOR PANEL, 240 VAC / 120 VAC, 200A POWER TRANSFER LOAD CENTER WITH AUTOMATIC TRANSFER BETWEEN UTILITY AND AN ALTERNATIVE POWER SOURCE PERMANENTLY CONNECTED OR TEMPORARILY CONNECTED VIA CAMLOK STYLE CONNECTORS. PTLC INCLUDES ASCO 510 SERIES TVSS SURGE PROTECTION, A 30-POSITION SQUARED NO PANELBOARD, AND AN ALARM MONITOR FOR UTILITY POWER LOSS SPD FAIL, AND GENERATOR. (VERTIV P /N 151840.) NOTE: GENERATOR INPUT SIDE MOUNT RECEPTACLE (ICL, INTERSECT CAM LOK) MAY BE ORDERED SEPARATELY AND INSTALLED ON EITHER SIDE OF THE PANEL OR INSTALLED ON THE PREFERRED LOCATION AT SITE. DIMENSIONS, HxWxD: 17"X16.8"X7" WEIGHT: 28.6 LBS 16.S" 1/ " r----- -~ If') DI'. I-w P"l r-<[ ,_. :r:w u u.. '-"o W<i:: z DI'. DI'. :r: O' w w ~'-" z ,_. ::E ::E ,_. DI'. □ □ z w w z I-I--> DI'. ,_. VJ VJ :,co ~ P"l ~ ,_. ::::> ::::> OJ Cl. u.. l=l u u ' <l'. z N • • l::J • • st -st -st -st -st ' ' • ' ' --(\J --(FINI I I ' I I ----- C 7'' t t SH GRADE ERO/RP ERO Community Development Department Planning Division °1635 Faraday Avenue °Carlsbad, CA 92008 °442-339-2600 °760-602-8560 fax Planning Commission Memorandum Jan. 17, 2024 To:Planning Commission From:Cynthia Vigeland, Administrative Secretary Via:Eric Lardy, City Planner Re:Additional Materials Related to Staff Report Item No. 1 – CUP 2022-2023 /CDP 2022- 0070 (DEV2022-0206) POINTSETTIA PARK WCF This memorandum provides a correction to the Jan. 17, 2024, Planning Commission Agenda. The version previously posted notes that Item 1 is a continuation of the meeting held on April 19, 2023. That date is incorrect; this item is actually a continuation of Item 3 from the meeting held on December 6, 2023. Attachment: A. Correct Agenda cc: Planning Commissioners Mike Strong, Assistant Director of Community Development Kyle Van Leeuwen, Associate Planner From:Christa Ritchie To:Planning Subject:Public Comment for Planning Commisipn for Cell Tower Jan 17 Date:Friday, January 12, 2024 6:00:53 PM To whom this may concern, I am a homeowner in The Cove development adjacent to Poinsettia Park. I do not approve of this. I have a small child and moved to Carlsbad from Orange County to GET AWAY from unstudied wireless towers that emit EMFs. This can impact the value of my home and our families health. These towers often are not studied and get through without proper environmental impact studies as these companies get in through loopholes just like it is happening in our park. Once one gets in all they all get in. This is not ok. There are several other areas they need to try before building on a residential area RIGHT NEXT TO A ELEMENTARY school. It is even stated within the municipals. As of past years Carlsbad has been known not to follow their own municipal codes and has become a great issue. These towers are not studied enough to ensure safety of developing human bodies. It is not worth it! Christa Ritchie 6709 Whitesail St. Carlsbad CA 92011 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Exhibit 2Additional Correspondence 1-12 -1-16-2024 1 Cynthia Vigeland From:Cynthia.Vigeland@carlsbadca.gov Subject:FW: URGENT: tomorrow’s mtg on WCF @Poinsettia Park From: Nora George <norageorge7@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2024 10:05:21 AM To: Priya Bhat-Patel <Priya.bhat-patel@carlsbadca.gov> Cc: Frank Sung <franksung01@gmail.com>; Teresa Acosta <Teresa.acosta@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: URGENT: tomorrow’s mtg on WCF @Poinsettia Park Dear Priya, The planning commission meeting to decide the fate of future WCFs at Poinsettia Park is tomorrow night. I’ve met with Jeff Murphy, Scott called me, and I chatted with the mayor at a Library Foundation holiday event and I was convinced we’d arrive at a solution. Obviously, Mr. Kemp didn’t receive that memo so the Dec. 6th meeting is being continued tomorrow. We were working with AT&T but they suddenly stopped communicating with us. Staff hasn’t reached out to us with a solution either. Upon seeing the revised agenda packet Friday evening without any viable alternatives, I’m concerned this is headed for an appeal for which the neighborhoods are gearing up and it will not make the city look good. Clearly, these WCFs do not belong 180 feet from homes. 5G is a new technology that has not been proven safe so it is logical and prudent to take a conservative approach. Fortunately, many cities are starting to regain control of their own jurisdictions and are clipping the telecommunication companies' overreach — I hope Carlsbad follows suit. Our neighborhood has been a great neighbor to the park for 27 years. We are protective and vigilant over our park. We tolerate the additional traffic, lack of street parking, and trash generated by the park entrance on our HOA property. I’ve personally communicated with Parks & Rec after hours four times in this past week to notify them about the stadium lights being left on, saving the city money on electricity. We would like that positive partnership to continue so, in the spirit of cooperation, I ask for your assistance in arriving at a solution to avoid everyone the unpleasantness of an appeal. Many thanks! My best, Nora J George (760)930-0065 (619)252-5136 text CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Public Comment for January 17, 2024 by Gretchen M. Ashton, 760 271-6069 gretchen.m.ashton@gmail.com Dear Planning Commissioners, It has taken me a while to gain the big picture and I am sharing two documents. The 2022 5G, 4G CELL TOWER RADIATION A Regulatory Gap by Environmental Health Trust which is attached, and Cell Tower Radiation Health Effects by the International Association of Firefighters which is included below as a link. Both provide a good deal of information. Much more than can be shared in three minutes of public comment. It is important that you have an opportunity to gain a more up-to-date and accurate perspective than what is being provided in staff recommendations and reports, and those produced by wireless telecommunications companies, their consultants, and self-regulating. Please look at the attachments. My comments below bring the information home to Carlsbad. 1. Opposition to wireless telecommunication towers and 5G is happening everywhere. Closest to Carlsbad, disputes are taking place in Encinitas and San Clemente. The attachment lists other California cities that are restricting wireless telecommunications towers. In fact, the City of Los Angeles has said no to towers near all schools. Cities across the country are not just removing and restricting cell towers, they are pushing back against the FCC regulations restricting their authority. Why isn't our city doing this? Countries around the world are well ahead of the United States in understanding, studying, and restricting wireless telecommunications towers. The towers at Carlsbad High School and Calavera Hills Park should be removed/relocated. New towers should be immediately halted until “prudent avoidance of health dangers” can be established. These towers were installed prior to Policy 64. They are grave mistakes not to be repeated and need to be corrected. 2. FCC regulations are 30 years out of date and only regulate thermal heating. Yet counties and cities are establishing policies around these old regulations and applying them to all types of exposure. Technology has changed. There is an entire world acknowledging other types of emissions from wireless telecommunications towers with health hazards. Just because the FCC does not yet regulate it doesn’t mean the dangers aren’t real. 3. Science demonstrates the greatest concern is radiation exposure to children because they are more vulnerable. If children are vulnerable at school, they are also vulnerable at park playgrounds and sports fields. Thorpe Field at Poinsettia Park is dedicated to a child that our community lost to cancer caused by environmental exposure. Are you truly thinking of putting a wireless telecommunications tower a few steps away from this memorial? With measurements taken to the nearest property line, Pacific Rim Elementary and Poinsettia Kinder Care are within a few hundred feet of the cell tower and would be protected by other cities in California, across the country and around the world. In truth, the dangers apply to all people and all ages. Including those living in proximity to wireless communications towers. Here is an excerpt from the International Association of Firefighters. Please take the time to read their report “Cell Tower Radiation Health Effects,” at the following link: https://www.iaff.org/cell-tower-radiation/ “The telecommunications industry claims cellular antennas are safe because the RF/MW radiation they produce is too weak to cause heating, i.e., a “thermal effect.” They point to “safety standards” from groups such as ANSI/IEEE or ICNIRP to support their claims. But these groups have explicitly stated that their claims of “safe RF/MW radiation exposure is harmless” rest on the fact that it is too weak to produce a rise in body temperature, a “thermal effect.” (4) There is a large body of internationally accepted scientific evidence which points to the existence of non-thermal effects of RF/MW radiation. The issue at the present time is not whether such evidence exists, but rather what weight to give it. 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 (5) A doubling of the rate of lymphoma in mice (6) Changes in tumor growth in rats (7) An increased number of tumors in rats (8) Increased single- and double-strand breaks in DNA, our genetic material (9) 2 to 4 times as many cancers in Polish soldiers exposed to RF (10) More childhood leukemia in children exposed to RF (11) Changes in sleep patterns and REM type sleep (12) Headaches caused by RF/MW radiation exposure (13) Neurologic changes (14) including: Changes in the blood-brain-barrier (15),Changes in cellular morphology (including cell death) (16), Changes in neural electrophysiology (EEG) (17), Changes in neurotransmitters (which affect motivation and pain perception) (18), Metabolic changes (of calcium ions, for instance) (19) and Cytogenetic effects (which can affect cancer, Alzheimer’s, neurodegenerative diseases) (20) Decreased memory, attention, and slower reaction time in school children (21) Retarded learning in rats indicating a deficit in spatial “working memory” (22) Increased blood pressure in healthy men (23) Damage to eye cells when combined with commonly used glaucoma medications (24) 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.” (25) The U. S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (26) The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) (27) The Swedish Work Environmental Fund (28) The National Cancer Institute (NCI) (29) The European Commission (EC) (30) New Zealand’s Ministry of Health (31) National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (32) Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organization of Australia (CSIRO) (33) The Royal Society of Canada expert group report prepared for Health Canada (34) European Union’s REFLEX Project (Risk Evaluation of Potential Environmental Hazards from Low Frequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure Using Sensitive in vitro Methods) (35) The Independent Group on Electromagnetic Fields of the Swedish Radiation Protection Board (SSI) (36) The United Kingdom’s National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) (37) The EMF-Team Finland’s Helsinki Appeal 2005 (38) Non-thermal effects are recognized by experts on RF/MW radiation and health to be potential health hazards. Safe levels of RF/MW exposure for these low intensity, non-thermal effects have not yet been established. The FDA has explicitly rejected claims that cellular phones are “safe.” (39) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has stated repeatedly that the current (ANSI/IEEE) RF/MW safety standards protect only against thermal effects. (40)” 4. Our city charter gives city officials broad authority and the privilege to decide municipal matters. Yet it is all within the context of the preamble of the charter. “We the people of the City of Carlsbad, declare our intent to maintain in our community the historic principles of self-governance inherent in the doctrine of home-rule. We the people of Carlsbad, are sincerely committed to the belief that local government has the closest affinity to the people governed and firmly convinced that the economic and fiscal independence of our local government will better serve and promote the health, safety, and welfare of all the citizens of Carlsbad. Based on these principles, we do hereby exercise the express right granted by the Constitution of the State of California and do ordain and establish this Charter for the City of Carlsbad.” 