Carlsbad City Council
April 16, 2024

CA Review ___AF___
Meeting Date:

To:

From:

Staff Contact:

Subject:

April 16, 2024
Mayor and City Council
Scott Chadwick, City Manager
Kyle Van Leeuwen, Associate Planner
ky
[email protected], 442-339-2611
Curtis M. Jackson, Real Estate Manager
cu
[email protected], 442-339-2836
Appeal of a Planning Commission Decision to Approve a Minor Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit for a new Wirele
ss Communication Facility within Poinsettia Community Park and a resolution to consider directing the City Manager to initi ate negotiations for a license agreement with AT&T (CUP 2022-0023/CDP 2022- 0070/DEV2022-0206)
District: 3
Recommended Actions

1. Hold a public hearing; and

2. Adopt a resolution denying an appeal and upholding a decision of the Planning Commission to approve a minor conditional use permit and coastal development permit to allow the installation, operation and maintenance of a wireless communication facility consisting of six panel antennas mounted within a 48-inch radome cylinder on a new 78-foot-tall light pole, which will replace an existing light pole, and associated ground equipment within an eight-foot tall enclosure in and adjacent to the northwest corner of the southern parking lot of Poinsettia Community Park generally located at 6600 Hidden Valley Road (assessor parcel number 214-140-13-00). The property is within the Mello II Segment of the Certified Local Coastal Program and Local Facilities Management Zone 20.

3. Consider adopting a resolution directing the City Manager to initiate negotiations for a license agreement with AT&T for a wireless communication facility at Poinsettia Community Park.

Executive Summary
The proposed project will construct an AT&T wireless communication facility, located at Poinsettia Community Park at 6600 Hidden Valley Road and will be comprised of the following:
• Removal and replacement of an existing 78-foot-tall baseball field light pole.

April 16, 2024
Item #13 Page 1 of 53
@) S~~fi R~port

• Installation of six panel antennas, nine remote radio units, and three surge protectors concealed within a 4-foot diameter radome (a combination of radar and dome) on the new light pole.
• Ground level equipment within a new enclosure (replacing an existing trash enclosure).

The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Dec. 6, 2023, and continued the item to its meeting on Jan. 17, 2024, to allow for the applicant to return with additional information related to the review of the proposed project. The Planning Commission considered the additional information on Jan. 17, 2024, and voted 4-3-0 to approve the project, with Commissioners Lafferty, Hubinger, and Sabellico voting no. A timely appeal of the Planning Commission decision was filed by Carlsbad Residents Against Cell Towers in Parks on Jan. 24, 2024.

Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.54 states that an appeal of a Planning Commission decision shall be presented to the City Council, which may affirm, modify or reverse the decision.

Staff are recommending that the City Council adopt a resolution (Exhibit 1) denying the appeal and upholding the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a minor conditional use permit and coastal development permit to allow the installation, operation, and maintenance of a wireless communication facility at Poinsettia Community Park.

Staff are also recommended that the City Council consider whether to adopt a resolution (Exhibit 2) directing the City Manager to initiate negotiations for a license agreement with AT&T for a wireless communication facility at Poinsettia Community Park.

Explanation & Analysis
Project description
The project consists of the installation, operation and maintenance of a wireless communication facility wireless communication facility at 6600 Hidden Valley Road, within Poinsettia Community Park. The facility wireless communication facility would include equipment mounted on a baseball field light pole and within a ground level enclosure within the parking lot of the park.

The project includes the installation of a replacement baseball field light pole, with six panel antennas, nine remote radio units, and three surge protectors installed on the light pole. The light pole will be 78 feet high, the same height as the current baseball field light pole, with the panel antennas installed between 50 feet and 67 feet high on the pole, and the facility and surge protectors installed between 37 feet and 49 feet high on the pole.

The antennas and other pole mounted equipment will be screened from view by a four-foot- diameter radome cylinder around the pole. The location proposed for the light pole is approximately 177 feet from the nearest property line to the south and just west of the south parking lot of the park.

Ground level equipment within an equipment enclosure is also proposed. The equipment enclosure will be located in the northwest portion of the park’s southern parking lot, just east of the proposed light pole, and on the same footprint of an existing trash enclosure. The trash April 16, 2024
Item #13 Page 2 of 53

enclosure being removed is no longer needed within the park due to a change in maintenance procedures. The proposed equipment enclosure has been designed to be compatible with the existing and adjacent park maintenance building, with 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 wireless communication facility to existing communication infrastructure located near the park’s vehicle entrance. Refer to the Planning Commission staff report and meeting minutes, dated Jan. 17, 2024, (Exhibit 3 & 4) and for additional information.

Required entitlements1
The city has two roles for this project. The first as the land use regulator, deciding whether to approve the permits to allow the use, and the second as property owner, deciding whether the city will consider entering into a license agreement with the provider. The first action being considered is the land use permit approvals.

To authorize this installation, the project requires approval of two permit types, a minor conditional use permit and a coastal development permit.

Under Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.42.140.B.165.b, a wireless communication facility wireless communication facility application that complies with both the preferred location and the stealth design guidelines of City Council Policy Statement No. 64 is processed as a minor conditional use permit. The proposed project site is a preferred location and exhibits stealth design techniques. A minor conditional use permit would normally be acted upon by the City Planner as the decision-maker. However, the project also required approval of a coastal development permit, which requires an action of the Planning Commission, so, under Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.54.040, both applications required Planning Commission action.

If the City Council denies the appeal, approving the permits for the project, the decision on the permits is final.

Planning Commission hearing
The Planning Commission considered the proposed project at a public hearing held on Dec. 6, 2023, and continued to Jan. 17, 2024. At the hearing, about a dozen members of the public spoke and there were two group presentations. Their comments contended that:
• The project is not consistent with City Council Policy 64, including that a public park does not qualify as a preferred location for wireless communication facilities • The applicant did not conduct an adequate alternative sites analysis • That radio frequency exposure negatively effects human health • That the installation of a wireless communication facility aesthetically degrades the quality of the public park

1 The land use entitlement process is the legal process in which a developer or landowner seeks to obtain government approval for their development plans.

April 16, 2024
Item #13 Page 3 of 53

Public comment also was received via mail and email leading up to the hearings, with the opinions expressed largely against the project. Two emails were also received in support of the project, commenting on poor cell reception in the area.

The applicant and staff responded to the issues raised before the Planning Commission, some of which were cited in the appeal and are discussed further below. After questions and discussion, the commission voted to approve the project on a vote of 4-3, with Commissioners Lafferty, Hubinger, and Sabellico voting no. A full account of the commission’s actions and a complete description and staff analysis of the proposed project is provided in the attached minutes (Exhibit 4) and Planning Commission staff report (Exhibit 3). Public comments received on the project prior to the hearing can be found attached to the Planning Commission staff report.

City Council Policy No. 64
Before discussing the issues cited in the appeal, it is important to summarize the city’s regulatory authority over wireless facilities. Processing private applications for wireless facilities is highly regulated by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Federal Communications Commission regulations, and state law. To maintain consistency with these regulations and keep up with changes in these laws, City Council Policy No. 64 (Exhibit 5) establishes the rules and regulations for placement of wireless facilities. Policy No. 64, first adopted on Oct. 3, 2001, lists preferred and discouraged locations for such facilities. The policy lists parks as a preferred location for wireless communication facilities (wireless communication facility) and requires them to be built with stealth design techniques.

Policy No. 64 also establishes what aspects of wireless communication facilities are subject to review and what aspects are not. Possible health risks from exposure to the radio frequency emissions generated by wireless communication facilities have also generated public concern.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requires facilities to comply with radio frequency exposure guidelines, and the FCC is the regulating authority over radiofrequency exposure limits generated by wireless communication facilities.

The city ensures compliance with the FCC rules and regulations in its review of permits for wireless communication facilities. However, if federal standards are met, the city cannot deny an application because of perceived radio frequency health hazards.

Because of this limitation, Policy No. 64 requires that applicants submit a report showing they have complied with the FCC rules and regulations. In regard to this site, a reduction in the number of antenna panels in the revised design reduced the amount of radio frequency the site would produce. The Planning Commission staff report (Exhibit 3) includes a radio frequency 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 limits for the public.

Issues cited in the appeal
An appeal of the Planning Commission’s Jan. 17, 2024, decision was timely filed on Jan. 24, 2024 – within the prescribed period – by Kevin Fritz and the Poinsettia Cove Homeowners Association on behalf of Carlsbad Residents Against Cell Towers in Parks. (Exhibit 6). The appellant’s positions and staff’s responses are summarized in the sections below.

April 16, 2024
Item #13 Page 4 of 53

Alternative sites
Appellant’s position
There are viable alternative sites in more desirable locations (per Location Guidelines A1 “a-g”) than a park in a residential area (“h”) listed in the alternative sites analysis that were dismissed because of an incomplete study and/or omitted information.

Staff’s re sponse
City Council Policy No. 64’s Review and Approval Guidelines provide a list of preferred and least preferred sites, listed in order of descending preference as “a” through “i” in section A.1 of the policy. “Parks and community facilities….in residential zones or areas” are listed in the preferred zones as “h,” As such, staff finds that Poinsettia Community Park is a preferred site under City Council Policy No. 64.

Additionally, Section (E)(1)(a) of the policy states that all wireless communication facility applications, whether located in a preferred location or not, shall include the following items:

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.

An alternative sites analysis that fulfilled this application requirement was provided to the Planning Commission hearing as part of the staff report on the Dec. 6, 2023. This analysis considered seven alternative sites that would either be a collocation on an existing wireless communication facility site or a site that is higher on the preferred location list. Prior to the Jan. 17, 2024 hearing, the applicant provided an additional analysis of 10 other possible sites that were identified by the public as possible alternatives to the park.

The alternative sites considered were determined not to be viable for several reasons, such as site elevation, non-interest by property owners, or because the site was outside the targeted area or would provide limited increase in area coverage. Additionally, some sites that were cited by the public as possible alternatives, and were analyzed by the applicant, are not listed as preferred locations, such as major power transmission towers next to residential zones and areas. The site analysis requirement, as stated in the Review and Approval Guidelines of Policy No. 64, has been met.

The target area identified by the applicant primarily consists of land designated for open space and residential land use, and staff are unaware of any sites within the applicant’s target area that would be more preferred than the project site.

Application of Policy No. 64
Appellant’s position
The applicant made only a cursory attempt at co-location, a priority of Policy No. 64. Another alternative, AT&Ts contingency, was revealed at the remand meeting – this contingency calls for a small cell technology that was not explored. Policy No. 64 is being misinterpreted by staff and the spirit and intent of the policy is not at the forefront.

Staff’s r esponse
This portion of the appellant’s appeal covers three components: Lack of collocation options, AT&T contingency proposal and staff’s application of Policy No. 64.