5. A word about parks - a. The city recently invested 25 million dollars in parks and updated the Parks & Recreation Master Plan. A specific process and surveys of the public were conducted to gain COPRA accreditation. Poinsettia Park is “Core” to this accreditation. There was no mention of wireless telecommunications towers being a remote possibility in the survey questions, and not a single resident asked for wireless telecommunications towers in our parks. AT&T and Verizon cell companies are definitely not listed as approved vendors by the National Association of Parks and Recreation for CAPRA Accreditation. b. In our City Habitat Management Plan, the city calls parks “City Preserves.” These preserves have a specific role for connecting multispecies corridors and have a purpose of protecting the land and its values. This is why most of our parks have adjacent conservation areas. However, this is about much more than birds and wildlife. The City of Carlsbad established agreements with many nature minded organizations. 6. In closing please be reminded that the citizens of Carlsbad are educated successful people who truly contribute knowledge and expertise to this process. They have invested their livelihood by making Carlsbad their home. The health, wellbeing, and desires of our citizens are most important. We can have everything for everyone if we work together. There are many voices participating in our evaluation of how to proceed. Those that are particularly heavy- handed have not provided all the information for you to make a fully informed decision and further discredit public comment. Why the agenda? Hopefully, the city can find other ways to generate revenue and/or place wireless telecommunications towers in more appropriate locations than parks. In the big picture, the revenue generated by wireless telecommunications towers is not that much money. IT IS CERTAINLY NOT MORE VALUABLE THAN THE HEALTH, WELLBEING AND WISHES of CARLSBAD RESIDENTS. WWW.EHTRUST.ORG A REGULATORY GAP 5G, 4G CELL TOWER RADIATION 2022 “The FDA does not regulate cell towers or cell tower radiation. Therefore, the FDA has no studies or information on cell towers to provide in response to your questions.” — Ellen Flannery, Director, FDA Policy Center for Devices and Radiological Health to a California mother with a cell tower on her street who asked the FDA about safety, July 11, 2022 "As a Federal research agency, the NCI is not involved in the regulation of radio frequency telecommunications infrastructure and devices, nor do we make recommendations for policies related to this technology" — National Cancer Institute letter to Denise Ricciardi, member of the New Hampshire State Commission on 5G, July 30, 2020 The ACS does “not have any official position or statement on whether or not radiofrequency radiation from cell phones, cell phones towers, or other sources is a cause of cancer.” — American Cancer Society Website "EPA’s last review was in the 1984 document Biological Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation. The EPA does not currently have a funded mandate for radiofrequency matters.” — Lee Ann B. Veal Director, EPA Radiation Protection Division Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, July 8, 2020 Letter to Theodora Scarato Fact: There are no scientific reports by the CDC on cell tower radiation safety, nor does the agency have staff with expertise monitoring the science and evaluating risk. Public information requests found that several CDC website pages on radio frequency were found to be drafted with a wireless industry consultant. "The electromagnetic radiation standards used by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) continue to be based on thermal heating, a criterion now nearly 30 years out of date and inapplicable today." — U.S. Department of Interior Letter to FCC, 2014 Fact: The World Health Organization (WHO) EMF Project has not reviewed the science since 1993. The WHO webpages on cell phones and cell towers are not based on a published scientific review. The WHO EMF Project webpages were written by a scientist who used wireless industry money to start the WHO EMF Project and who is now a consultant to industry. In contrast, the WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer (a separate WHO entity vetted for conflicts of interest) determined RF radiation to be a Class 2 B “possible” carcinogen in 2011. Many scientists now state the evidence showing cancer has increased. EN VIRO NM EN T A L HE A LTH TRUS T | E HTR US T .ORG A REGULATORY GAP No Federal Agency Ensuring 5G or Cell Tower Wireless Safety There is no U.S. government agency with oversight for cell tower radiation health effects: no research reviews, no reports, no environmental monitoring, no risk mitigation and no post market health surveillance for the daily, full body radio-frequency (RF) radiation exposure from cell towers. Blue text is hyperlinked to source. FCC human exposure limits were adopted in 1996 after the EPA was defunded from creating safety limits. They have not properly reviewed these limits since 1996. FCC’s human exposure limits for the RF microwaves emitted by 5G, 4G, cell towers, cell phones, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, smart devices and wireless networks are based on outdated science and faulty assumptions. The limits are irrelevant to modern-day technologies and do not reflect the way people are exposed to RF and actually use technology in the 21st century. E NV I R ON ME NTAL H EAL T H T R U ST | EH T R U ST .O R G Reasons Why FCC's 1996 Limits Do Not Protect: Heating-Based Only FCC limits are heat-based “thermal” limits. This means they primarily protect against the overheating of tissue from RF. FCC’s limits are not based on protecting against non- heating biological effects such as cancer, oxidative stress, headaches, behavioral problems, memory damage, disrupting bee behavior, tree damage etc. Short-Term Impacts Only FCC limits are based on protecting against acute effects. No federal report or research review exists regarding safety from chronic, long-term RF exposures from cell towers, Wi-Fi and wireless networks in the home, school and workplace. The FDA nominated the National Toxicology Program (NTP) to perform animal studies designed to mimic a lifetime of human cell phone exposure. Cancer and DNA damage was found. Another large-scale animal study used cell tower level exposures and found the same tumors as the NTP. However, the FDA rejected these findings. Children Are Not Protected FCC limits are misleadingly presented as being “designed to protect children. When safety thresholds were developed decades ago, the science investigating RF impacts to children’s developing brains did not exist. Current research concludes the limits should be hundreds of times more protective for children because they are more vulnerable. F CC EX PO S U R E L IM IT S D O N OT P R OTECT OUTDATED FCC REGULATIONS FOR RF RADIATION No Risk Analysis or Review of Totality of Science No agency has reviewed all of the latest science. Usually the EPA and FDA use risk assessment to characterize the nature and magnitude of risks to human health for various populations such as children and pregnant women. The EPA also estimates ecological risks, including plants, birds, other wildlife and aquatic life. When groundbreaking studies are published, a quantitative risk analysis of the data is performed. This has never been done for RF. “The FCC and FDA have failed in their obligation to prescribe safe RFR guidelines produced from wireless communication devices to protect the public health and safety. Devices are becoming more sophisticated, and their usage is as common to daily life as brushing your teeth.” — Pittsburgh Law Review “The FCC Keeps Letting Me Be: Why Radiofrequency Radiation Standards Have Failed to Keep Up With Technology” by Hala Mouzaffar ”The wireless industry reaction features stonewalling public relations and hyper aggressive legal action. It can also involve undermining the credibility and cutting off the funding for researchers who do not endorse cellular safety. It is these hardball tactics that look a lot like 20th century Big Tobacco tactics. It is these hardball tactics—along with consistently supportive FCC policies—that heighten suspicion the wireless industry does indeed have something to hide.” — Norm Alster in the Harvard Press Book “Captured Agency: How the Federal Communications Commission is Dominated by the Industries it Presumably Regulates” EN VIRO NM EN T A L HE A LTH TRUS T | E HTR US T .ORG F CC EX PO S U R E L IM IT S D O N OT P R OTECT OUTDATED FCC REGULATIONS FOR RF RADIATION “The National Toxicology Program studies clearly showed that non-ionizing cell phone radiofrequency radiation can cause cancers and other adverse health effects. An important lesson that should be learned is that we cannot assume any current or future wireless technology such as 5G is safe without adequate testing.” — Ronald Melnick PhD 28 year scientist at National Institutes of Health “I recommend public health organizations raise awareness and educate the public on why and how to reduce our daily exposure to wireless radio frequency radiation. Protective public health policy is needed now. It is time for regulatory bodies to fully evaluate the research and develop science based exposure limits that truly protect the public and the environment.” — Linda S. Birnbaum, PhD, Former Director, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Toxicology Program of the National Institutes of Health. "Now we have 5G rolling out in massive quantities, without due diligence to determine are these sources of radiation safe not only for humans but for wildlife. And the answer is, no, they are not." — Albert M. Manville II, Ph.D. Adjunct Professor, Johns Hopkins University, Wildlife Biologist (17 years), retired from Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service “Given the human, animal and experimental evidence, I assert that, to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, the probability that RF exposure causes gliomas and neuromas is high.” — Christopher Portier PhD former Director of the United States National Center for Environmental Health at the CDC, former Director of the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. “We should not wait to protect children’s brains. The science is now clear and compelling indicating that wireless technology is harmful to health, especially to for children. Wireless radiation is repeating the history of lead, tobacco and DDT.” — Devra Davis PhD, MPH, President of Environmental Health Trust, founding director of the Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology of the U.S. National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, and a member of the team of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scientists who were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 EN VIRO NM EN T A L HE A LTH TRUS T | E HTR US T .ORG T H E N E E D F OR A C C O UN T A BI L IT Y O N W IREL ESS S A FETY EXPERT VOICES “I am calling on my industry to bring safer technology to market. The current implementation of technology is not safe. Take a good look at the science. This is about our children’s future. Do not be lulled into believing that 25-year-old standards can protect the youngest and most vulnerable. They simply cannot.” — Frank Clegg, Former President of Microsoft Canada, CEO of Canadians for Safe Technology “A moratorium is urgently needed on the implementation of 5G for wireless communication.” — Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD , advisory to World Health Organization international Agency for Research on Cancer, Department of Oncology, University Hospital, Örebro, Sweden (retired) , leads the Environment and Cancer Research Foundation “The evidence indicating wireless is carcinogenic has increased and can no longer be ignored. If the World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer were to meet to review all of the evidence, we believe the weight of evidence supports a new determination- that wireless radiofrequency radiation is a human carcinogen.” — Anthony B. Miller MD, Professor Emeritus, Dalla Lana School of Public Health of the University of Toronto. Former Senior Epidemiologist for the International Agency for Research on Cancer and former Director of the Epidemiology Unit of the National Cancer Institute of Canada “Most parents believe that cellphones were safety-tested before they came on the market. We assume that our federal health and environmental agencies regularly review the latest research and ensure that these incredible devices