April 16, 2024
Item #13 Page 5 of 53

• Collocation - Collocation of wireless communication facility wireless communication facilities allows for a particular provider to install antennas and other equipment on sites that are already approved for the use but for a different provider, so long as stealthing requirements are maintained. Collocation also typically requires little to no entitlement review. Due to the target area for service consisting primarily of land designated for open space and residential land use, collocation opportunities in this part of the city are limited. The appeal does not provide any specific locations that should or could be considered for collocation. However, two sites for collocation were analyzed in the initial sites analysis and secondary analysis. The analysis found that these sites are located outside the target area and/or would not allow for completion of the network. Staff are unaware of any existing wireless communication facility sites that would be within the applicant’s target area to consider for collocation.
• AT&T’s contingency plan - The appeal is referring to the testimony given by an AT&T representative who answered questions from the planning commissioners at the Jan. 17, 2024 hearing. The AT&T representative was asked what the company’s contingency plans were if the current project were not approved, or, what is “Plan B” for providing coverage in this area if not in the park. Their response was that AT&T would likely provide service through the installation of multiple, approximately eight, smaller antenna sites within the right-of-way of roads in the neighboring residential area.

City Council Policy No. 64 lists preferred locations for wireless communication facility wireless communication facilities in order of preference, with parks in residential zones being listed as the second to last preference. Public right-of-way of certain roads are also listed as preferred locations. The public right-of-way of roads adjacent to residential zones is listed as the last preferred location. Facilities in public right-of- way are typically shorter and closer to residences, often attached to light poles or traffic signals. Given that AT&Ts target coverage area for network completion has little to no industrial or commercial zones within it, the only opportunity for wireless communication facilities within the right-of-way of roads would be adjacent to residential zones. State and federal laws prohibit a city from excluding coverage to a specific geographic area. Therefore, if the current project is not approved, and AT&T still requests to provide coverage in this primarily residential area, the city would be required to process, and may be obliged to approve, such an application.

Policy No. 64 includes a goal that wireless communication facilities “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.” In keeping with this goal, staff support this application to install one facility to cover a geographic region rather than multiple smaller facilities within the same area.
• Staff’s interpretation of Policy No. 64 - The appeal does not provide a section or specific language within Policy No. 64 that is being misinterpreted by staff, or what April 16, 2024
Item #13 Page 6 of 53

specific position staff have taken with their interpretation of the policy that would be counter to the intent of the policy.

Staff have researched past wireless communication facility applications to see what precedents had been set by previous Planning Commission decisions. Most notably, staff reviewed past applications for a wireless communication facility within a public park and a wireless communication facility that proposed a similar approach to screening and stealthing. Staff found that in 2016, a wireless communication facility was approved by the Planning Commission on 6-0-1 vote for the Army & Navy Academy athletic field, which proposed a four-foot radius radome to screen six antennas on a sports-field light pole that is nearly identical to this project’s proposal.

Staff also found that in 2004 a wireless communication facility was unanimously approved for a wireless communication facility within Calaveras Hills Community Park, a park in an area zoned for residential and open space. Policy No. 64 has the same preferred location list as it did when this project was approved.

Staff’s recommendation to the Planning Commission to approve the project was consistent with past interpretations of Policy No. 64 and the resulting decisions by the Planning Commission. The “spirit and intent” of the policy is not defined within the policy itself, and therefore is up for interpretation, but the precedent set by past Planning Commission actions supports staff’s interpretation of the policy and staff’s recommendations.

Aesthetics and noise assessment
Appellant’s position
The proposed wireless communication facility also does not meet all of Policy No. 64 aesthetics requirements and the noise assessment is questionable.

Staff’s re sponse
• Aesthetics - The appeal does not specify what specific aesthetic requirements are not being met by the project. The proposed project includes stealth design of the antennas, which are on a new ball-field light pole and within a 4-foot radius cylindrical radome, which is the same approach used for the wireless communication facility application at other private and public locations of similar sizes.

Policy No. 64 requires any new equipment to be located within existing buildings, screened with walls or plants, or placed within a new building designed to match the architecture of nearby existing buildings. The applicant proposes to create a new enclosure, in the same location as an existing trash enclosure, that would fully screen the equipment and would be designed to match the adjacent maintenance and storage building. Staff find that the proposal is consistent with the aesthetic guidelines of Policy No. 64.
• Noise - A noise assessment letter was provided by the applicant to affirm that the proposed emergency generator would operate within the city’s exterior noise limits, as measured at the nearest receiving property line. Specifically, the assessment found that the calculated noise level at the nearest property line would be 53.8 decibels (dB). The maximum daytime exposure at a residential property line from any non-transportation April 16, 2024
Item #13 Page 7 of 53

noise sources is 55 dB. The original assessment letter incorrectly stated that the lowest applicable noise limit is 60 dB, which is the limit applicable to transportation noise sources. The applicant has corrected that assessment. So, while the assessment letter cites the wrong standard and limit, the study still indicates that the noise generated by the generator (53.8 dB) will be below the applicable daytime noise exposure limit of 55 dB.

It should also be noted that the noise levels predicted in the assessment letter assumes a “free-field environment”, which does not include factors such as ground absorption, reflecting surfaces, barriers or other obstructions. Given that the generator will be kept within an enclosure, the expected noise exposure at the nearest residential property would be even less that the assessment predicts.

License ag reement
The City Council is also being asked to consider whether to adopt a resolution (Exhibit 2) directing the City Manager to initiate negotiations for a license agreement with AT&T for a wireless communication facility at Poinsettia Community Park. As noted above, the city has two roles in this matter. First, as the land use regulator, it is responsible for reviewing the wireless communication facility application for compliance with city’s Zoning Ordinance standards and City Council Policy No. 64, as documented in this staff report.

The city is also the property owner for the proposed site at Poinsettia Community Park. In this role as landowner, the city is not constrained by FCC rules and regulations, provisions of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, the California Government Code or any local ordinances or policies. The city maintains full discretion as to whether to enter into a license agreement for a wireless communication facility on city-owned property.

The typical license agreement the city uses for wireless communication facilities on city or district owned property generally provides a 10-year initial term, with two, five-year extensions, an initial rent of approximately $57,000 per year, with 3% to 6% annual rent increases. It is estimated that a new license agreement for a wireless communication facility at Poinsettia Community Park would yield the city approximately $689,967 in revenue for the first 10 years, and $1,711,287 over a full term of a 20-year license agreement.

If the city decides to not initiate negotiations for a license agreement for a wireless communication facility at Poinsettia Community Park, AT&T would need to find an alternative location or locations that were compliant with Council Policy No. 64 to achieve similar cell service coverage as would be provided by the facility at Poinsettia Community Park. Federal and state law prevents jurisdictions from prohibiting the provision of personal wireless service or cell coverage in neighborhoods. Any alternative wireless communication facility site chosen to achieve similar coverage that was compliant with Council Policy No. 64 would likely be a privately-owned site. In that case, the city would receive no revenue.

The remaining alternative location in the coverage area that would be compliant with Council Policy No. 64 is the “Public right-of-way of roads adjacent to residential zones”. Based on testimony at the Planning Commission by the applicant’s representatives, the applicant preliminarily estimated that it would require eight small wireless facilities within the city road right-of-way to provide similar coverage. These small wireless facilities are typically located on April 16, 2024
Item #13 Page 8 of 53

street light poles and would be located close to residences. These types of facilities are reviewed and approved via a right-of-way permit, which is a ministerial permit application.2 A 2019 Federal Communications Commission order limits the revenue a local government can charge for installation of facilities within the right-of-way. An estimate of revenue for the possible eight small wireless facilities would be $270 per site or $2,160 annually for the eight installations, $24,762 over a 10-year period, and $58,401 over a 20-year term.

Public notification a nd comments
The applicant completed the early public notice procedures established in City Council Policy No. 84 - Development Project Public Involvement Policy. One, 2-foot-tall by 3-foot-wide yellow sign was posted at the project site on Jan. 4, 2023. The sign provided the project’s name, application numbers, description, as well as both the developer and city staff’s contact information. 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. A total of 361 notifications were mailed to property owners and occupants.

A total of 28 individuals sent emails to city staff with questions and concerns about the project during the months of January and February 2023. This feedback included:
• Concerns about design, height, and visual impact
• Health concerns about radio frequency emission exposure • Concerns about potential effects to real estate value • Impacts to residents during construction and installation of the facility While most 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.

In response to concerns about design, height, and visual impact, the applicant worked with 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 remote radio units placed above the ballfield lights – a 90-foot overall height – with no screening of the equipment. Over the course of six-months, the applicant twice redesigned the project to lower the overall height, reduce the amount of equipment proposed on the light pole and incorporate adequate screening/stealthing of that mounted equipment. Renderings of the design changes are provided in the Planning Commission staff report (Exhibit 3).

Fiscal An
alysis
Generally, license agreements for wireless communication facilities on city property are granted for an initial period of 10-years, with two five-year extension options. These license agreements currently generate annual revenue of approximately $57,000 per year, subject to 3% to 6%- annual increases. The city anticipates the total revenue generated from a license agreement for

2 Ministerial refers to a governmental decision in which a public official applies the law to the facts as presented but uses no special discretion or judgment in reaching a decision, only established standards.

April 16, 2024
Item #13 Page 9 of 53

a wireless communication facility at Poinsettia Community Park to be approximately $689,967 for the first 10 years, and $1,711,287 over the full term of a 20-year license agreement.

Options
Staff’s recommendation is to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision.

The City Council may uphold, modify, or overturn the Planning Commission’s decision. A decision to overturn the Planning Commission’s approval must be based upon evidence that was provided to the Planning Commission and raised in the appeal. The City Council will need to provide specific reasons for denial of the application, so that staff may return to a future meeting with the appropriate resolution.

Next Steps
If the City Council denies the appeal, approving the project, the decision on the permits is final.

If the City Council approves the second resolution directing the City Manager to initiate negotiations for a license agreement with AT&T for a wireless communication facility at Poinsettia Community Park, the city will begin negotiations on a license agreement and will return to the City Council for consideration and adoption of the license agreement. Staff will then work with the applicant to implement all project conditions. The applicant will be required to finalize a building permit and grading permit and can proceed with construction if the license agreement is approved and all permits are issued.

Environmental E
valuation
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the 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 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.