are safe. They do not. Children are not little adults. As we sadly learned with early childhood lead exposures leaving long-lasting impairments, the developing brain is particularly susceptible.” — Jerome Paulson, MD , Professor Emeritus, George Washington University, Milliken School of Public Health, former Chair of American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Environmental Health “The exposure levels of the Federal Communications Commission are totally outdated and do not protect the health of the public, especially of children. I urge you to take strong and active steps to reduce exposure of children and staff to excessive levels of radiofrequency EMFS within your schools." — David O. Carpenter, M.D. Director, Institute for Health and the Environment University at Albany EN VIRO NM EN T A L HE A LTH TRUS T | E HTR US T .ORG T H E URGE NT NEED FO R S A FER T E CHNO LO G Y EXPERT VOICES Thinner skulls allow RF radiation to move easier into the brain. Higher water content in brain tissue which is more conductive to electricity. Smaller heads result in a shorter distance for the RF to travel from the skull to critical brain regions important for learning and memory. Their brains are still developing. Children have more active stem cells- a type of cell scientifically found to be uniquely impacted by RF. Children will have a longer lifetime of higher exposures, starting from before they are born. Cell towers, cell phones and Wi-Fi emit wireless radiofrequency (RF) radiation. Children are more vulnerable to RF radiation, just as they are to other environmental exposures. They have proportionately more exposure to RF compared to adults. More importantly, a child’s brain is rapidly developing and more sensitive. Even very low exposures in childhood can have serious impacts later in life. Children absorb higher levels of RF radiation deeper into their brains and bodies because they have: Children are more sensitive to RF impacts because: EN VIRO NM EN T A L HE A LTH TRUS T | E HTR US T .ORG CHILDREN’S VULNERABILITY TO WIRELESS RADIOFREQUENCY (RF) RADIATION PDF is hyperlinked to sources. Headaches Memory problems Dizziness Depression Sleep problems The American Academy of Pediatrics states: “In recent years, concern has increased about exposure to radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic radiation emitted from cell phones and phone station antennas. An Egyptian study confirmed concerns that living nearby mobile phone base stations increased the risk for developing: Short-term exposure to these fields in experimental studies have not always shown negative effects, but this does not rule out cumulative damage from these fields, so larger studies over longer periods are needed to help understand who is at risk. In large studies, an association has been observed between symptoms and exposure to these fields in the everyday environment.” –American Academy of Pediatrics HealthyChildren.org EN VIRO NM EN T A L HE A LTH TRUS T | E HTR US T .ORG Bold blue on this PDF are hyperlinked. CELL TOWER RF RADIATION AND CANCER In 2011, radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) were classified as a Group 2B possible carcinogen by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (WHO/IARC). The WHO/IARC scientists clarified that this determination was for RF-EMF from any source be it cell phones, wireless devices, cell towers or any other type of wireless equipment. Since 2011, the published peer-reviewed scientific evidence associating RF-EMF (also known as RF-EMR and RFR) to cancer and other adverse effects has significantly increased. A large-scale animal study published in Environmental Research found rats exposed to RF levels comparable to cell tower emissions had elevated cancers, the very same cancers also found in the US National Toxicology Program animal study of cell phone level RF that found “clear evidence” of cancer in carefully controlled conditions (Falcioni 2018). In 2019, the WHO/IARC advisory committee recommended that radiofrequency radiation be re-evaluated as a “high” priority in light of the new research. The date of the re- evaluation has not been set. Currently, several scientists conclude that the weight of currently available, peer-reviewed evidence supports the conclusion that radiofrequency radiation is a proven human carcinogen (Hardell and Carlberg 2017, Peleg et al. 2022, Miller et al. 2018). The World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer Classified Radiofrequency Radiation as a "Possible" Carcinogen in 2011 Natural Resources Defense Council: Amicus Brief in EHT et al v. the FCC documents critical regulatory gaps regarding environmental effects. Environmental Working Group: Published research on the need for FCC limits to be hundreds of times stronger to protect children and sent letters to lawmakers in opposition to 5G streamlining laws. Berkshire-Litchfield Environmental Council: Amicus Brief on the environmental effects and lack of adequate regulations. Greenpeace France: Position statement on 5G as creating “digital pollution” that will increase carbon emissions, increase e-waste, strip the earth of natural resources and contribute to human tragedies on a global scale. Ecologists in Action: Position on 5G calls for precaution. Green Party, California: Statement on 5G recommends adopting recommendations of New Hampshire State 5G Commission to reduce wireless exposures and promote safer alternative technologies. E NVI R O N M E NTAL H EA L T H T R UST | E H T R U ST.O R G This PDF is hyperlinked. Environmental Groups Calling For Caution 5G & Wireless Networks Sierra Club Washington DC: Testified that street trees could be at risk from the proliferation of 5G small cells and equipment. Sierra Club California: Opposed streamlining 5G “small cell” installations because they not only would create aesthetic blight, but also increase RF radiation levels. Los Cerritos Wetlands Task Force of the Sierra Club Angeles: Opposed 5G cell tower referencing studies indicating RF radiation could harm birds and insects. They called for an environmental impact report on health and biological impacts from 5G towers in the city. Sierra Club California and Nevada Desert Committee: 2022 Desert Report includes a chapter with information on 5G’s “immense infrastructure that will certainly be costly not only in financial terms but also in energy costs.” Extinction Rebellion Belgium: Protesting the increased energy consumption of the large-scale deployment of the 5G “which is unacceptable while we are currently fighting against global warming.” Extinction Rebellion Orléans” France: Actions protesting the ecological impacts of 5G include posters and dramatic protests. Numerous environmental groups have written letters and appeals cautioning that the unfettered proliferation of 5G and new wireless networks will result in environmental impacts such as increased energy consumption, damage to the tree canopy, harm to pollinators and wildlife. "Scientists are now realizing that non- ionizing radiation also can cause biological effects in all systems of the body and in wildlife, including changes in DNA." Natural Resources Defense Council EN VIRO NM EN T A L HE A LTH TRUS T | E HTR US T .ORG In 2020, the New Hampshire State Commission issued a Final Report with 15 recommendations to “to protect people, wildlife, and the environment from harmful levels of radiation” after a year-long investigation with numerous meetings and expert testimony. A resolution to U.S. Congress to require the FCC to commission an independent health study and review of safety limits. New measurement protocols needed to evaluate high data rate, signal characteristics associated with biological effects and summative effects of multiple radiation sources. Engage agencies with ecological knowledge to develop RF-radiation safety limits that will protect the trees, plants, birds, insects and pollinators. Under the National Environmental Policy Act, FCC should do an environmental impact statement as to the effect on New Hampshire and the country as a whole from 5G and the expansion of RF wireless technologies. Recommendations To Update RF Exposure Regulations With New Science Recommendations To Address Impacts to Wildlife And Environment Require setbacks of 1,640 feet for new wireless antennas from residences, businesses and schools. Cell phones and wireless devices should be equipped with updated software that stops cell phones from radiating when positioned against the body. Establish RF radiation-free zones in commercial and public buildings. New Hampshire health agencies should educate the public on minimizing RF exposure with public service announcements on radio, television, print. New Hampshire schools and libraries should replace Wi-Fi with hardwired connections. Support statewide deployment of fiber optic cable connectivity with wired connections inside homes. State should measure RFR and post maps with RF measurements.. Require 5G structures to be labeled for RFR at eye level and readable from nine feet away. RFR signal strength measurements for cell sites should be done by independent contractors. NH professional licensure to offer RF measurement education for home inspectors. Warning signs posted in commercial and Recommendations To Reduce Public Exposure Recommendations To Utilize Safer Alternatives Recommendations To Increase Transparency public buildings. "A likely explanation as to why regulatory agencies have opted to ignore the body of scientific evidence demonstrating the negative impact of cellphone radiation is that those agencies are “captured.” N E W H AM P SHI R E STA TE C O M M I S S I ON 2020 REPORT: 5G HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT Insurers rank wireless, cell tower, and 5G RFR non-ionizing electromagnetic field (EMF) radiation as a “high” risk, comparing the issue to lead and asbestos. Most insurance plans have “electromagnetic field exclusions” and do not insure for long-term RFR damages. Additionally, some insurance plans will not provide a defense for any supervision instruction or recommendation given "or which should have been given" in connection to EMFs. Wireless RFR and non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation are defined as a type of “pollution” by wireless companies themselves. U.S. mobile operators have been unable to get insurance to cover liabilities related to damages from long-term RFR exposure. Wireless companies warn their shareholders of RFR risk but do not warn users of their products, nor do the companies warn the people exposed to emissions from their infrastructure. 5G and Cell Towers Are an Uninsurable Risk When a new cell tower is proposed, the first question to ask is: "Do you have insurance for damages from long-term exposure to the radiofrequency radiation (RFR)?" Usually the answer is "No." Why? Insurance companies rank the risk as "HIGH." E NV I R O N ME NTAL H EAL T H T R U ST | EH T R U ST.O R G This PDF is hyperlinked. For more on legal liability issues go to ehtrust.org 5 G , C E L L TO W E R S A N D W IREL ESS LEGAL & LIABILITY ISSUES Verizon 10-K Report "Our wireless business also faces personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits relating to alleged health effects of wireless phones or radio frequency transmitters. We may incur significant expenses in defending these lawsuits. In addition, we may be required to pay significant awards or settlements.” Crown Castle 10-K Report "We cannot guarantee that claims relating to radio frequency emissions will not arise in the future or that the results of such studies will not be adverse to us...If a connection between radio frequency emissions and possible negative health effects were established, our operations, costs, or revenues may be materially and adversely affected. We currently do not maintain any significant insurance with respect to these matters.” AT&T 10-K Report "In the wireless area, we also face current and potential litigation relating to alleged adverse health effects on customers or employees who use such technologies including, for example, wireless devices. We may incur significant expenses defending such suits or government charges and may be required to pay amounts or otherwise change our operations in ways that could materially adversely affect our operations or financial results.” T- MOBILE 10-K Report "Our business could be adversely affected by findings of product liability for health or safety risks from wireless devices and transmission equipment, as well as by changes to regulations or radio frequency emission standards." EN V I R O N M EN T A L H E A L T H TRU S T | E HTRU S T .O R G This PDF is hyperlinked. For more