Exhibits

1. City Council resolution denying appeal

2. City Council resolution approving license agreement

3. Planning Commission Jan. 17, 2024, staff report ( On file in the Office of the City Clerk)

4. Planning Commission Jan. 17, 2024, meeting minutes,

5. City Council Policy No. 64

6. Appeal form dated Jan. 24, 2024
April 16, 2024
Item #13 Page 10 of 53
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-079

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,

CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING A DECISION OF THE

PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT

AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW THE INSTALLATION,

OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE OF A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION
FACILITY CONSISTING OF SIX PANEL ANTENNAS MOUNTED WITHIN A 48 INCH RADOME CYLINDER ON A NEW 78-FOOT-TALL LIGHT POLE, THAT WILL

REPLACE AN EXISTING LIGHT POLE, AND ASSOCIATED GROUND EQUIPMENT

WITHIN AN EIGHT-FOOT TALL ENCLOSURE IN AND ADJACENT TO THE

NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHERN PARKING LOT OF POINSETTIA COMMUNITY PARK GENERALLY LOCATED AT 6600 HIDDEN VALLEY ROAD (ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 214-140-13-00}. THE PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE

MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE CERTIFIED LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 20
CASE NAME: POINSETTIA COMMUNITY PARK WIRELESS FACILITY
CASE NO.: CUP 2022-0023/ CDP 2022-0070 (DEV2022-0206}
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California has determined that AT&T Wireless, "Applicant" has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad 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, the verified application constitutes a request for a Minor 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 Chapters 21.42 and 21.201.030 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on Jan. 17, 2024, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider the applicant's request and adopted Planning Commission Resolution 7504;and
WHEREAS, at the public hearing the Planning Commission voted 4-3-0 to approve the Minor Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit application for the project; and Exhibit 1
April 16, 2024 Item #13 Page 11 of 53
WHEREAS, on Jan. 24, 2024, the appellant Kevin Fritz and the Poinsettia Cove Homeowners Association on behalf of the Carlsbad Residents Against Cell Towers in Parks, timely filed an appeal with the city as provided in accordance with Chapter 21.54 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the project applicant provided a description of the site selection process undertaken for the wireless communication facility proposed, including the technical service objectives and the reasons for selecting the proposed site and rejecting other sites, as required by City Council Policy Statement No. 64, which included consideration of alternative sites for the facility and opportunities for collocation on existing sites; and
WHEREAS, City Council Policy Statement No. 64 lists parks and community centers within residential areas as a more preferred location for wireless communication facilities than public right­ of-way of roads adjacent to residential zones, and of which a goal is to assure wireless communication facilities 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; and
WHEREAS, City Council Policy Statement No. 64 was correctly interpreted by city staff, who reviewed past decisions on wireless communication facilities made by the Planning Commission to ensure consistency in their interpretation of the policy; and WHEREAS, the project is consistent with the design guidelines of City Council Policy Statement No. 64 through use of "stealth" design techniques and by designing the equipment enclosure to match nearby architecture; and
WHEREAS, the emergency generator proposed by the project will operate consistent with the city noise standards, as stipulated by the performance guidelines of City Council Policy Statement No. 64 and consistent with the Noise Element of the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission found that they had adequate information and analysis to make an informed decision to approve the project with the provided plans and documents establishing the project's compliance with City standards and policies, including City Council Policy Statement No. 64;and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve the project's site development plan; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if

April 16, 2024 Item #13 Page 12 of 53
•
any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the City Council considered all factors relating to the appeal.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows:

1. That the above recitations are true and correct.

2. That the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision is denied, that all other matters not specified in the appeal have been supported by substantial evidence with findings and approved by the Planning Commission, and that the findings and conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 7504 on file in the Office of the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference and as "Attachment A", are the findings and conditions of the City Council.

3. That this action is final on the date this resolution is adopted by the Sitv Council. The provisions of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, "Time Limits for Judicial Review" shall apply.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the 16th day of April, 2024, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

BLACKBURN, BHAT-PATEL, BURKHOLDER, LUNA.

ACOSTA.

NONE.

NONE.

KEITH BLACKBURN, Mayor
SHERRY FREISINGER, City Clerk
(SEAL)

April 16, 2024 Item #13 Page 13 of 53
Attachment A
April 16, 2024
Item #13 Page 14 of 53.,.,
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)
Exhibit 1
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 April 16, 2024
Item #13 Page 15 of 53
~
project qualified for an exemption from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA, Public Resources Code section 21000 et. seq.), and its implementing regulations (the State CEQA Guidelines), Article 14 of the California Code of Regulations section 15000 et. seq. After consideration of all evidence presented, and studies and investigations made by the city planner and on its behalf, the city planner determined that the project was exempt from further environmental review pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15303 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, in that the project is consistent with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program; the project includes the construction and location of small facilities or structures, and the installation of small equipment and facilities in small structures. The project will not have a significant effect on the environment and all the requirements of CEQA have been met; and WHEREAS, on Oct. 16, 2023, the city distributed a notice of intended decision to adopt the "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures" exemption. The notice was circulated for a 10-day period, which began on Oct. 16, 2023, and ended on Oct. 26, 2023. The city did not receive any comment letters on the CEQA findings and determination. The effective date and order of the city planner CEQA determination was Oct. 26, 2023; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on Jan. 17, 2024 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit.

April 16, 2024
Item #13 Page 16 of 53
"'
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:

A)
B)
Findings:

That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.

That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission APPROVES CUP 2022-0023/ CDP 2022-0070 (DEV2022-0206) - POINSETTIA PARK WCF (AT&T), based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:

Conditional Use Permit, CUP 2022-0023

1. That the requested use is necessary or desirable for the development of the community and is in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the general plan, including, if applicable, the certified local coastal program, specific plan or master plan, in that the use is consistent with the General Plan in that the Open Space Land Use designation does not preclude the provision of WCF uses. Within the Open Space {O-S) zone, CMC Chapter 21.33; WCFs are conditionally permitted uses. The requested WCF is necessary and desirable for the development of the community because of the benefit and demand for digital communications and data transmissions for businesses, residences, individuals, public agencies and emergency service systems in this part of the city. The use is consistent with the General Plan in that the Open Space Land Use designation does not preclude the provision of WCF uses. The use is in harmony with objectives that seek to maintain and enhance Carlsbad's appearance in that the WCF is integrated into a light pole; is designed so that the antennas will be attached as close to the light pole as possible with a concealing radome; and associated equipment is located within an enclosure designed to be compatible with the adjacent maintenance building, utilizing materials, colors, and textures that will match the maintenance building.

2. That the requested use is not detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is to be located in that the antennas are proposed to be mounted to a replacement light pole that is the same height as the existing light pole, and antennas are mounted as close to the light pole as technology will allow, thus reducing an outward noticeable appearance and minimizing visual impacts.

The Telecommunication Act of 1996 preempts local governments from regulating the "placement, construction and modification of wireless communication facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of Radio Frequency (RF) emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Federal Communication Commission's {FCC) standards for such emissions." The proposed project would be consistent with the FCC's April 16, 2024
Item #13 Page 17 of 53
regulations for wireless facilities. The project complies with the FCC RF Exposure Guidelines .

Lastly, a Generator Noise Assessment Letter was prepared by EBI Consulting (Oct. 28, 2022) in accordance with the City of Carlsbad's Noise Element of the General Plana and Noise Guidelines. The analysis concludes that the noise produced from operation of the proposed emergency back-up generator will comply with the Carlsbad Exterior Noise Limits at all receiving property lines.

Therefore, based on the above, the project would not result in any detriment or significant health or safety risks to the surrounding area.

3. That the site for the proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, parking, loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping and other development features prescribed in this code and required by the City Planner, planning commission or City Council, in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood, in that the light pole on which the proposed antennas are to be located is the same height as the existing pole; the associated equipment is proposed to be located within an enclosure designed to be compatible with the adjacent remaining maintenance building, utilizing materials, colors, and textures that will match the maintenance building; the light pole and equipment are not within any required front, rear or side yard setbacks; and the proposed pole and equipment enclosure are located more than 160 feet from the nearest adjacent residential property.

4. That the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic generated by the proposed use, in that the unmanned WCF will require, on average, only monthly maintenance visits and occasional visits in response to operational issues. The existing street system is adequate to properly handle any traffic generated by the use.

5. That the proposed WCF is consistent with City Council Policy No. 64 in that the location, a public park, is a "preferred" location. The WCF is proposed to be installed on a structure that already exists, which will reduce its visibility and will be the least disruptive to the appearance of the park. The WCF will not be located on an exposed ridgeline and is satisfactorily screened and disguised by being located on a structure which will light an athletic field. The new antennas will be mounted as close to the light pole as technologically feasible within a four-foot diameter radome. The radome will be painted ,to match the color of the light pole, thereby minimizing visual impacts. The proposed ground mounted equipment will be located within an enclosure, which is designed and treated to match and compliment the adjacent maintenance building. The proposed light pole is consistent with the height requirements of the Open Space zone and will be the same height as the existing light pole to be replaced and the other existing light poles for the baseball field. The proposed installation is more than 160 feet away from the adjacent residentially zoned properties, which is more than double the 78-foot setback called for by the policy. Site selection information was provided April 16, 2024
Item #13 Page 18 of 53
that indicates other locations are not feasible. Color photo-simulations have been provided to show that the project will not substantially alter views to the site from surrounding viewpoints. A Generator Noise Assessment Letter was prepared by EBI Consulting (Oct. 28, 2022) in accordance with the City of Carlsbad's Noise Element of the General Plana and Noise Guidelines. The analysis concludes that the noise produced from operation of the proposed emergency back-up generator will comply with the Carlsbad Exterior Noise Limits at all receiving property lines.

Coastal Development Permit, CDP 2021-0031

6. That the proposed development is in conformance with the Certified Local Coastal Program and all applicable policies in that the site is designated for non-residential uses and is already developed with an athletic-fields with field lights and other park amenities. The project consists of replacing one of the existing field light poles with a new pole that is the same height as the existing, and installing an unmanned WCF on the light pole. The WCF will not obstruct views of the coastline as seen from public lands or the public right-of-way, nor otherwise damage the visual beauty of the coastal zone.

No agricultural activities, sensitive resources, geological instability, flood hazard or vertical coastal access opportunities exist onsite. Furthermore, the WCF facility is not in an area of known geologic instability or flood hazards.

7. The proposal is in conformity with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter Three of the Coastal Act in that the project is located outside of the coastal shoreline development overlay zone. Therefore, compliance with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act is not required.

8. The project is consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone {Chapter 21.203 ofthe Zoning Ordinance) in that the project will adhere to the city's Master Drainage Plan, Grading Ordinance, Storm Water Ordinance, BMP Design Manual and Jurisdictional Runoff Management Program (JRMP) to avoid increased urban runoff, pollutants, and soil erosion. No steep slopes or native vegetation are located on the subject property and the site is not located in an area prone to landslides, or susceptible to accelerated erosion, floods, or liquefaction.

General

9. The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent apd the degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.

April 16, 2024
Item #13 Page 19 of 53
Conditions:

NOTE: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to building permit, whichever occurs first.

1. Approval is granted CUP 2022-0023/CDP 2022-0070 (DEV 2022-0206)- POINSETTIA PARK WCF (AT&T) as shown on Exhibits "A" - "K", dated Dec. 6, 2023, on file in the Planning Division and incorporated herein by reference. Development shall occur substantially as shown unless otherwise noted in these conditions.

2. If any of the following conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the city shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all future building permits; deny, revoke, or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; record a notice of violation on the property title; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the city's approval of this Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit.

3. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit documents, as necessary to make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development, different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.

4. Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance. s. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are challenged, this ;;ipproval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section 66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid, this approval shall be invalid unless the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies with all requirements of law.

6. Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and attorney's fees incurred by the city arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) city's approval and issuance of this Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit, (b) city's approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether April 16, 2024
Item #13 Page 20 of 53
discretionary or nondiscretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c) Developer/Operator's installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby, including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. This obligation survives until all legal proceedings have been concluded and continues even if the city's approval is not validated.

7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit , the Developer shall provide proof to the Building Division from the Carlsbad Unified School District that this project has satisfied its obligation to provide school facilities.

8. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required as part of the Zone 10 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits.

9. This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this project within 24 months from the date of project approval.

10. Developer shall pay the Citywide Public Facilities Fee imposed by City Council Policy #17, the License Tax on new construction imposed by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section

5.09.030, and CFD #1 special tax (if applicable), subject to any credits authorized by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.040. Developer shall also pay any applicable Local Facilities Management Plan fee for Zone 10 pursuant to Chapter 21.90. All such taxes/fees shall be paid at issuance of building permit. If the taxes/fees are not paid, this approval will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall become void.

11. Prior to the issuance of the Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit, Developer shall submit to the city a Notice of Restriction executed by the owner of the real property to be developed. Said notice is to be filed in the office of the County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction of the City Planner, notifying all interested parties and successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit by Resolution(s) No. 7492 on the property. Said Notice of Restriction shall note the property description, location of the file containing complete project details and all conditions of approval as well as any conditions or restrictions specified for inclusion in the Notice of Restriction . The City Planner has the authority to execute and record an amendment to the notice which modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing of good cause by the Developer or successor in interest.

12. CUP 2022-0070 shall be reviewed by the City Planner annually to determine if all conditions of this permit have been met and that the use does not have a substantial negative effect on surrounding properties or the public health, safety and general welfare. If the City Planner determines that: 1) the Conditional Use Permit was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation; or 2) the use for which such approval was granted is not being exercised; or 3) the Conditional Use Permit is being or recently has been exercised April 16, 2024
Item #13 Page 21 of 53
contrary to any of the terms or conditions of approval or the conditions of approval have not been met; or 4) the use for which such approval was granted has ceased to exist or has been suspended for one year or more; or 5) the use is in violation of any statute, ordinance, law or regulation; or 6) the use permitted by the Conditional Use Permit is being or has been so exercised as to be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or so as to constitute a nuisance, the City Planner shall recommend that the Planning Commission hold a public hearing and after providing the permittee the opportunity to be heard, the Planning Commission may revoke and terminate the Conditional Use Permit in whole or in part, reaffirm the Conditional Use Permit, modify the conditions or impose new conditions.

13. This Conditional Use Permit is granted for a period of ten (10) years from Dec. 6, 2023, through Dec. 6, 2033. This permit may be revoked at any time after a public hearing, if it is found that the use has a substantial detrimental effect on surrounding land uses and the public's health and welfare, or the conditions imposed herein have not been met.

This permit may be extended for a reasonable period of time not to exceed 10 years upon written application of the permittee made no less than 90 days prior to the expiration date. The Planning Commission may not grant such extension, unless it finds that there are no substantial negative effects on surrounding land uses or the public's health and welfare. If a substantial negative effect on surrounding land uses or the public's health and welfare is found, the extension shall be denied or granted with conditions which will eliminate or substantially reduce such effects. There is no limit to the number of extensions the Planning Commission may grant.

14. Developer shall report, in writing, to the City Planner within 30 days, any address change from that which is shown on the permit application, any change in the telecommunications provider, or any transfer in ownership of the site.

15. Developer/Operator shall comply with the Federal Communication Commission's guidelines on limits for human exposure to radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic fields.

Within six (6) months after the issuance of occupancy, and with any time extension or amendment request, the Developer/Operator shall submit to the City Planner either (1) verification that the project is categorically excluded from having to determine compliance with the RF exposure guidelines per 47 CFR §1.1307(b)(l); or (2) a project implementation report which provides cumulative field measurements of RF emissions of all antennas installed at the subject site. The report shall quantify the RF emissions and compare the results with the exposure limits established by the FCC guidelines. Said report shall be subject to review and approval by the City Planner for consistency with the Project's preliminary report on RF exposure submitted with the initial project application and for consistency with the FCC guidelines. If, on review, the City finds that the Project does not meet the FCC guidelines, the City may revoke or modify this conditional use permit.

April 16, 2024
Item #13 Page 22 of 53

16. Except in an emergency posing an immediate public health and safety threat, maintenance activities shall only occur between 7 AM (8 AM on Saturdays) and sunset.

Maintenance shall not take place on Sundays or holidays.

17. Future modifications to the facility shall not be approved unless the screening proposed and approved with this application, a four-foot radius radome cylinder, will continue to adequately screen new or replacement equipment. No expansion in size of the radome is allowed unless an amendment to CUP 2022-0023 and CDP 2022-0070 is approved.

18. No installed antennas or equipment shall be energized or activated unless the approved screening, a four-foot radius radome cylinder, is in place and secured on the light pole.

This applies to any new or replacement equipment or antennas installed at a future date.

19. All installation activities shall be coordinated with the Community Development Department and the Parks & Recreation Department to avoid impacts to events within the public park.

20. The Developer/Operator shall maintain compliance at all times with all federal, state and local statutes, regulations, orders or other rules that carry the force of law ("laws") applicable to the Developer/Operator, the subject property, the wireless communication facility or other infrastructure deployment or any use or activities in connection with the use authorized by this resolution, which includes without limitation any laws applicable to human exposure to RF emissions and any standards, specifications or other requirements identified by the city planner or engineering manager (such as, without limitation, those requirements conditioned with this resolution). If the city planner or engineering manager finds good cause to believe that the facility is not in compliance with any laws applicable to human exposure to RF em1ss1ons, the city planner or engineering manager may require the Developer/Operator to submit a written report certified by a qualified radio frequency engineer familiar with the facility that certifies that the facility is in compliance with all such laws. The city planner or engineering manager may order the facility to be powered down if, based on objective evidence, the city planner or engineering manager finds that the facility is in fact not in compliance with any laws applicable to human exposure to RF emissions until such time that the Developer/Operator demonstrates actual compliance with such laws. The Developer/Operator expressly acknowledges and agrees that this obligation is intended to be broadly construed and that no other specific requirements in these conditions are intended to reduce, relieve or otherwise lessen the Developer/Operator's obligations to maintain compliance with all laws. No failure or omission by the City to timely notice, prompt or enforce compliance with any applicable provision in the Carlsbad Municipal Code, this Policy, any permit, any permit condition or any applicable law or regulation, shall be deemed to relieve, waive or lessen Developer/Operator's obligation to comply in all respects with all applicable April 16, 2024
Item #13 Page 23 of 53
provisions in the Carlsbad Municipal Code, this Policy, any permit, any permit condition or any applicable law or regulation.

Code Reminders:

1. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided herein.

April 16, 2024
Item #13 Page 24 of 53

NOTICE TO APPLICANT
An appeal of this decision to the City Council must be filed with the City Clerk at 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92008, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of the Planning Commission's decision. Pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.54, section 21.54.150, the appeal must be in writing and state the reason(s) for the appeal. The City Council must make a determination on the appeal prior to any judicial review.

NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "imposition" of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as "fees/exactions."
You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition.

You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading, or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired.

April 16, 2024
Item #13 Page 25 of 53
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on Jan. 17, 2024 by the following vote, to wit:

AYES: Merz, Kamenjarin, Meenes, Stine
NAYES: Hubinger, Lafferty, Sabellico
ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

PETER MERZ, Chairperso

CARLSBAD PLANNING C
ATTEST:
[;0, ~ ::z::: ===

ERIC LARDY
City Planner
Exhibit 2
RESOLUTION NO. .

A

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD ,

DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO INITIATE NEGOTIATIONS FOR A

LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH AT&T FOR A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION

FACILITY AT POINSETTIA COMMUNITY PARK
W
HEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered a proposed project (CUP 2022-0023/CDP 2022-0070) on Dec. 6, 2023, and continued to Jan. 17, 2024, where the commission approved a Minor Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit to allow AT&T to install a wireless communication facility at Poinsettia Community Park; and WHEREAS, a timely appeal of the Planning Commission decision was filed by Carlsbad Residents Against Cell Towers in Parks on Jan. 24, 2024; and WHEREAS, on April 16, 2024, the City Council held a public hearing and adopted a resolution denying the appeal and upholding the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a minor conditional use permit and coastal development permit to allow AT&T to install a wireless communication facility at Poinsettia Community Park.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows that:

1. The above recitations are true and correct.

2. That the City Manager or his designee is directed to initiate negotiations for a license agreement with AT&T for a wireless communication facility at Poinsettia Community Park.

April 16, 2024
Item #13 Page 26 of 53
P ASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the __ day of ________, 2024, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
_______
_______________________________
KEITH BLACKBURN, Mayor
_______
_______________________________
SHERRY FREISINGER, City Clerk
(SEAL)
April 16, 2024
Item #13 Page 27 of 53
Exhibit 3
Pla
nning Commission Staff Report, Jan. 17, 2024
(on file in the Office of the City Clerk)
April 16, 2024
Item #13 Page 28 of 53
Exhibit 4
April 16, 2024
Item #13 Page 29 of 53

PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes
Jan. 17, 2024, 5 p.m.

CALL TO ORDER: 5:0lp.m.

Council Chamber
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
ROLL CALL: Merz, Hubinger, Kamenjarin, Lafferty, Meenes, Sabellico and Stine PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Planning Commissioner Stine led the Pledge of Allegiance.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

Minutes of the Regular Meeting held on Nov. 15, 2023, were approved as presented. - 6/0/1 (Hubinger-Abstain).

Minutes of the Regular Meeting held on Dec. 6, 2023, were approved as presented. - 4/0/3 (Hubinger, Kamenjarin and Lafferty -Abstain).

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Tim Morgen spoke in opposition of the proposed Valley Middle School field fence project.

Gary Nessim commented on how the City is dealing with low income housing projects.

Robert Wilkinson spoke in opposition to the contemporary, eclectic architectural style of the Carlsbad Village and lack of street tree theme.

CONSENT CALENDAR: None.

PUBLIC HEARING:

This item was continued from the Planning Commission Meeting of Dec. 6, 2023

1. CUP 2022-2023 /CDP 2022-0070 (DEV2022-0206) POINTSETTIA PARK WCF (AT&T)-Adoption of a resolution approving a Minor Conditional Use Permit amendment 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.

ACTION TYPE: Quasi-Judicial
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Take public input, close the public hearing, and adopt the resolution.

PLANNER: Kyle Van Leeuwen ENGINEER: Linda Ontiveros
April 16, 2024
Item #13 Page 30 of 53
Jan. 17, 2024 Carlsbad Planning Commission Regular Meeting Page 2 Chair Merz requested exparte from the commissioners regarding the site for this project. • Commissioners Hubinger, Kamenjarin, Meenes, Merz and Stine are familiar with the site and have visited the site.
• Commissioner Lafferty disclosed a discussion in person and via email with residents of the neighborhood and noted that she is a long time AT&T customer.