on legal liability issues go to ehtrust.org Cell Tower Companies Warn Shareholders of Risk From Cell Tower Radiation Why Don't They Warn Families Living Near Cell Towers? American Tower 10-K "If a scientific study or court decision resulted in a finding that radio frequency emissions pose health risks to consumers, it could negatively impact our tenants and the market for wireless services, which could materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations or financial condition. We do not maintain any significant insurance with respect to these matters." Nokia 10-K "Although our products are designed to meet all relevant safety standards and other recommendations and regulatory requirements globally, we cannot guarantee we will not become subject to product liability claims or be held liable for such claims, which could have a material adverse effect on us." Qualcomm 10-K "If wireless handsets pose health and safety risks, we may be subject to new regulations, and demand for our products and those of our licensees and customers may decrease." Ericsson Annual Report "Any perceived risk or new scientific findings of adverse health effects from mobile communication devices and equipment could adversely affect us through a reduction in sales or through liability claims." E NV I R O N ME NTAL H EAL T H T R U ST | EH T R U ST.O R G This PDF is hyperlinked. For more on legal liability issues go to ehtrust.org Cell Tower Companies Warn Shareholders of Risk From Cell Tower Radiation Why Don't They Warn Families Living Near Cell Towers? "In addition, the FCC has from time to time gathered data regarding wireless device emissions, and its assessment of the risks associated with using wireless devices may evolve based on its findings. Any of these allegations or changes in risk assessments could result in customers purchasing fewer devices and wireless services, could result in significant legal and regulatory liability, and could have a material adverse effect on our business, reputation, financial condition, cash flows and operating results." (T- Mobile 10-K Report page 21) EN V I R O N M EN T A L H E A L T H TRU S T | E HTRU S T .O R G This PDF is hyperlinked. For more on legal liability issues go to ehtrust.org T-Mobile Warns of the Risk of 5G and Lawsuits The Data on Risk Could Change, Impacting Cash Flow T-Mobile 10-K Report 2/2023 "Negative public perception of, and regulations regarding, the perceived health risks relating to 5G networks could undermine market acceptance of our 5G services" (page 13) "We, along with equipment manufacturers and other carriers, are subject to current and potential future lawsuits alleging adverse health effects arising from the use of wireless handsets or from wireless transmission equipment such as cell towers." T-Mobile advertises to the public about going "live"but omits the warnings they give to shareholdersregarding 5G, regulatory changes and riskperception. A 2000 Ecolog Institute Report commissioned by T-Mobile and DeTeMobil Deutsche Telekom MobilNet recommended an RF exposure limit 1000x lower than the FCC’s current power density limit after reviewing the research on biological effects, including impacts to the immune system, central nervous system, hormones, cancer, neurotransmitters and fertility. Verizon Total Mobile Protection Plan Defines Non-ionizing Radiation as "Pollution" Insurance Companies Exclude EMF As Industry Standard AT&T, Sprint and T -Mobile also have similar "pollution" definitions and they refuse to cover damages. Click on image to view the policy. Click to Download Insurance Terms That Define Pollution as Including Wireless Electromagnetic Many communities have setbacks for cell towers and small cells. Shelburne, MA: 3,000 feet for schools and 1,500 feet for homes; no new wireless antennas in residential zones Copake, NY: 1,500 feet from homes, schools, churches or other buildings containing dwelling units Sallisaw, OK: No commercial wireless telecommunications towers within 1,500 of homes. Calabasas, CA: No “Tier 2” wireless telecommunications facilities within 1,000 feet of homes and schools Bedford, NH: 750 feet from residentially-zoned y Scarsdale, NY: No wireless facilities within 500 feet from homes, schools, parks, and houses of worship Walnut City, California: 1,500 feet Stockbridge, Massachusetts: 1,000 feet Bar Harbor Maine: 1500 setback for schools School Boards Palo Alto, California: School Board supports the City of Palo Alto immediately establishing local municipal zoning setback rules of 1,500 feet or more from an operating wireless transmitter and a school site. West Linn-Wilsonville Oregon School Board prohibits cell towers on school y. Los Angeles California School District: Resolutions opposing cell towers on school y and a cautionary level for radiofrequency radiation 10,000 times lower than FCC limits. E NV I R O N ME NTAL H EAL T H T R U ST | EH T R U ST.O R G Bold blue on this PDF are hyperlinked. For more setbacks go to ehtrust.org C ITI ES AN D TO W NS WI TH ST R O N G ORDI N A NCES SETBACKS FOR CELL ANTENNAS Legal filings by cities and municipalities to the FCC highlight how small cell deployment could impact aesthetics and property values. "many deployments of small cells could affect property values, with significant potential effect…” — Reply Comments of Smart Communities Siting Coalition (local governments and associations representing 1,854 communities) 4/7/2017,Docket No. 16-421, April 7, 2017 "Considering that the Smart Communities’ prior filings show that the addition of facilities of this size diminish property values, it is strange for the Commission to assume that approval can be granted in the regulatory blink of an eye…." "...allowing poles to go up in areas where poles have been taken down has significant impacts on aesthetics (not to mention property values).” — Ex Parte Submission of Smart Communities Letter to Ms. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, September 19, 2018 EN VIRO NM EN T A L HE A LTH TRUS T | E HTR US T .ORG 5G, Small Cells & Cell Towers Can Drop Property Values Would you buy a home with cell antennas outside the bedroom window? “While the magnitude of the impact varies, the studies uniformly indicate that there is a significant impact on residential property values from installation of cell phone towers…” — Report and Analysis by David E. Burgoyne, ASA, SR/WA Certified General Real Estate Appraiser to the FCC in Docket 16-421 PDF is hyperlinked. More on property values at ehtrust.org "An overwhelming 94 percent of home buyers and renters surveyed by the National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy (NISLAPP) say they are less interested and would pay less for a property located near a cell tower or antenna." "of the 1,000 survey respondents, 79 % said that under no circumstances would they ever purchase or rent a property within a few blocks of a cell tower or antennas, and almost 90% said they were concerned about the increasing number of cell towers and antennas in their residential neighborhood.” "Cell Towers, Antennas Problematic for Buyers" — Realtor Magazine E NV I R O N ME NTAL H EAL T H T R U ST | EH T R U ST.O R G PDF is hyperlinked. More on property values at ehtrust.org A study published in the Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics found that for properties located within 0.72 kilometers [2362 feet] of the closest cell tower, property values declined 2.46% on average, and up to 9.78% for homes within tower visibility range compared to homes outside tower visibility range. “In aggregate, properties within the 0.72- kilometer band lose over $24 million dollars.” --- ”In some areas with new towers, property values have decreased by up to 20%.” - "Your new neighbor, a cell tower, may impact the value of your home" National Business Post, 2022. "...cell towers are concerning to many people and drop property values." "While most states do not require disclosure of neighborhood nuisances, such as cell towers or noisy neighbors, a few states do, and more are likely to in the future." — Real Estate Attorney, South Florida Sun Sentinel, 2021 The California Association of Realtors’ Property Sellers Questionnaire specifically lists “cell towers” on the disclosure form for sellers of real estate. — Click to go to the California Association of Realtors’ Property Sellers Questionnaire (p. 3-4 under K. Neighborhood) 5 G , C E L L TO W E R S A N D W IREL ESS DECREASED PROPERTY VALUE The 2022 study "Measurements of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, including 5G, in the city of Columbia, South Carolina, USA" published in World Academy of Sciences Journal authored by Tarmo Koppel and Lennart Hardell, MD of the Environment and Cancer Research Foundation found the highest RF exposure readings were registered close to cell phone base station antennas mounted on top of utility poles, street lamps or traffic lights. C lo se Range E xpo sure Close Range Exposure C lo se Range E xpo sure EN VIRO NM EN T A L HE A LTH TRUS T | E HTR US T .ORG 5G IS RECKLESS SCIENTISTS ARE RINGING THE ALARM BELL Hundreds of scientists are warning that safety is not assured with 5G and cell tower proliferation.They caution that FCC cell tower radiation limits do not protect against long term health effects nor do they consider children’s unique vulnerability. 5G and the proliferation of cell towers and cell antennas in close proximity to where people lives work and play is increasing ambient radiofrequency radiation levels. The Los Angeles California School District Office of Health and Safety developed a "cautionary level" for radiofrequency radiation 10,000 times lower than FCC regulations because, "it is believed that a more conservative level is necessary to protect children, who represent a potentially vulnerable and sensitive population." Since 2004, the International Association of Firefighters has officially opposed cell towers on their stations “until a study with the highest scientific merit and integrity on health effects of exposure to low-intensity RF/MW radiation is conducted and it is proven that such sitings are not hazardous to the health of our members.” In California, firefighter unions repeatedly and successfully lobbied state lawmakers to remove fire stations from the list of 5G cell tower fast track sites. PDF is hyperlinked to source. C h i l d r e n 's P l a y g r o u n d 5G Jumbo Pole at Hester and Eldridge New York City, New York EN VIRO NM EN T A L HE A LTH TRUS T | E HTR US T .ORG Bold blue on this PDF are hyperlinked. European Parliament requested a research report “Health Impact of 5G” which was released in July 2021 and concluded that commonly used RFR frequencies (450 to 6000 MHz) are probably carcinogenic for humans and clearly affect male fertility with possible adverse effects on the development of embryos, fetuses and newborns. A review entitled “Evidence for a health risk by RF on humans living around mobile phone base stations: From radiofrequency sickness to cancer" reviewed the existing scientific literature and found radiofrequency sickness, cancer and changes in biochemical parameters (Balmori 2022). A study published in Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine found changes in blood considered biomarkers predictive of cancer in people living closer to cell antenna arrays (Zothansiama 2017). A study published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health found higher exposure to cell network arrays linked to higher mortality from all cancer and specifically lung and breast cancer (Rodrigues 2021). A 10-year study published in Science of the Total Environment on cell phone network antennas by the local Municipal Health Department and several universities in Brazil found a clearly elevated relative risk of cancer mortality at residential distances of 500 meters or less from cell phone towers (Dode 2011). A study commissioned by the Government of Styria, Austria found a significant cancer incidence in the area around the RF transmitter as well as significant exposure-effect relationships between radiofrequency radiation exposure and the incidence of breast cancers and brain tumors (Oberfeld 2008). A review published in Experimental Oncology found “alarming epidemiological and experimental data on possible carcinogenic effects of long term exposure to low intensity microwave (MW) radiation.” A year of operation of a powerful base transmitting station for mobile communication reportedly resulted in a dramatic increase of cancer incidence among the population living nearby (Yakymenko 2011). SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH STUDIES An article published in The Lancet Planetary