Chair Merz opened the duly noticed public hearing at 5:14 p.m.

Senior Assistant City Attorney Allegra Frost requested that commissioners absent from the last meeting on Dec. 6, 2024 state for the record the steps they took to familiarize themselves with the evidence presented at that meeting.
• Commissioner Hubinger watched the video and read the materials that were sent out. • Commissioner Kamenjarin watched the video multiple times and reviewed the materials.
• Commissioner Lafferty reviewed the materials, the video and the correspondence from the public.

City Planner, Eric Lardy introduced Associate Planner, Kyle Van Leeuwen who reviewed a PowerPoint presentation {on file in the Office of the City Clerk).

Representative for Applicant, AT&T External Affairs Manager, John Heffernan introduced the AT& T's vendor MD7's Lead Project Manager, Harold Thomas Jr., who reviewed a presentation on AT& T's behalf.

In response to Commissioner Hubinger's inquiry , regarding a backup business plan if AT&T does not get approval for this particular site, AT&T External Affairs Manager, John Heffernan, explained at this height, with this signal propagation, AT&T would not be able to replace this design for a light design in the right of way. Mr. Heffernan added that it would likely require six or eight smaller units to provide the same strength and quality of service for phone, data, and indoo r coverage.

In response to Commissioner Hubinger's inquiry as to whether AT&T has explored other options that my incur a cost to them, AT&T External Affairs Manager, John Heffernan added that AT&T has not reviewed this topic of cost because cost is not the issue.

In response to Commissioner Stine's inquiry, regarding the danger of the radio frequency emissions for this project, MD7 representative, Radio Frequency {RF) Engineer, Christian Soto, explained that the report on page 77 of the Staff Report clearly illustrates that anything clear, outside of the blue zone noted on the diagram, is well below the FCC minimum standard and compliant with the FCC rules.

Chair Merz opened the public testimony at 6:12 p.m. and asked if there were any members of the public who wished to speak on the project.

April 16, 2024
Item #13 Page 31 of 53
Jan. 17, 2024 Carlsbad Planning Commission Regular Meeting Page 3 The following individuals spoke in opposition to the project: Deborah van Rosenberg, Karen Sparks, Richard Heimlich, Brian Carstens, Maribel Carstens, Nicole Dore, Zachary Schubert, Lynda Schubert, Frank Sung, Kimberly DesMarais, Anne Hampton, and Nora George.

The following individuals spoke in opposition to and reviewed a PowerPoint presentation (on file in the office of the City Clerk).

Gretchen M. Ashton spoke on behalf of herself and on behalf of Dave George, Edward Vendeinlle, and Aileen Heiderich. Kevin Fritz spoke on behalf of himself, Valerie Fisher, Ellen Fritz, and Robert Hampton
Hearing no one else wishing to speak, Chair Merz closed the public testimony at 6:56 p.m.

In response to public comments, MD7's Lead Project Manager, Harold Thomas Jr, reviewed alternative sites proposed by the residents and his communications with the homeowners association the Cove, and the reason's MD7 did not find these sites acceptable.

In response to Commissioner Stine's inquiry, MD7, RF Engineer, Christian Soto explained the distance from any radio frequency waves to any hills or elevation gains around Poinsettia Park were negligible when considering health risks of this cell tower since the closest hill to the 40-foot safety margin for radio frequency waves was likely approximately 500 feet.

Planning Commissioner discussion ensued.

Motion by Commissioner Stine, seconded by Commissioner Meenes, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 7504. Motion carried, 4/3 (Hubinger, Lafferty and Sabellico - No} Chair Merz closed the duly noticed public hearing on Item Number 1 at 7:13 p.m.

Chair Merz called for a recess at 7:14 p.m.

Chair Merz reconvened the meeting at 7:24 p.m.

2. SDP 2023-0012/CDP 2023-0022 (DEV2023-0061) - LEGOLAND CALIFORNIA PROJECT 2025 - A resolution of the Planning Commission of the city of Carlsbad, California, recommending approval of a Site Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit to allow for the replacement of an existing "driving school" and "junior driving school" themed attractions with a new space-themed attraction located within the Inner Park Area of Legoland California in Planning Area 4 of the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan on property located at 1 Legoland Dr., Assessor Parcel Number 211-100-09-00, within the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program and in Local Facilities Management Zone 13.

April 16, 2024
Item #13 Page 32 of 53
Jan. 17,2024 Carlsbad Planning Commission Regular Meeting Page 4 ACTION TYPE: Quasi-Judicial
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Take public input, close the public hearing , and adopt the resolution.

PLANNER: Jason Goff ENGINEER: Nichole Fine
Chair Merz requested exparte from the commissioners regarding the site for this project. • All commissioners noted that they have been to the Legoland park, although not with this item in mind .
• Commissioner Lafferty recused herself because her son worked there a year ago.

Chair Merz opened the duly noticed public hearing at 7:32 p.m.

City Planner, Eric Lardy introduced Senior Planner, Jason Goff who reviewed a PowerPoint presentation (on file in the Office of the City Clerk}.

Motion by Commissioner Meenes, seconded by Commissioner Kamenjarin, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 7505. Motion carried, 6/0/1. (Lafferty; recused} Chair Merz closed the duly noticed public hearing at 7:41 p.m.

3. ELECTION OF OFFICERS -ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ADOPTING PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURES.

ACTION TYPE: Legislative
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Take public input, close the public hearing, and adopt the resolution.

PLANNER: Eric Lardy ENGINEER: N/A
Chair Merz opened the duly noticed public hearing on Item Number 3 at 8:12 p.m.

Chair Merz made a motion to select Vice Chair Sabellico for Chairperson in 2024. Motion failed due to lack of a second.

Motion made by Commissioner Stine to elect Commissioner Kamenjarin for Chair in 2024, seconded by Commissioner Lafferty. Motion passed, 6/1 (Sabellico - No}.

Motion by Commissioner Meenes, seconded by Commissioner Lafferty, to appoint Commissioner Sabellico for Vice Chair. Motion carried, 7 /0.

Motion by Commissioner Stine, seconded by Commissioner Meenes, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 7506. Motion carried, 7 /0.

Chair Merz closed the public hearing on Item Number 3 at 8:27 p.m.

DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS: None.

April 16, 2024
Item #13 Page 33 of 53
Jan. 17,2024 Carlsbad Planning Commission Regular Meeting Page 5 PUBLIC COMMENT: Continuation of the Public Comments This portion of the agenda is set aside for continuation of public comments, if necessary, due to exceeding the total time allotted in the first public comments section. In conformance with the Brown Act, no Council action can occur on these items.

CITY PLANNER REPORT:

City Planner, Eric Lardy reviewed the upcoming Planning Commission schedule and noted that on Jan. 30, 2024, the City Council will be reviewing the General Plan Amendment and Rezone Program for the Housing Element.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER REPORT:

Commissioner Lafferty gave a Historic Preservation Committee update from the Jan. 8, 2024, meeting.

CITY ATTORNEY REPORT: None.

ADJOURNMENT: 9:02pm
Dec. 14, 2021
Item #16 Page 11 of 252
Exhibit 5
April 16, 2024
Item #13 Page 34 of 53
{cityof
Carlsbad
Council Policy Statement
Category: WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES
,I
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.

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, t he 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 252
April 16, 2024
Item #13 Page 35 of 53
• 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 r emedy 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 substan tial 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 252
April 16, 2024
Item #13 Page 36 of 53

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 requi rements 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 252
April 16, 2024
Item #13 Page 37 of 53
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.11
5 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.11
5 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.11
5 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 252
April 16, 2024
Item #13 Page 38 of 53

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 252
April 16, 2024
Item #13 Page 39 of 53

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 WCF s 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), arch itectural 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 252
April 16, 2024
Item #13 Page 40 of 53
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 252
April 16, 2024
Item #13 Page 41 of 53
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 252
April 16, 2024
Item #13 Page 42 of 53
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 o f 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 ca bles 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 252
April 16, 2024
Item #13 Page 43 of 53
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 satisfactio n 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, coi led, 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 compl y 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 252
April 16, 2024
Item #13 Page 44 of 53
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 252
April 16, 2024
Item #13 Page 45 of 53
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 requir ed 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, a ny 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 252
April 16, 2024
Item #13 Page 46 of 53
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 sys tem 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 252
April 16, 2024
Item #13 Page 47 of 53
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, prov ide 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 re nder 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 252
April 16, 2024
Item #13 Page 48 of 53
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 Co de 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” mea ns 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 252
April 16, 2024
Item #13 Page 49 of 53

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 inform ation. 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 252
April 16, 2024
Item #13 Page 50 of 53
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 252
April 16, 2024
Item #13 Page 51 of 53
Exhibit 6
April 16, 2024
Item #13 Page 52 of 53
f
, ... APPEAL FORM Development Service s
( cicyof P-27
Planning Division
Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
(760) 602-4610
www .ca rlsbadca .gov

RECEIVED
Date of Decision you are appealing: January 17, 2024 JAN 2 4 2024 Subject of the A~peal: I CITY OF CARLSBAD I

CITY CLERK 'S OFFICE
BE SPECIFIC Examp les: if the action is a City Planner's Decision, please say so. If a project has multiple applications, (such as a Coastal Development Permlt, Planned Unit Development, Minor Conditional Use Perm it, etc) please list all of them . If you only want to appea l a part of the whole action, please state that here .

Please see fee schedule for the current fee.

Wireless Communications Facility (WCF) proposed for Poinsettia Park by AT&T CUP 2022-2023 /CDP 2022-0070 (DEV2022-0206)
Reason(sl for the Appeal: PLEASE NOTE: The appeal shall specifically state the reason(sl for the appeal. Failure to specify a reason may result in denial of the appeal, and you will be limited to the grounds stated here when presenting your appeal.

BE SPECIFIC How did the decision -maker err? What about the decision is inconsistent with local laws, plans, or policy? Please see Carlsbad Munic;ipal Code (CMG) Sect ion 21.54.140(b) for .additional information (attached). Please attach additional sheets or exhibits if necessary.

The Poinsettia neighborhoods are appealing the Planning Commission's decision on this item based on inconsistencies with Council Policy 64 (CP64) in tha_t there are viable alternative sites in more desirable loca­ tions (per Location Guidelines A1 "a-g") than a park \n a residential area ("h") listed in the Alternative Sites Analysis that were dismissed because of an incomplete study and/or omitted information. The applicant made only a cursory attempt at co-location, a priority of CP64. Another alternative, AT&T's contingency, was revealed at the remand meeting - this contingency calls for a small cell technology which was not explored.

CP64 is being misinterpreted by staff and the spirit and intent of the policy is not at the forefront. The proposed WCF also does not meet all of CP64 aesthetics requirements and the noise assessment is ques­ tionable. This lack of information, misinterpretation of CP64, and AT&T unscrupulously forcing their preferred site into the application process led the Planning Commission to arrive at the wrong decision.