Health documents how RF exposures are increasing and so is the scientific research linking exposure to adverse biological effects. “It is plausibly the most rapidly increasing anthropogenic environmental exposure since the mid-20th century…” A 2021 report by the French government on 5G analyzed more than 3,000 measurements and found that while RF levels had not yet significantly increased, this was due to the lack of 5G traffic. Additional study specific to 5G in the 3500 MHz band with artificially generated traffic concluded that, “initial results suggest an eventual increase of about 20% in overall exposure.” A 2018 multi-country study published in Environment International measured RF in several countries and found cell tower/base station radiation to be the dominant contributor to RF exposure in most outdoor areas. Urban areas had higher RF. A study measuring RF exposure in the European cities of Basel, Ghent and Brussels found the total RF exposure levels in outdoor locations had increased up to 57.1% in one year (April 2011 to March 2012) and most notably due to mobile phone base stations. A 2018 study published in Oncology Letters documented “unnecessarily high” RF levels in several locations in Sweden and concludes that "using high-power levels causes an excess health risk to many people.” A 2017 Swedish study of Royal Castle, Supreme Court, three major squares and the Swedish Parliament found that despite the architecturally camouflaged RF-emitting antennas, the passive exposure was higher than RF levels associated with non-thermal biological effects. The researchers noted that the heaviest RF load falls on people working or living near hotspots. A 2016 study at Stockholm Central Railway Station in Sweden documented higher RF levels in areas where base station antennas were located closest to people. Importantly, the RF from the downlink of UMTS, LTE, GSM base station antennas contributed to most of the radiation levels. OUTDOOR LEVELS OF RF ARE INCREASING DUE TO THE DENSIFICATION OF WIRELESS NETWORKS EN VIRO NM EN T A L HE A LTH TRUS T | E HTR US T .ORG Bold blue on this PDF are hyperlinked. PUBLISHED RESEARCH STUDIES The review paper entitled “Limiting liability with positioning to minimize negative health effects of cellular phone towers” reviewed the “large and growing body of evidence that human exposure to RFR from cellular phone base stations causes negative health effects.” The authors recommend restricting antennas near homes, and restricting antennas within 500 meters of schools and hospitals to protect companies from future liability (Pearce 2020). An analysis of 100 studies published in Environmental Reviews found approximately 80% showed biological effects near towers. “As a general guideline, cell base stations should not be located less than 1500 ft from the population, and at a height of about 150 ft” (Levitt 2010). A review published in the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health found people living less than 500 meters from base station antennas had increased adverse neuro-behavioral symptoms and cancer in eight of the ten epidemiological studies (Khurana 2010). A paper by human rights experts published in Environment Science and Policy documented the accumulating science indicating safety is not assured, and considered the issue within a human rights framework to protect vulnerable populations from environmental pollution. “We conclude that, because scientific knowledge is incomplete, a precautionary approach is better suited to State obligations under international human rights law” (Roda and Perry 2014, PDF). RESEARCHERS RECOMMEND CELL TOWERS BE DISTANCED AWAY FROM HOMES AND SCHOOLS PUBLISHED RESEARCH STUDIES EN VIRO NM EN T A L HE A LTH TRUS T | E HTR US T .ORG Bold blue on this PDF are hyperlinked. PAG E 7 | E NV I R ON ME NT A L H EAL T H T R U S T | EH T R U S T .O R G Bold blue on this PDF are hyperlinked. The study “Radiofrequency radiation from nearby mobile phone base stations-a case comparison of one low and one high exposure apartment“ published in Oncology Letters by Koppel et al. (2019) measured 2 apartments and found that the apartment with high RF levels had outdoor areas as close as 6 meters (about 19.6 feet) from transmitting base station cell antennas. In contrast, the apartment with low RF exposure had cell antennas at 40 meters (about 131 feet) away from the balcony. Furthermore, the researchers also found that both high- and low-RF apartments had good mobile phone reception, and they concluded,“therefore, installation of base stations to risky places cannot be justified using the good reception requirement argument.” A measurement study by Baltrėnas et al. (2012) published in Journal of Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management investigated RF power density levels from cell phone antennas located 35 meters away from a 10-story apartment building. The transmitting antennas were approximately at the same height as the 6th floor of the building. The researchers found the highest RF levels at floors 5, 6 and 7. The RF at the 6th floor balcony was three times higher than the 3rd floor balcony. The RF power density at the 6th floor was about 15 times the RF measured at the first floor. A case report by Hardell et al. (2017) of RF levels in an apartment in close proximity to rooftop cellular network antennas used an exposimeter to measure levels of different types of RF in the apartment and balconies including TV, FM, TETRA emergency services, 2G GSM, 3G UMTS, 4G LTE, DECT cordless, Wi-Fi 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz and WiMAX. The closest transmitting antennas were 6 meters away from the balcony. The researchers found 97.9% of the mean RF radiation was caused by downlink from the 2G, 3G and 4G base stations. (Downlink means frequencies emitted “down” from the base station cellular antennas.) The researchers found that if the base station RF emissions were excluded, the RF radiation in the children's bedrooms was reduced approximately 99%. The researchers conclude, “due to the current high RF radiation, the apartment is not suitable for long‑term living, particularly for children who may be more sensitive than adults.” APARTMENTS & CONDO BUILDINGS INCREASED RF RADIATION FROM CELL ANTENNAS A study entitled “Very high radiofrequency radiation at Skeppsbron in Stockholm, Sweden from mobile phone base station antennas positioned close to pedestrians' heads” published in Environmental Research by Koppel et al. (2022) created an RF heat map of RF measurements, finding that the highest RF measurements were in areas of close proximity to the base station antennas. The researchers concluded with recommendations to reduce close proximity placements such as positioning antennas “as far as possible from the general public” like in high- elevation locations or more remote areas. INCREASED EXPOSURE FROM 5G/4G "SMALL" CELL ANTENNAS LOCATED CLOSE TO PEOPLE EN VIRO NM EN T A L HE A LTH TRUS T | E HTR US T .ORG Bold blue on this PDF are hyperlinked. Close R an ge Ex posureClose R an ge Ex posure A study entitled “Measurements of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, including 5G, in the city of Columbia, South Carolina, USA'' published in the World Academy of Sciences Journal found the highest RF levels in areas where the cell phone base station antennas were placed on top of utility poles, street lamps, traffic lights or other posts near to the street. The scientists compared their 2022 findings to an earlier 2019 published review on the mean outdoor exposure level of European cities and they found the South Carolina measurements to be higher. The researchers concluded that the highest exposure areas were due to two reasons: cell phone base antennas on top of high-rise buildings provide “good cell coverage reaching far away, but creating elevated exposure to the radiofrequency electromagnetic fields at the immediate vicinity; and cell phone base station antennas installed on top of utility poles have placed the radiation source closer to humans walking on street level.” RESEARCH ON ANTENNAS CLOSE TO HOMES, SCHOOL AND WORK Surveys of people living near cell tower antennas in France, Spain, India, Germany, Egypt, Poland have found significantly higher reports of health issues including sleep issues, fatigue and headaches. A study published in American Journal of Men’s Health linked higher cell tower RFR exposures to delayed fine and gross motor skills and to deficits in spatial working memory and attention in school adolescents. A study published in Environmental Research and Public Health found higher exposures linked to higher risk of type 2 diabetes. A study following people for 6 years linked increased cell phone and cell phone tower antenna exposure to altered levels of hormones including cortisol, thyroid, prolactin and testosterone. HEALTH SYMPTOMS REPORTED BY PEOPLE LIVING CLOSE TO CELL ANTENNAS EN VIRO NM EN T A L HE A LTH TRUS T | E HTR US T .ORG Bold blue on this PDF are hyperlinked. Image: Figure 1: Top floor apartment adjacent tobase stations. Nilsson M, Hardell L. (2023)Development of the Microwave Syndrome in TwoMen Shortly after Installation of 5G on the Roofabove their Office. Ann Clin Case Rep A study that followed people in a German town after a cell tower was erected found stress hormones adrenaline and noradrenaline significantly increased over the first 6 months after the antenna activation and decreased dopamine and PEA levels after 18 months (Buchner 2011). Three published case reports document illness that developed after 5G antennas were installed. A 52-Year healthy woman developed severe microwave syndrome shortly after installation of a 5G base station close to her apartment. In another case report, a couple developed microwave syndrome symptoms (e.g., neurological symptoms, tinnitus, fatigue, insomnia, emotional distress, skin disorders, and blood pressure variability) after a 5G base station was installed on the roof above their apartment. Similarly, in “Development of the Microwave Syndrome in Two Men Shortly after Installation of 5G on the Roof above their Office” two men developed symptoms after 5G antennas were activated on the roof of their workplace. The symptoms disappeared in both men within a couple of weeks (case 1) or immediately (case 2) after leaving the office. A study on 3.5 GHz exposure to both diabetic and healthy rats (Bektas et al 2022) found an increase in degenerated neurons in the hippocampus of the brains, changes in oxidative stress parameters and changes in the energy metabolism and appetite of both healthy and diabetic rats. The researchers conclude that, “5G may not be innocent in terms of its biological effects, especially in the presence of diabetes.” Scientists state that 5G's higher frequencies cannot be assumed safe. 5G systems are using low band frequencies well associated with harmful effects (ICBE-EMF 2022, European Parliament 2021, Panagopoulos et al. 2021). However 5G networks are also using higher frequencies such as 3.5 GHz and into the mmWave range with 24 GHz and higher. Contrary to claims that the 5G’s higher frequencies simply “bounce” off the skin, researchers have documented that the coiled portion of the skin’s sweat duct can be regarded as a helical antenna in the sub-THz band and the skin, our largest organ, can intensely absorb the higher 5G frequencies (Feldman and Ben Ishai 2017). Reviews of 5G health effects caution that the expected real- world impact would be far more serious due to the complex waveforms and other combinations with other toxic stimuli in the environment (Kostoff et al 2020, Russell, 2018, Belyaev 2019, McCredden et al 2023). Researchers will often experiment with zebrafish, rodents and fruit flies to gain data on potential health effects to humans. An Oregon State University study on zebrafish exposed to 3.5 GHz (Dasgupta et al. 2022) found “significant abnormal responses in RFR-exposed fish” which “suggest potential long- term behavioral effects. Yang et al 2022 found 3.5 GHZ induced oxidative stress in guinea pigs. PUBLISHED RESEARCH ON 5G EN VIRO NM EN T A L HE A LTH TRUS T | E HTR US T .ORG Bold blue on this PDF are hyperlinked. New York City Jumbo 5G poles with 5 tiers to house transmittingantennas from numerous carriers. Cell antennas in front of New York City living room window. Studies on fruit flies exposed to 3.5 GHz have found the exposure led to increases in oxidative stress, changes in the microbial community (Wang et al 2022) and alterations of the expression of several types of genes (Wang et al 2021). A review by Russell 2018 found evidence for millimeter wave effects to the skin, eyes, immune system, gene expression, and bacterial antibiotic resistance. Recent experimental research on high-band 5G impacts to animal fertility found that 27 GHz damages sperm quality in mussels (Pecoraro et al 2023). Yet the US government is not funding any research on biological effects of frequencies at 3.5 GHz or above 6 GHz to humans. PUBLISHED RESEARCH ON 5G EN VIRO NM EN T A L HE A LTH TRUS T | E HTR US T .ORG Bold blue on this PDF are hyperlinked. 5G's higher frequencies will be combined with the lower frequencies from current networks already present in the environment. Studies on rats have found exposure to both 1.5 and 4.3 GHz microwaves induced: cognitive impairment and hippocampal tissue damage (Zhu et al 2921); impairments in spatial learning and memory, with the combined simultaneous exposures resulting in the most most severe effects (Wang et al 2022); and immune suppressive responses (Zhao 2022). Long-term exposure to 2.856 and 9.375 GHz microwaves impaired learning and memory abilities as well as EEG disturbance, structural damage to the hippocampus, and differential expression of hippocampal tissue and serum exosomes Wang et al. 2023). Abdel-Rassoul, G., et al (2007). Neurobehavioral effects among inhabitants around mobile phone base stations. NeuroToxicology Balmori A. (2002) Evidence for a health risk by RF on humans living around mobile phone base stations: From radiofrequency sickness to cancer. Environmental Research Dode, A. C et al (2011). Mortality by neoplasia and cellular telephone base stations in the Belo Horizonte municipality, Minas Gerais state, Brazil. Science of The Total Environment Hardell, L., & Carlberg, M. (2019). Comments on the US National Toxicology Program technical reports on toxicology and carcinogenesis study in rats exposed to whole-body radiofrequency radiation at 900 MHz and in mice exposed to whole-body radiofrequency radiation at 1,900 MHz. International Journal of Oncology Hardell, L., & Koppel, T. (2022). Electromagnetic hypersensitivity close to mobile phone base stations – a case study in Stockholm, Sweden. Reviews on Environmental Health. Khurana et al. (2010). Epidemiological evidence for a health risk from mobile phone base stations. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health Koppel et al (2022). Very high radiofrequency radiation at Skeppsbron in Stockholm, Sweden from mobile phone base station antennas positioned close to pedestrians’ heads. Environmental Research Levitt & Lai, H. (2011). Corrigendum: Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays. Environmental Reviews López et al (2021). What is the radiation before 5G? A correlation study between measurements in situ and in real time and epidemiological indicators in Vallecas, Madrid. Environmental Research Meo et al (2019). Mobile Phone Base Station Tower Settings Adjacent to School Buildings: Impact on Students’ Cognitive Health. American Journal of Men’s Health Meo et al (2015a). Association of Exposure to Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Field Radiation (RF-EMFR) Generated by Mobile Phone Base Stations with Glycated Hemoglobin (HbA1c) and Risk of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health Pearce, J. M. (2020). Limiting liability with positioning to minimize negative health effects of cellular phone towers. Environmental Research Roda, C., & Perry, S. (2014). Mobile phone infrastructure regulation in Europe: Scientific challenges and human rights protection. Environmental Science & Policy Rodrigues et al (2021). The Effect of Continuous Low-Intensity Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields from Radio Base Stations to Cancer Mortality in Brazil. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health Santini et al. (2003). Survey Study of People Living in the Vicinity of Cellular Phone Base Stations. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine Thamilselvan et al (2021) Micronuclei analysis in people residing within 25 m of radiation-exposed areas around mobile towers in Chennai, India: An observational study. Journal of International Oral Health Yakymenko et al (2011). Long-term exposure to microwave radiation provokes cancer growth: Evidences from radars and mobile communication systems. Experimental Oncology Zothansiama et al (2017). Impact of radiofrequency radiation on DNA damage and antioxidants in peripheral blood lymphocytes of humans residing in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine Belyaev et al (2022) Possible health risks from exposure to microwaves from base stations, Conference Paper Department of Radiobiology, Cancer Research Institute, Biomedical Research Center *Conference paper REFERENCES/CITATIONS PAG E 1 1 | E NV I R O N ME NTAL H EAL T H T R U ST | EH T R U ST .O R G Bold blue on this PDF are hyperlinked. 5G Betzalel et al. (2018). The human skin as a sub-THz receiver—Does 5G pose a danger to it or not? Environmental Research Betzalel et al. 2017). The Modeling of the Absorbance of Sub-THz Radiation by Human Skin. IEEE Transactions on Terahertz Science and Technology Dasgupta et al. (2022). Transcriptomic and Long-Term Behavioral Deficits Associated with Developmental 3.5 GHz Radiofrequency RadiationExposures in Zebrafish. Environmental Science & Technology Letters Di Ciaula, A. (2018). Towards 5G communication systems: Are there health implications? International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health Frank, J. W. (2021). Electromagnetic fields, 5G and health: What about the precautionary principle? Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health Hardell, L., & Carlberg, M. (2020). [Comment] Health risks from radiofrequency radiation, including 5G, should be assessed by experts with noconflicts of interest. Oncology Letters Hardell, L., & Nilsson, M. (2023). Case Report: The Microwave Syndrome after Installation of 5G Emphasizes the Need for Protection fromRadiofrequency Radiation. Annals of Case Reports. Nilsson M, Hardell L. (2023) Development of the Microwave Syndrome in Two Men Shortly after Installation of 5G on the Roof above theirOffice. Ann Clin Case Rep. 8: 2378. Hinrikus et al. (2022). Possible health effects on the human brain by various generations of mobile telecommunication: A review basedestimation of 5G impact. International Journal of Radiation Biology Kostoff et al. (2020). Adverse health effects of 5G mobile networking technology under real-life conditions. Toxicology Letters Nasim, I., & Kim, S. (2019). Adverse Impacts of 5G Downlinks on Human Body. 2019 SoutheastCon IEEE Russell, C. L. (2018). 5G wireless telecommunications expansion: Public health and environmental implications. Environmental Research Yang et al. (2022). Effects of Acute Exposure to 3500 MHz (5G) Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation on Anxiety-Like Behavior and theAuditory Cortex in Guinea Pigs. Bioelectromagnetics Increasing Exposures From Expanding 5G Networks and Close Proximity “Small Cell” Antennas Baltrėnas et al.(2012). Research and evaluation of the intensity parameters of electromagnetic fields produced by mobile communicationantennas. Journal of Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management Bhatt et al. (2017). Radiofrequency-electromagnetic field exposures in kindergarten children. Journal of Exposure Science & EnvironmentalEpidemiology Bonato et al. (2022). Computational Assessment of RF Exposure Levels due to 5G Mobile Phones. 2022 Microwave Mediterranean Symposium Carlberg et al. (2019). High ambient radiofrequency radiation in Stockholm city, Sweden. Oncology Letters El-Hajj et al. (2020). Radiation Analysis in a Gradual 5G Network Deployment Strategy. 2020 IEEE 3rd 5G World Forum (5GWF) Hardell et al. (2018). Radiofrequency radiation from nearby base stations gives high levels in an apartment in Stockholm, Sweden: A casereport. Oncology Letters Hardell et al. (2017). High radiofrequency radiation at Stockholm Old Town: An exposimeter study including the Royal Castle, SupremeCourt, three major squares and the Swedish Parliament. Molecular and Clinical Oncology Hardell, L., Koppel, T., Carlberg, M., Ahonen, M., & Hedendahl, L. (2016). Radiofrequency radiation at Stockholm Central Railway Station inSweden and some medical aspects on public exposure to RF fields. International Journal of Oncology Koppel et al. (2022). Very high radiofrequency radiation at Skeppsbron in Stockholm, Sweden from mobile phone base station antennaspositioned close to pedestrians’ heads. Environmental Research Koppel et al. (2019). Radiofrequency radiation from nearby mobile phone base stations-a case comparison of one low and one highexposure apartment. Oncology Letters REFERENCES/CITATIONS PAG E 1 2 | EN V IRO NM EN T A L HE A L TH TRU S T | E HTRU S T .O RG Bold blue on this PDF are hyperlinked. Koppel, T., & Hardell, L. (2022). Measurements of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, including 5G, in the city of Columbia, SC, USA. World Academy of Sciences Journal Mazloum et al. (2019). RF-EMF exposure induced by mobile phones operating in LTE small cells in two different urban cities. Annals of Telecommunications Urbinello et al. (2014). Temporal trends of radio-frequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposure in everyday environments across European cities. Environmental Research, 134, 134–142. 4G LTE Broom et al. (2019). Early-Life Exposure to Pulsed LTE Radiofrequency Fields Causes Persistent Changes in Activity and Behavior in C57BL/6 J Mice. Bioelectromagnetics Choi et al. (2020). Continuous Exposure to 1.7 GHz LTE Electromagnetic Fields Increases Intracellular Reactive Oxygen Species to Decrease Human Cell Proliferation and Induce Senescence. Scientific Reports Lv et al. (2014). The alteration of spontaneous low frequency oscillations caused by acute electromagnetic fields exposure. Clinical Neurophysiology Malik et al. (2021). Short- and long-duration exposures to cell-phone radiofrequency waves produce dichotomous effects on phototactic response and circadian characteristics of locomotor activity rhythm in zebrafish, Danio rerio. Biological Rhythm Research Oh, J. J., Byun, S.-S., Lee, S. E., Choe, G., & Hong, S. K. (2018). Effect of Electromagnetic Waves from Mobile Phones on Spermatogenesis in the Era of 4G-LTE. BioMed Research International, 2018, 1801798. Özdemir et al. (2021). The effect of 4.5 G (LTE Advanced-Pro network) mobile phone radiation on the optic nerve. Cutaneous and Ocular Toxicology Souffi et al. (2022). Exposure to 1800 MHz LTE electromagnetic fields under proinflammatory conditions decreases the response strength and increases the acoustic threshold of auditory cortical neurons. Scientific Reports Wei et al. (2019). Modulation of resting-state brain functional connectivity by exposure to acute fourth-generation long-term evolution electromagnetic field: An fMRI study. Bioelectromagnetics Yang et al. (2021). Functional and network analyses of human exposure to long-term evolution signal. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International Yang et al. (2017). Long-Term Evolution Electromagnetic Fields Exposure Modulates the Resting State EEG on Alpha and Beta Bands. Clinical EEG and Neuroscience Yu et al. (2020). Long-term exposure to 4G smartphone radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation diminished male reproductive potential by directly disrupting Spock3–MMP2-BTB axis in the testes of adult rats. Science of The Total Environment REFERENCES/CITATIONS PAG E 1 3 | E NVI R O N M E NTAL H E A L T H T R UST | E H T R U ST.O R G Bold blue on this PDF are hyperlinked. 2020: 5G Wireless: Capabilities and Challenges for an Evolving Network "The FCC relies on the FDA as well as other organizations—principally IEEE and the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP)—to review scientific research and provide recommendations for setting RF safety standards. However, each of these organizations has only reviewed a subset of the relevant research…” 2020 5G DEPLOYMENT: FCC Needs Comprehensive Strategic Planning to Guide Its Efforts “The experts GAO convened also stated that 5G deployment would likely exacerbate disparities in access to telecommunications services, known as the “digital divide.” 