NAME (Print):

MAILING ADDRESS:

CITY, STATE, ZIP:

TELEPHONE:

EMAIL ADDRESS:

SIGNATURE:

DATE:

Carlsbad Residents Against Cell Towers in Parks
c/o Poinsettia Cove Hoa
P.O. Box 1699
Carlsbad,CA 92018
760-930-9669
Ke vL I{/' .t:"veJ7L
April 16, 2024
Item #13 Page 53 of 53
. . '
Poinsettia Cove Maintenance Carp . .
• P.O. Box 1699 •
Car!sbad, CA 9201 8

PAYTOTHE
ORDER OF City of Carlsbad ••
Chase Bank
90-7102/0222
2339
01/23/2024 . •
$ ·**900.00
Nine h un dr9d. and i>0/1 00.**.~***-k_*.******.* *·~*~**~*~·************* ~***** "'·*********** ~-*** **~********* *****************~****

DOLLARS
MEMO
City of Carlsbad
City of Carlsbad
P.O. Box 9009
Carlsbad, CA 92018
City Council Appe~I Fee for AT&T Cell.Tower in Poiri
~ -·-·-·- ·---·· --~··--- ~ - ·.- -.- --... _.- · ........... _______ ... a AUTHORIZED SIG.NATURE. Ill' I
Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Get Outlook for iOS
Priya Bhat-Patel
Tuesday, April 16, 2024 2:30 PM
City Clerk
Fwd: Appeal Poinsettia Cell Tower
From: Chris Barnes <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 2:18:28 PM
All Receive • Agenda Item # D
For the Information of the:
~iOUNCIL
Date~ CA .,,,.- cc ✓
CM _ ACM _ DCM (3} _
To: Carolyn Luna <[email protected]>; Keith Blackburn <keith .blackburn@carlsbadca .gov>; Melanie Burkholder <[email protected]>; Teresa Acosta <teresa.acosta@carlsbadca .gov>; Priya Bhat-Patel < Priya. Bhat-Pate l@ca rlsbadca .gov>
Subject: Appeal Poinsettia Cell Tower
Dear Council Members,
I am writing to you today because I am unable to attend the council meeting this evening in person.

Please do not allow AT&T to build a SG cell tower at Poinsettia Park.

The park is a central location in south Carlsbad where thousands of families and children come together for sports and other activities. It is also adjacent to many residential homes -- all of which could be put at risk from SG radiation, which an increasing number of studies have shown negative and harmful health effects . If AT&T is permitted to install its tower , it would inevitably invite the other carriers to follow suit, which would only amplify the potential health risks.

Please consider the health and safety of South Carlsbad citizens and recommend alterna te locations for the cell towers .

Thank you,
Chris Barnes
6404 Calmeria Pl
858-864-8766
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless ou recognize the sender and know the content i 1 Tammy Cloud-McMi nn
From: Sheila Cobian
Sent:

To:

Tuesday, April 16, 2024 2:55 PM
City Clerk
Subject: FW: Please Do Not Approve a Cell Phone Tower in Poinsettia Park From: Keith Blackburn <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 2:31 PM
To: Sheila Cobian <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Please Do Not Approve a Cell Phone Tower in Poinsettia Park Get Outlook for iOS
From: Lynda Schubert <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 10:57:25 PM
To: Keith Blackburn <keith .blackburn@carlsbadca .gov>
Subject: Please Do Not Approve a Cell Phone Tower in Poinsettia Park Mayor Blackburn,
My name is Lynda Schubert, 1031 Seahorse. I live The Cove Community, next to Poinsettia Park.

I respectfully request you vote NO on approving an AT&T cell phone tower in Poinsettia Park, near family homes. Cell phone towers do not belong in our public parks, true gems of Carlsbad. They belong in commercial and industrial areas.

As we have watched neighborhoods become more dense with ADUs, open natural space has become even more precious. The proposed monstrous ATT Cell phone tower would disrupt the ambiance and overall beauty of the park and devaluates our largest investment, our homes.

Please do not give a large corporations shareholder's profit priority over the families of Carlsbad.

Please consider a different location, away from family homes and out of our neighborhood parks.

Thank you for your consideration .

R/S,
Lynda Schubert
1031 Seahorse Ct.
760.579.8160
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content i safe.
1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From: Sheila Cobian
Sent:

To:

Tuesday, April 16, 2024 2:55 PM
City Clerk
Subject: FW: Please vote NO on SG towers
From: Keith Blackburn <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 2:31 PM
To: Sheila Cobian <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Please vote NO on SG towers
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Lindy R <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 2:07:22 PM
To: Keith Blackburn <[email protected]>
Subject: Please vote NO on SG towers
Dear Mayor Blackburn,
I am opposed to SG towers at Poinsettia Park. I have resided in Carlsbad for nearly 25 years and appreciate our wonderful quality of life here. I have linked Dr. Mercola's information, below, on the serious health risks including:

Neurological and psychiatric problems,
Brain development impacts,
Altering the microbiome, and
Reductions in male fertility
Dr. Mercola's Article titled 'Ten New Studies Detail Health Risks of SG', dated April 14, 2024, link:
https ://tinyurl .com/26hjd9nw
Thank you for considering my input. I live adjacent to Poinsettia Park in the Seabright HOA.

Sincerely,
Linda Rayner
6443 Merlin Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92011
1 Tammy Cloud-McM inn
From: Sheila Cobian
Sent:

To:

Tuesday, April 16, 2024 2:55 PM
City Clerk
Subject: FW: Poinsettia Park Cell Phone Towere
From: Keith Blackburn <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 2:32 PM
To: Sheila Cobian <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Poinsettia Park Cell Phone Towere
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Aileen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 9:32:03 AM
To: Keith Blackburn <keith .blackburn@carlsbadca .gov>
Subject: Poinsettia Park Cell Phone Towere
The application of Policy 64 in regard to proposed cell phone tower(s) in Poinsettia Park is totally misguided and we do NOT want these towers to flourish in our park(s).

To stand on the ground of keeping these facilities away from residences and list a park on the "preferred sites" list is preposterous, never mind recommending such placement at this time! Please take to heart the community's input and place them in one of the higher priority sites as listed in the policy .

At some time in the immediate future please rethink the verbiage of Policy and rewrite it with true intention .

Thank you!
Aileen Heimlich
Sent from my iPhone
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From: Sheila Cobian
Sent:

To:

Tuesday, April 16, 2024 2:56 PM
City Clerk
Subject: FW: Tuesday's WCF Appeal
From: Keith Blackburn <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 2:33 PM
To: Sheila Cobian <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Tuesday's WCF Appeal
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Nora George <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2024 7,22:01 PM
To: Keith Blackburn <[email protected]>
Subject: Tuesday's WCF Appeal
Dear Mayor Blackburn,
I am looking forward to Tuesday's City Council meeting where I will have the opportunity to explain why our neighborhood has been challenging the proposed Wireless Communication Facility at Poinsettia Park. We feel the Planning Commission was manipulated by AT&T into believing there are no alternatives to a WCF at Poinsettia Park. As you know, the decision was a split 4-3, telling of considerable doubt. There ARE viable alternatives and even a different technology that was revealed at the Planing Commission meeting as AT& T's (more expensive) cont ingency plan. It is frustrating to see big corporations putting profit over a community 's well being. Please keep an open mind to the options and to the possibility that staff might have missed something . More importantly, with so much at stake, and the level of confusion and discontent with this item, please consider all t he facts thoroughly before ente ring in to a lease agreement with AT&T.

Respectfully ,
Nora Jimenez George, MCP
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From: Teresa Acosta
Sent:

To:

Tuesday, April 16, 2024 4:01 PM
City Clerk
Subject: FW: NO on the SG tower at Poinsettia Park
From: Julia Kruger <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 3:55 PM
To: Carolyn Luna <carolyn [email protected]> ; Keith Blackburn <[email protected]>; Melanie Burkholder <melanie.burkholder@carlsbadca .gov>; Teresa Acosta <teresa.acosta@carlsbadca .gov>; Priya Bhat-Patel <Priya.Bhat-Patel@carlsbadca .gov>
Subject: NO on the SG tower at Poinsettia Park
Dear Carlsbad City Council Members,
I am writing to you today regarding the proposed 5G tower to be installed at Poinsettia Park. I am HIGHLY opposed to this, and cannot believe that the Carlsbad Planning Commission thought this was ever a good idea. 5G technology has not been proven safe, and is actually showing data that it is in fact UNSAFE. I think 5G should be outlawed entirely, but that's not going to happen. So in the meantime, let's at least use common sense and not put it in a park, neighborhood, and near a school.

We elected you to represent the best interest of the people of Carlsbad , and putting this in Poinsettia Park is not in our best interest. Please do the right thing and oppose this placement of 5G technology.

Respectfully,
Julia Kruger
6456 Pyrus Place
Carlsbad, 92011
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you reco nize the sender and know the content i 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From: Carolyn Luna
Sent:

To:

Tuesday, April 16, 2024 4:09 PM
City Clerk
Subject: Fw: Poinsettia Park cell phone tower(s)
FYI
( City of
Carlsbad
Carolyn Luna
City Council Member, District 2
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
www.carlsbadca.gov
442-339-2830 (City Hall)
From: Aileen Heimlich <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 9:37 AM
To: Carolyn Luna <carolyn.luna@carlsbadca .gov>
Subject: Poinsettia Park cell phone tower(s)
The application of Policy 64 in regard to proposed cell phone tower(s) in Poinsettia Park is totally misguided and we do NOT want these towers to flourish in our park(s).

To stand on the ground of keeping these facilities away from residences and list a park on the "preferred sites" list is preposterous, never mind recommending such placement at this time! Please take to heart the community's input and place them in one of the higher priority sites as listed in the policy.

At some time in the immediate future please rethink the verbiage of Policy and rewrite it with true intention.

Thank you!
Aileen Heimlich
Sent from my iPhone
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recogni ze the sender and know the content i safe.
1 Tammy Cloud-McM inn
From: Carolyn Luna
Sent:

To:

Tuesday, April 16, 2024 4:09 PM
City Clerk
Subject: Fw: Tuesday's WCF Appeal
FYI
( City of
Carlsbad
Carolyn Luna
City Council Member, District 2
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad. CA 92008
www .ca rlsbadca.gov
442-339-2830 (City Hall)
From : Nora George <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2024 7:32 PM
To: Carolyn Luna <carolyn [email protected]>
Subject: Tuesday's WCF Appeal
Dear Ms. Luna,
I am looking forward to Tuesday's City Council meeting where I will have the opportunity to explain why our neighborhood has been challenging the proposed Wireless Communication Facility at Poinsettia Park. We feel the Planning Commission was manipulated by AT&T into believing there are no alternatives to a WCF at Poinsettia Park. As you know, the decision was a split 4-3, telling of considerable doubt. There ARE viable alternatives and even a different technology that was revealed at the Planing Commission meeting as AT&T's (more expensive) contingency plan. It is frustrating to see big corporations putting profit over a community's well being. Please keep an open mind to the options and to the possibility that staff might have missed something. More importantly, with so much at stake, and the level of confusion and discontent with this item, please consider all the facts thoroughly before entering in to a lease agreement with AT&T.