2012 TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Exposure and Testing Requirements for Mobile Phones Should Be Reassessed “By not formally reassessing its current limit, FCC cannot ensure it is using a limit that reflects the latest research on RF energy exposure…” “Some consumers may use mobile phones against the body, which FCC does not currently test, and could result in RF energy exposure higher than the FCC limit.” EN VIRO NM EN T A L HE A LTH TRUS T | E HTR US T .ORG Government Accountability Office Reports These GAO reports confirm zero review of the totality of the science and bust the industry myth that 5G will bridge the digital divide. This PDF is hyperlinked. Poinsettia Park WCF (AT&T) Kyle Van Leeuwen, Associate Planner Community Development January 17, 2024 CUP 2022-0023/CDP 2022-0070 1 2 PROJECT LOCATION Proposed Project CUP/CDP: Wireless Communication Facility (WCF) •New 78’ tall light pole (to replace existing 78’ pole) •Placed below lights: •6 panel antennas •9 radio units •3 surge protectors •Equipment to be screened by 4’ radius radome •Equipment Enclosure (to replace trash enclosure) 4 Proposed Project STAFF REVIEW/SUPPORT •Project Location: •Parks are a Preferred Location •Applicant provided analysis of alternative sites •Project Design: •Stealth Design - Equipment Enclosure - Setback •Project Performance •Noise Standards - FCC RF Exposure limits Areas of Clarification from Dec. 6 Hearing 1.Alternative Sites Analysis 2.Coverage Levels 3.Specific Location within Park ITEM: RECOMMENDATION •ADOPT a resolution APPROVING the Minor Conditional Use Permit (CUP2022-0023) and Coastal Development Permit (CDP 2022-0070). Additional Slides SCOPE OF REVIEW What is subject to review: •Placement (location) - Subject to coverage objectives •Construction (Design) - Guidelines/Requirements: •Must be reasonable (objective) •Applied to all communication infrastructure •Must be published in advance SCOPE OF REVIEW What is NOT subject to review: •Radio Frequency Emissions (RF) •Cannot be denied because of perceived radio frequency health hazards •No carrier can be favored •Cannot prevent completion of a network SCOPE OF REVIEW Policy 64 – Review Guidelines •Lists Preferred Locations (in order of preference) •Identifies Discouraged Locations •Specifies “Stealth” Design Techniques •Location and Screening of Equipment •Appropriate Height and Setbacks 12 Proposed Project 13 Proposed Project 14 Proposed Project 15 Project Changes •Early Public Feedback/Issues •Design (Height, Visual Impact) •RF Exposure •Property Values •Construction Impacts •Response •Project twice redesigned, address aesthetic/stealthing concerns •Reduced height and number of antennas •Reduction of antennas reduced the amount of RF produced Existing 1st Design 2nd Design Proposed City Council Policy 64 Proposed WCF Compliance •Exhibits “stealth” design (light pole & radome) •“Preferred location.” Park sites are preferred locations per City Council Policy 64. No alternative location exists. Applicant analyzed 8 other potential sites. •Radio frequency (RF) exposure well below the levels established as acceptable by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) •Emergency generator compliant with noise exposure limits 17 City Council Policy 64 City Council Policy 64 •The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requires facilities to comply with RF exposure limits and is the regulating authority related to RF exposure. •1996 Telecommunications Act: city cannot evaluate or deny a project based on perceived RF health hazards, so long as the project complies with exposure limits. •A RF Exposure Study demonstrating the facility will be below the FCC’s Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) has been provided. 19 Alternative Sites Analysis •Area Zoned Residential & OS •Nearest non-residential zones are 70-80 feet lower in elevation 20 Alternative Sites Analysis 21 Past Planning Commission Approvals WCF Faux Trees •6/3/2020 –Trailblazer park WCF (Approved 5-1-1) •Two 55’-tall faux eucalyptus trees •Temporary CUP in Open Space Zone (Future site of Robertson Ranch Park) •Pole appx. 280’ from residential property line, 350’ from residences WCF Light Poles •5/16/2016 –Verizon Army & Navy Athletic Facility WCF (Approved 6-0-1) •Stealth design approved as 81’-tall light pole with 6 panels within a 4’-radius radome •Appx. 550 feet from residential uses •3/4/2009 –Verizon Carlsbad High School WCF (unanimous approval) •100’-tall light pole, no additional stealthing –Open Space Zone •Pole appx. 80’ from residential property line, appx. 110’ from residence 22 Past Planning Commission Approvals Trailblazer Park WCF Verizon Army & Navy Athletic Facility WCF Verizon Carlsbad High School WCF Project Consistency •General Plan – Open Space (OS) •Zoning – Open Space (OS) •Minor Conditional Use Permit Regulations •City Council Policy 64 •Coastal Development Regulations •Growth Management •CEQA ITEM: RECOMMENDATION •ADOPT a resolution APPROVING the Minor Conditional Use Permit (CUP2022-0023) and Coastal Development Permit (CDP 2022-0070). 25 Past Planning Commission Approvals WCF Faux Trees •6/3/2020 -Trailblazer park WCF (Approved 5-1-1) •Two 55’-tall faux eucalyptus trees •Temporary CUP in Open Space Zone (Future site of Robertson Ranch Park) •Pole appx. 280’ from residential property line, 350’ from residences •4/5/2017 –Carlsbad Ellery Reservoir WCF (approved 6-0-1) •60’ faux eucalyptus tree in a Residential Zone (R-A-10000) •Pole appx. 16.5’ from residential property line, appx. 60’ from residence WCF Light Poles •5/16/2016 –Verizon Army & Navy Athletic Facility WCF (Approved 6-0-1) •Stealth design approved as 81’-tall light pole with 6 panels within a 4’-radius radome •Appx. 550 feet from residential uses •3/4/2009 –Verizon Carlsbad High School WCF (unanimous approval) •100’-tall light pole, no additional stealthing –Open Space Zone •Pole appx. 80’ from residential property line, appx. 110’ from residence •1/21/2004 –Calaveras Hills Community Park (Unanimous approval) •79.5’ light pole with flush mounted antennas – Open Space Zone •Appx. 225’ form nearest residential property line 26 Alternative Sites Analysis Federal Communications Commission (FCC) – RF Exposure •The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requires facilities to comply with radio frequency (RF) exposure guidelines, and is the regulating authority related to radiofrequency exposure limits generated by wireless communication facilities. •Based on the 1996 Telecommunications Act, a local government city cannot evaluate or deny the project based on perceived health hazards of RF exposure, so long as the project complies with federally set exposure limits. •Exhibit 8 contains a RF Electromagnetic Fields Exposure Study demonstrating that the cumulative exposure levels from this facility will be below the FCC’s Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) limits for the public. 28 Setback •Proposed Setback: appx 177’ to pole (appx 210’ to nearest residence) •Required Setback: 78’ to property line •No specific setback to residential properties/uses is required 29 CUP Required Findings 1. That the requested use is necessary or desirable for the development of the community and is in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the general plan, including, if applicable, the certified local coastal program, specific plan or master plan. 2. That the requested use is not detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is to be located. 3. That the site for the proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, parking, loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping and other development features prescribed in this code and required by the City Planner, planning commission or City Council, in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. 4. That the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic generated by the proposed use. 5. That the proposed WCF is consistent with City Council Policy No. 64. 30 CDP Required Findings 1. That the proposed development is in conformance with the Certified Local Coastal Program and all applicable policies. 2. The proposal is in conformity with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter Three of the Coastal Act. 3. The project is consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone. 31 Photo Simulations 32 Photo Simulations 33 Park – Alternative Site 34 Policy 64 Language-2021 35 Policy 64 Language-2001 AT&T New Wireless Facility 6600 Hidden Valley Rd., Carlsbad, CA 92011 2PROPERTY OF MD7 Summary AT&T is proposing to build a new wireless facility to bring coverage to the Hidden Valley Rd area 3PROPERTY OF MD7 Coverage without Site 4PROPERTY OF MD7 Coverage with Site 5PROPERTY OF MD7 Coverage Results from 3rd Party 6PROPERTY OF MD7 Relocation Considerations: Interior of the Park Relocation to interior of park was not feasible because: City staff from Parks Dept had shared on our design walk that they did not want to take usable space Existing power lines located near the proposed area of the site. Issue with elevation. Proposed site is at 150.ft elevation. Suggested site near soccer field is at 127 ft elevation. 7PROPERTY OF MD7 Relocation Considerations: Alternative Sites proposed by Cove HOA residents Alternative sites were provided by residents of the Cove HOA. 9 out of the 10 were located outside of the search area. 6 out of the 10 were located near existing AT&T facilities less than 0.6 miles away. 8PROPERTY OF MD7 FirstNet by AT&T Commitment to Public Safety FirstNet is a dedicated critical network to first responders helping them make faster and better decisions to keep themselves and the public safe. Dedicated frequency to clear a communication highway in times of emergency. In California 80% of 911 calls are made from a wireless device. AT&T prioritizes customer demand and public safety when proposing new cell sites. Questions? 10PROPERTY OF MD7 Alternative Site #1 –Carlsbad Municipal Water Tank near 6585 Black Rail Road AT&T has an existing facility mounted onto the water tanks A power increase will not be able to cover and reach the low coverage area that is depicted by Poinsettia Park. This site will not allow AT&T to complete its network which conflicts with Policy 64, Policy Review Section bullet two Additionally this site is located outside the search area 11PROPERTY OF MD7 Alternative Site #2 –1330 Poinsettia Ln., Carlsbad, CA 92011 SDGE Lattice Tower This site is located within a Residential Zone. Per policy 64 2.B residential zones are under discouraged locations for wireless facilities. This area is being serviced by the existing wireless facility mounted on the Carlsbad Municipal Water Tank (0.6 miles away) This site will not allow AT&T to complete its network which conflicts with Policy 64, Policy Review Section bullet two Additionally this site is located outside the search area 12PROPERTY OF MD7 Alternative Site #3 & 4 Combined –North Coast Calvary Chapel & Lattice Tower at 1330 Poinsettia Ln Site is currently being serviced by the existing AT&T facility at Carlsbad Municipal Water Tank (0.6 miles away) This site will not allow AT&T to complete its network which conflicts with Policy 64, Policy Review Section bullet two Additionally this site is located outside the search area 13PROPERTY OF MD7 Alternative Site # 5 –5805 Armada Drive There is an existing AT&T cell facility located less than 0.2 miles away. On one of the rooftop facilities on the property. This site will not allow AT&T to complete its network which conflicts with Policy 64, Policy Review Section bullet two Additionally this site is located outside the search area 14PROPERTY OF MD7 Alternative Site #6 –6671 Paseo Del Norte AltaMira RV Lot A location at this site will take up usable space, which could lead to this location not meeting its Required Parking spaces. This would be a disservice to those who use this area for leisure. If the tower were located near the hillside it would lead to the destruction and removal of the vegetation and trees. 15PROPERTY OF MD7 Alternative Site #7 Transmission Tower 50’ North of AltaMira (The hillside) Utility companies have not allowed wireless facilities to be located on their structure or within their easement. Location of a facility here would not be possible. 16PROPERTY OF MD7 Candidate #8 -6885 Batiquitos Dr The Fire Station has a limited amount of Parking (8) total, with a rear access path for fire trucks to access the garage. To the rear of the parcel its filled with dense vegetation. Location of a facility to the rear of the parcel would lead to the removal of existing vegetation and trees. Rooftop facility would not be feasible due to the height of the fire station. 