Respectfully,
Nora Jimenez George, MCP
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From: Carolyn Luna
Sent:

To:

Tuesday, April 16, 2024 4:10 PM
City Clerk
Subject:

FYI
( City of
Carlsbad
Carolyn Luna
City Council Member, District 2
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
www .carlsbadca.gov
442-339-2830 (City Hall)
Fw: No cell tower
From: Katie Beyer <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2024 3:04 PM
To: Carolyn Luna <carolyn.luna@carlsbadca .gov>
Subject: No cell tower
Good afternoon ,
I vote NO CELL TOWER at poinsettia park. Install in alternate location to protect the health and safety of our poinsettia community.

Thank you,
Kathryn Beyer
1082 Seahorse Ct
Carlsbad CA 92011
760-405-7211
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content i 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From: Carolyn Luna
Sent:

To:

Tuesday, April 16, 2024 4:10 PM
City Clerk
Subject:

FYI
( City of
Carlsbad
Carolyn Luna
City Council Member, District 2
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
www .carlsbadca.gov
442-339-2830 (City Hall)
Fw: Cell tower
From : Donna Beyer <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2024 2:59 PM
To: Carolyn Luna <carolyn [email protected]>
Subject: Cell tower
Good afternoon,
While I could go in and on listing all of the reasons Pointsettia Park is not the place for a cell tower, I'll keep this brief .

For all ofthe reasons that have already been presented -please vote to NOT PLACE A CELL TOWER AT POINTSETTIA PARK!!
Thank you,
Donna Beyer
1082 Seahorse Ct
Carlsbad CA 92011
760-505-6814
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:
( City of
Carlsbad
Dr. Melanie Burkholder
Melanie Burkholder
Tuesday, April 16, 2024 4:25 PM
City Clerk
Fwd: Opposition to Poinsettia Park cell tower
City Council Member, District 1
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
www.carlsbadca.gov
442-339-2830 (City Hall)
442-637-2853 (mobile/text)
From: Thalia Causey <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 4:20:26 PM
To: Keith Blackburn <[email protected]>; Melanie Burkholder <[email protected]>; Teresa Acosta <[email protected]>; Priya Bhat-Patel <[email protected]>; Carolyn Luna <[email protected]>
Subject: Opposition to Poinsettia Park cell tower
Dear council members,
I am writing to you to ask that you please appeal the planning commission's decision to locate an AT&T tower at Poinsettia Park I am aware that other sites are available for the tower.

Gambling with the health of our citizens with a technology that has not been researched enough to be declared safe is irresponsible. This park and its surroundings are far too densely populated and frequented for the placement of these towers. Health and safety first and above all else should be the guiding mantra and your north star when making decisions - the one that helps you sleep at night knowing you did the right thing .

This is the largest park in our community, heavily used at most hours of the day and night, and affects a sizable portion of Carlsbad residents and all of us families in this neighborhood. It also hosts countless people from outside of Carlsbad when you consider not just baseball, Friday 1 night lights, and soccer, but concerts, Easter, and so many other community events that attract others and are too long to list. This technology has not proven safe. Relying on those within the industry who have lobbied hard for material gain over public safety to self-police invites ineffective and incomplete monitoring and questionable reliability.

The tower is also an eyesore in one of our most beautiful parks. This community in particular is being·hit hard with overdevelopment and density housing creating negative impact after negative impact. It's too much.

Please advocate in today's meeting for the residents of Carlsbad that elected you that do NOT want this tower in their backyard. Silence is saying that you approve.

Thank you for your consideration .

Thalia Causey
6568 Bluebonnet Drive
Carlsbad
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless ou recognize the sender and know the content i safe.
2 Tammy Cloud-McM inn
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

To whom this may concern:

B <[email protected] >
Tuesday, April 16, 2024 4:49 PM
City Clerk
Attention of Office of the City Clerk - SgTower Poinsettia Park I live at 1068 Beacon Bay Dr, Carlsbad, CA 92011 and am against the proposed location of the Att SG project.

I feel that it is unreasonable that within a 42 acre park, that the tower would need to be placed right next to homes.

There are a few questions I have in addition to what has already been asked.

What is the impact on home prices? Should I as a homeowner take a loss for Att to gain market share? Who will be compensating the homeowners for the loss of home value? Multiple studies support there is a financial loss to property value with nearby cell towers.

Further, what is the plan for when Verizon, or any other carrier submits their application? Are they going to add to the pole that Att is using? Is Carlsbad going to allow multiple cell towers next to homes? These questions have not been explored and have large implications to these projects. To move forward without considering future towers would be short sighted and potentially have financial impacts to the neighboring homeowners. I believe Carlsbad should have Att find a new site away from homes.

Thank you,
Blair Howard
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content i safe.
1 Tammy Cloud-McM inn
From: Melanie Burkholder
Sent:

To:

Tuesday, April 16, 2024 6:45 PM
City Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Poinsettia Park Cell Tower -- NO!!!!
( city of
Carlsbad
Dr. Melanie Burkholder
City Council Member, District 1
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
www .carlsbadca.gov
442-339-2830 (City Hall)
442-637- 2853 (mobile/text) ·
From: Kristen Rogers <kristenr99@msn .com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 5:00:49 PM
To: Carolyn Luna <carolyn.luna@carlsbadca ;gov>; Keith Blackburn <keith .blackburn@carlsbadca .gov>; Melanie Burkholder <melanie.burkholder@ca rlsbadca.gov>; Teresa Acosta <teresa.acosta@carlsbadca .gov>; Priya Bhat-Patel <[email protected] >
Subject: Poinsettia Park Cell Tower -- NO!!!!
Hello Council Members and Mayor Blackburn.

As 20+ year Carlsbad resident in the Poinsettia Park area, we DON'T want a SG cell tower placed in Poinsettia Park. It's the WRONG LOCATION.

Do you really want to gamble with the health of our community, particularly the health of our children? This location is in a residential area. It's across the street from Pacific Rim Elementary School. It's in a park where families gather and kids play. There are numerous ongoing studies that show the risks of EMF and SG on our bodies. And children are most vulnerable!!!!
The FCC has a moratorium prohibiting SG near airports because it interferes with their communica t ion systems. That's indicat ive of the problems SG brings wit h it.

Think about who elected each of you to represent us - please listen, we don't want or need the tower. Put it in an industrial park area!
I request that all of you vote against t his locat ion. 1 Thank you.

Kristen Rogers
6414 Torreyanna Circle
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content i 2 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Item #13
Sheila Cobian
Monday , April 15, 2024 10:42 AM
City Clerk
FW: Appeal of AT&T proposal at Poinsetti Park
From: Laurenn Barker <art1ark17@yahoo .com>
Sent : Monday , April 15, 2024 10:08 AM
To: Scott Chadwick <scott .chadwick@carlsbadca .gov>
Subject: Appeal of AT&T proposal at Poinsetti Park
Dear City Manager Charwick,
All Receive - Agenda Item # /.3
For t he Information of the:
. _c;:rry c9 uNCIL
Date~ ......--Cc ~
CM V-ACM .....-OCM (3) L
This is a letter to register my support for the community appeal of the AT&T application to place a cell tower in Poinsettia Park.

This installation is not compatible with Carlsbad's Policy 64 regarding cell phone tower placement, parks are on top of the list of discouraged locations. AT&T has chosen it for their convenience only and has not adequately considered other more suitable sites for the people of the area.

I attended the Planning Commission meetings and read the community letters against the project in this location. I encourage the City to deny AT& T's application and require the company to consider more suitable locations. In fact, I have been told that at least one other site has already approved having the tower on their property and that should be explored . There are also othe r types of cell transmissions such as Small Wireless Transmissions being used in other cities and in Carlsbad in the Bressi Ranch and La Costa Glen areas. Those options should be explored .

Listening to the AT&T representative's presentation of the project , I found it to be quite superficial and his answers to audience questions, inadequate, or nonexistant. In contrast, I found the audience professionals who spoke to the subject to be very knowledgeable and their points very credible . I did not feel that the Planning Commissioners gave enough credence to those in the audience who had researched the subject and spoke to the facts versus AT& T's representative.

The following should be taken into consideration:

This proposed AT&T site is in an area of extensive housing and adjacent to an award winning primary school and one of Carlsbad's most frequented community parks for both adults and children of all ages. The park includes a toddler play area, two dog parks, the city's largest combined tenn is and pickle ball complex and sports areas for many sports. It is also home to wildlife and birds such as the Osprey who nest there year after year. Carlsbad is one of the first communities in California to draft an ordinance protecting sensitive wildlife habitats. Ignoring these needs is in violation of our stated priorities and the sustainable, environmentally sensitive city that we want to be.

Calavaras Hills Park is already blighted with cell towers . I encourage you to not let the same happen to Poinsettia Park. I have heard people say that we can always deny the next applicant but in reality once you have approved one, others will follow and Verizon has already applied. The city cannot refuse subsequent applicants without fear of major crippling lawsuits.

I am sure with proper evaluation, a new site or, alternatively a Small, Wireless Transmission Network can be developed which is, perhaps a little more inconvenient for AT&T but is much better for the people of Carlsbad. We cannot let Carlsbad's parks become homes to cell phone towers; that is not their purpose.

Sincerely,
1 Laurenn Barker
Concerned Carlsbad mother and grandmother.

Former Arts Commissioner and Chair
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content i 2 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Attachments:

Good Afternoon,
Harold Thomas Jr.<[email protected]>
Monday, April 15, 2024 2:32 PM
City Clerk
Tara Carmichael; Kyle Van Leeuwen
Applicant Correspondence - Poinsettia Park CUP2022-0023/CDP 2022-0070/DEV2022-0206 - CAL01850
CAL01850_1ntro Letter to for noise report_04.15.24.pdf; CAL01850 _Gen_Noise_Assessment_Letter-4-12-2024.pdf
I hope that your day is going well for you today. I would like to submit a correspondence letter for item 13 on tomorrow's City Council Meeting. A few of the residents from the Cove HOA had raised concerns regarding the noise emissions for this project. Please see the attached Noise Report that states that the site will be in compliance with the City of Carlsbad noise levels.

If there is anything else that I can provide or clarify, please let me know.

Thank you,
Harold Thomas Jr.

Land Use Planner
D7
10590 W. Ocean Air Drive, Suite 250
San Diego, CA 92130
D (858) 750-1798
[email protected]
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content i 1 To:

City of Carlsbad
City Clerks Office
1635 Faraday Ave.,
Carlsbad , CA 92008
Hello ,
MD'i
April 15, 2024
From:

MD7 LLC
Harold Thomas Jr, Land Use Planner
10590 W. Ocean Air Drive Suite 250.,
San Diego, CA 92130
(858) 750-1798
hthomasjr@md7 .com
A few residents from the Cove HOA had raised concerns regarding the noise emissions for item 13 in the staff report for the project . This will be for CUP2022-0023/CDP 2022-0070/DEV2022-0206 .