17PROPERTY OF MD7 Candidate # 9 –CalTrans Maintenance Facility A tower installation at this location would not be feasible due to an existing AT&T cell facility being located 0.3 miles away at 5805 Armada Dr. This site will not allow AT&T to complete its network which conflicts with Policy 64, Policy Review Section bullet two Additionally, this site is located outside the search area 18PROPERTY OF MD7 Candidate # 10 –Crossing Golf Course –5800 The Crossings Dr. A tower at this location would not be feasible as there is an existing 35-foot AT&T Faux tree already servicing the area near the pond. This site will not allow AT&T to complete its network which conflicts with Policy 64, Policy Review Section bullet two Additionally, this site is located outside the search area PRESENTATION BY RESIDENT Gretchen M. Ashton The proposed Wireless telecommunications Tower at Poinsettia Park is Out of Compliance with The FCC and Policy 64 A.T.&T is Out of Compliance with FCC and policy 64 FCC •RF emissions exceed both FCC general public and occupational FCC requirements – AT&T is NOT mitigating according to FCC rules. •Worst-Case Power Density – RF-EME Report does not state what MHz is used to calculate worst case power density. Is it 700-1900, or something else? The antenna schedule illustrates MHz of 2100, 3500, 3700. •Perfect Signal Propagation – According to the properties of the object, earth's atmosphere and wavelength of signal, the signal undergoes different phenomena like reflection, refraction, diffraction and scattering. Due to these phenomena, various effects occur which destructively or constructively effect the communication. This is considered a worst-case scenario. Policy 64 •Inappropriate Visibility to the public. •Noise of generator inconsistent with city noise ordinances. •Interrupt use of the park. •Monopoles should not be permitted without adequate site analysis – to the city’s satisfaction. •Setbacks must be from all equipment not just the base of tower. •Height is taller than tower it is replacing. Most importantly, the community does not want this tower in Poinsettia Park. A.T.&T is Out of Compliance with FCC 1.RF emissions exceed FCC requirements – there is no mitigation. Based on the required RF-EME Report submitted by EBI, general public and occupational exposure limits are exceeded. AT&T isn’t using PRUDENT AVOIDANCE OF HARM! “Modeling indicates that the worst-case emitted power density may exceed the FCC’s general public limit within approximately 44 feet of the antenna face and the occupational limit within approximately 19 feet of the antenna face. Modeling also indicates that the worst-case emitted power density may exceed the FCC’s general population limit within approximately 6 feet below the bottom of the AT&T antennas and the occupational limit within approximately 5 feet below the bottom of the AT&T antennas.” AT&T states in the RF-EME Report that their mitigation is – “ Yellow 7 by 7 inch CAUTION signs on opposite sides of the light pole, 6 feet below the bottom of the antennas. Signs should denote a stay-back distance of 44 feet (general public limit) from the face of the antennas. No barriers are provided for this site which is an FCC mitigation. The signage is graphically represented in the Signage Plan presented in Appendix B…The report states RF exposure advisory signs must be viewable and readable from the boundary where the applicable exposure limits are exceeded, pursuant to 29 CFR Section 1910.145, and include at least the following five components: (A) Appropriate signal word, associated color {i.e., “DANGER” (red), “WARNING” (orange), “CAUTION,” (yellow) “NOTICE” (blue)}; (B) RF energy advisory symbol); (C) An explanation of the RF source; (D) Behavior necessary to comply with the exposure limits; and (E) Up-to-date contact information..” This is where AT&T says they are going to put a caution sign - on the shroud covering the equipment on the pole, at a height of 42 feet. Insinuating this is the only place where the RF exposure exceeding FCC limits occurs. Where would someone need to be standing to read and understand this sign? This is not the only perimeter of the exposure. There is another one at the top of the pole where field light maintenance would be performed. There are additional exposures in every direction that the RF radiates from the pole. There is no boundary or protection or signage at access to the pole itself where workers might climb the pole. How is the warning visible to our citizens, city employees and contractors, at different elevations in the park, or trimming trees, up on a lift working on baseball fencing and foul ball screens, or making a repair at the top of the flag pole? There are no signs stating where there is no exposure as is required by the FCC mitigation rules. A.T.&T is Out of Compliance with FCC According to FCC 19-126 rules adopted November 27, 2019 “To avoid over signage and confusing signage, accurate placement of appropriate signage is critical and should make clear both where limits are exceeded and where limits are not exceeded.” The proposed tower falls into FCC mitigation “Categories Two and Three – If the RF exposure exceeds that requirement for the general public, which it does, Category Two applies. Category Three applies to the RF exposure which exceeds the occupational requirement for mitigation. The proposed tower exceeds both. Note: In this situation the sign color yellow indicates occupational. There are blue signs for the general public exposure that may be optionally used. According to AT&T, the stay back distance on the sign is 44 feet – the general public exposure limit. The occupational limit is 19 feet. The signage is confusing as it combines different exposures into the same CAUTION: Signs (with the appropriate signal word “CAUTION” and associated color (yellow) on the signs), controls, or indicators (e.g., chains, railings, contrasting paint, diagrams) are required (in addition to the positive access control established for Category Two) surrounding the area in which the exposure limit for occupational personnel in a controlled environment is exceeded by no more than a factor of ten.” “If signs are not used at the occupational exposure limit boundary, controls or indicators (e.g., chains, railings, contrasting paint, diagrams, etc.) must designate the boundary where the occupational exposure limit is exceeded.” A.T.&T is Out of Compliance with FCC Worst-Case Power Density Is the MAXIMUM OUTPUT THAT AN ANTENNA CAN PRODUCE. The AT&T RF-EME Report is not clear in this regard. The report states that according to AT&T, Personal Communication (PCS) facilities used by AT&T in this area operate within a frequency range of 700-1900 MHz. The antenna schedule included in the report illustrates equipment capable of 3500 to 3700 MHz on six antennas, and more capable of 2100 MHz. The schedule also illustrates the angles of each antenna at each MHz. Which frequency range was used to calculate worst-case power density? Oh wait-the modeling uses an average of all of the antennas. Exposures from multiple poles nearby such as collation in Calavera Park must include exposures from all poles in the vicinity. This might include inside the park, outside the park, and smaller cell towers on city streets or in open space near the poles in the park. A.T.&T is Out of Compliance with Policy 64 in Multiple Ways 1.Inappropriate Visibility to the Public – In all areas, WCFs should be located where least visible to the public and where least disruptive to the appearance of the host property. Furthermore, no WCF should be installed on an exposed ridgeline or in a location readily visible from a public place, recreation area, scenic area or residential area unless it is satisfactorily located and/or screened so it is hidden or disguised. This is supported by regulations from the California Public Utilities Code. •Landscaping should be provided as necessary to screen, complement, or add realism to a monopole. Landscaping should include mature shrubs and trees. Some of the trees should be tall enough to screen at least three-quarters of the height of the monopole at the time of planting. 2.Noise exceeds city CNEL of 55 dB – All equipment, such as emergency generators and air conditioners, should be designed and operated consistent with the city noise standards. •Interrupts Use of the Park - Maintenance Hours – Except in an emergency posing an immediate public health and safety threat, maintenance activities in or within 100 feet of a residential zone should only occur between 7 AM (8 AM on Saturdays) and sunset. Maintenance should not take place on Sundays or holidays. •Where are we supposed to go in the park when the generator is running at 71 dB next to our ball game or picnic table. Exhaust also pollutes and harms residents. DID YOU KNOW? An approval of any application automatically allows wireless companies to modify towers within FCC limits. Look at what modifications would be permissible – Source Ref. Carlsbad City Council Special Meeting June 23, 2021. This is worse than the design that has already been rejected and would be a great reason for a denial. A.T.&T is Out of Compliance with Policy 64 in Multiple Ways 3.Monopoles – No new ground-mounted WCF monopoles should be permitted unless the applicant demonstrates no existing monopole, building, or structure can accommodate the applicant’s proposed antenna as required by Application and Review Guideline E.4 For proposed new ground-mounted monopole WCFs, the applicant shall also provide evidence to the city’s satisfaction that no existing monopole, building, structure, or WCF site (“existing facility”) could accommodate the proposal. Evidence should demonstrate any of the following: (This speaks to other poles in the park and poles nearby outside the park.) No existing facility is located within the geographic area or provides the height or structural strength needed to meet the applicant’s engineering requirements. b. The applicant’s proposed WCF would cause electromagnetic interference with the existing antennae array or vice versa. This is the main reason wireless providers don’t put their poles near each other. One interferes with the other. c. The fees, costs, or contractual provisions required by the owner to locate on an existing facility or to modify the same to enable location are unreasonable. Costs exceeding new monopole development are presumed to be unreasonable. Where is the cost analysis? d. The applicant demonstrates to the decision-maker’s (Planning Commission or city planner) satisfaction that there are other limiting factors that render an existing facility unsuitable. We still do not have an acceptable Alternative Site Analysis. A.T.&T is Out of Compliance with Policy 64 in Multiple Ways 4. Setbacks – WCFs and SWFs, including all equipment and improvements, should adhere to the building setback requirements of the zone in which they are located, with the following clarifications: b. If in a residential zone and in a public utility installation, park, or community facility, a setback should be maintained from the property boundaries of the utility installation, park, or community facility a minimum distance equal to the above-ground height of the overall support structure’s height. c. The decision-maker for WCFs may decrease or increase these setbacks if it finds such changes would improve the overall compatibility of the WCF based on the factors contained in Application and Review Guideline E.4. Note: This means Planning Commissioners can require a greater setback from residences to another location in the park. 5. Height – facilities should adhere to the existing height limitations of the zone in which they are located. When installed on an existing structure, new facilities and collocations should not exceed the height of the existing/replacement structure on which they are being installed. January 17, 2024 at 5:00 PM Karen Sparks City of Carlsbad - Planning Commission Meeting AT&T Coverage • AT&T reported that there was insufficient coverage at the last meeting but could not provide details. • The AT&T wireless coverage map from their website shows complete 5G+ coverage. • There seems to be a conflict between AT&T’s coverage data AT&T Wireless Coverage Map (1/15/24) https://www.att.com/maps/wireless-coverage.html The Cove Residents - Southside of Poinsettia Park Wireless Carrier Satisfaction Survey • A survey was emailed to 112 residents • 60% Response Rate (statistically valid) • A 10% response rate makes a survey statistically valid, however, we got 60% response which makes this survey extraordinarily statistically accurate with a minuscule margin of error • 31% of the respondents are AT&T • A majority of the households indicated they are satisfied with their coverage. • A majority of households using AT&T indicated they are satisfied with their coverage. • The area residents are satisfied with their AT&T coverage. • AT&T reports complete 5G+ coverage on their website for the Poinsettia Park area. • Therefore, the AT&T network is complete and no additional towers are required. Conclusion 3 Slides by resident Kevin Fritz