Please see the attached Noise Report that states that the site will be in compliance with the City of Carlsbad Noise Levels.

If there is anything else that I can provide, please let me know.

Thank you,
i/(/AffU ?L~ Cf
Harold Thomas Jr
Land Use Planner
[email protected]
(858) 750-1798
Generator Noise Assessm e nt Lette r
for AT&T Site Num be r: CALO 1850 / 14292179
Site Name : Poins etta Park
Address: 6600 "A" Hidden Valley Rd. Carlsbad, Californ ia Apri l 12, 2024
I. Site Descriptio n:

Site CALO 1850 / 14292179 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 the nearest identified residential property line. Calculations were performed using site drawings dated July 31 , 2023, information provided by MD?, data from the equipment manufacturer, and 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 Sett ing
The 2015 City of Carlsbad Noise Element limits noise in sensitive use areas to 45 dB (nighttime) Leq. The Leq, or Equivalent Cont inuous Sound Level, is used to represent an average sound level.

T able I - Carlsbad N oise Lim its*
Receiving Land Daytime N ighttime
Use Category (7 A.M.- 10 P.M.) (10 P.M.-7 A.M. )
Hourly Leq, dB 55 dB Leq 45 dB Leq
Maximum Level, dB 75 dB Leq 65 dB Leq
*Adapted from the Carlsbad Noise Noise Element, Table 5-3: Performance Standards for Non ­ Transport ation Sources (as measured at the property line of source/sensitive use).

Generator Noise Assessment Letter
EBI Project No. 6222006408

4. Relevant Proposed Equipment
Site No. CALOl850 / 14292179
6600 "A" Hidden Valley Rd., Carlsbad, California
The proposed site design includes installation of one (I) 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
Sound Distance Quantity Description Manufacturer Model Number Pressure Level (feet) (dBA) 1 20 kW Diesel Emergency Generac SDC020 2.2L 65 23 Back-up Generator *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 rio_ise;· existing equipment, fencing, walls, landscaping, topography and property line setbacks.

The proposed generator will only ~un for · routine cycling/testing for a duration of no more .than fifteen ( 15) minutes one (I) 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.

EBI Consulting ♦ 21 B Street ♦ Burlington, MAO 1803 ♦ 1.800.786.2346 Generator Noise Assessment Letter
EBI Project No. 6222006408

5. Calculated Sound Levels.

Site No. CALO 1850 / 14 292179
6600 "A" Hidden Valley Rd., Carlsbad, California
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, or other obstructions, apart from those noted in this report .

Barrier calculations for this site include an 8' tall CMU (Concrete Masonry Unit). The wall was assumed to have an STC (Sound Transmission Class), rating of 45dB, based on the information in the provided site drawings. 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 Calculated
Receiving Land Property Line Estimated Distance Generator Lowest Applicable Use Category Direction from to· Proposed Contribution at Noise Limit (dB Proposed Generator Generator (feet) Property Line (dB Ldn) Ldn)
Residential* South 180 28.8 45
*All other property lines receivers are located considerably farther away from the proposed generatqr.

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 eme~n~y back-up generator will comply . with the noise limits as described in the Carlsbad Noise Noise Element, Performance Standards for Non-Transportation Sources, _ at all receiving property line locations.

6. Limitations
This report was prepared for the use of MD7 and AT&T. k 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.

EBI Consulting ♦ 21 B Street ♦ Burlington, MAO 1803 ♦ 1.800.786.2346 Generator Noise Assessment Letter
EBI Project No. 6222006408
Site No. CALO 1850 / 14 292179
6600 "A" Hidden Valley Rd., Carlsbad, California
Appendix A
Calculation Methodology
EBI Consulting ♦ 21 B Street ♦ Burlington, MA 0 1803 ♦ 1.800. 786.2346 Generator Noise Assessment Letter
EBI Project No. 6222006408
Site No. CALO 1850 / 14292 179
6600 "A" Hidden Valley Rd., Carlsbad, California

NOISE CALCULAT ION 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 di.vided 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 intens,ities 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 t he 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 IO ·dB represents a perceived halving or doubling of loudness.

Environmental sound is commonly expressed in terms o( 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 I an<:! Figure I s·how 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 Instit ute Standard No. 5. 1 and most other relevant standards related to measurement of noise levels.

Octave Band
Center
Frequency (Hz)
A-weighting
Adjustment
(±dB)
32 64
-39.4 -26.2
T able I
A-WeiS?hted O ctave Band Adjustment (+/- dB)
125 250
- 16.1 -8.6
+20
+1 0
-30
(8)
-40
-50
10 100
500
-3.6
1000
1000

0.0 2000
I
'!
+ 1.2
~\ i
(not defined) \
'\
10k 100k
A-weighting (blue), B (yello w), C (red), and O-weightlng (blk) ..
4000
+1.0
EBI Consulting ♦ 21 B Street ♦ Burlington, MAO 1803 ♦ 1.800.786.2346 ...
8000 16000
- I. I -6.6
Generator Noise Assessment Letter
EBI Project No. 6222006408
Site No. CALOl850 / 14292179
6600 "A" Hidden Valley Rd., Carlsbad, California
FIGURE I - WE IGHTED OCTAVE BAND ADJUSTME N TS {± d B)
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 t he average sound level and is calculated automatically by the sound level meter using methods defined in ANSI S 1.4-19831.

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 propagat ion is used to determine the sound levels at various·-distances from the source when L1 and ri 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 :

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).
. .

In this report, EBI has assumed Q (directionality) is equal to I to represent full-sphere propagation.

The resultant Lw values are then added together, using logarithmic decibel addition, where Lr refers to the total level, and Li, L2, etc. refer to t he sound power of different individual sources. 1 American National Standards Institute, ANSI S 1-4-1983, American National Standard Specification for Sound Level Meters, 1983
EBI Consul ting ♦ 21 B Street ♦ Burlington, MAO 1803 ♦ 1.800.786.2346 Generator Noise Assessment Letter
EBI Project No. 6222006408
Site No. CALO 1850 / 14292179
6600 "A" Hidden Valley Rd., Carlsbad, California
Appendix B
Equipment Specifications
EBI Consulting ♦ 21 B Street ♦ Burlington, MA 01803 ♦ 1.800.786.2346

SOUND ATTENUATED ENCLOSURE
D2.2, Generac SDC020
NO-LOAD, dB(A)
GENERAC " I INDUSTRIAL I POWER
DISTANCE: 7 METERS
MICROPHONE OCTAVE BAND CENTER FREQUENCY {Hz)
LOCATION 31.5 63 125
FRONT 20 40 53
2 19 43 50
RIGHT 18 50 47
4 21 56 49
REAR 21 56 51
6 20 56 49
LEFT 18 53 47
8 19 43 54
AVERAGE 20 50 50
FULL-LOAD, dB(A)

MICROPHONE
LOCATION 31.5 63 125
FRONT 21 57 65
2 19 59 61
RIGHT 19 59 59
4 21 60 58
REAR 23 58 59
6 21 60 55
LEFT 19 62 58
8 19 60 64
AVERAGE 20 59 60
2 RIGHT
FRONT
250 500 1,000 2,000
50 50 50 46
50 55 51 48
51 56 50 48
50 53 53 50
51 50 50 46
50 54 54 48
52 59 53 50
52 55 54 48
51 54 52 48
OCTAVE BAND CENTER FREQUENCY {Hz)
250 500
52 55
52 57
54 57
54 55
52 53
53 57
55 60
55 57
53 57
4 REAR
. 1,000
53 55
54 54
52 55
55 56
54 69
67 65
63 ~ 61 ca
-o 59
57 55
2,000
50 51
52 52
49 52
53 52
51 4,000 8,000 dB(A)
44 35 56
44 38 57
46 37 58
46 38 59
44 35 58
43 35 60
47 39 61
44 38 59
45 37 59
DISTANCE: 7 METERS
4,000 8,000 dB(A)
50 40 . 66
51 43 65
52 44 64
51 42 64
49 38 62
49 39 64
51 43 66
51 44 67
51 42 65
FRONT 2 RIGHT 4 REAR 6 LEFT 8
6 LEFT 8
• 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).

Generac Power Systems, Inc. I P.O. Box 8 I Waukesha, WI 53187 P: (262) 544-4811 © 2021 Generac Power Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. All specifications are subject to change without notice.

Part No. A0001352186
Rev. A 2/17 /21
Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Item #13
-----Original Message-----
Council Internet Email
Monday, April 15, 2024 8:51 AM
City Clerk
FW: Tuesday's WCF Appeal
From: Nora George <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2024 7:34 PM
To: Melanie Burkholder <melanie.burkholder@carlsbadca .gov> Cc: Council Internet Email <[email protected]>
Subject: Tuesday's WCF Appeal
Dear Ms. Burkholder,
All Receive - Agenda Item ft Ll
For the Information of the:
. ,F'J;Y_SOUNCIL
Date~ CA ___k€C~
CM _vt>. CM ~ CM (3) ::::::.

I am looking forward to Tuesday's City Council meet ing where I will have the opportunity to explain why our neighborhood has been challenging the proposed Wireless Communication Facility at Poinsettia Park. We feel the Planning Commission was manipulated by AT&T into believi"ng there are no alternatives to a WCF at Poinsettia Parle As you know, the decisfon was a split 4-3, telling of considerable doubt. There ARE viable alternatives and even a different technology that was revealed at the Planing Commission meeting as AT&T's (more expensive) contingency plan. It is frustrating to see big corporations putting profit over a community 's well being. Please keep an open mind to the options and to the possibility that staff might have missed something. More importantly, with so much at stake, and the level of confusion and discontent with this item, please consider all the facts thoroughly before entering in to a lease agreement with AT&T.

Respectfully,
Nora Jimenez George, MCP
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 Oku
Solutions
All Receive - Agenda Item# .1J
For the Information of the:
. .P~~O UNCIL
Date'-!!..l.!!iZL CA V CC V
CM V-ACM V- DCM (3) i../
9515 Soquel Dr., Suite 205
Aptos, CA USA 95003
+1 (408) 889-9741
www .okusolutions.com
4/15/2024
•••
To: Hon. Keith Blackburn and Councilmembers, City of Carlsbad CA Ref: Council Agenda Item #13, Appeal of CUP 2022-0023/CDP 2022-0070/DEV2022-0206, AT&T Dear Mayor Blackburn and Councilmembers:

Related to MD7 and AT&T's application for a Wireless Communications Facility at Poinsettia Park, Oku Solutions is retained as an RF engineering firm to provide third-party expert review of the application materials, and we respectfully submit this statement of qualifications.

Oku Solutions provides telecommunication engineering consulting services to governments, non-profits, and industry clients. I am Oku Solutions' founder and CEO, an electrical engineer with a B.Sc. from the University of California, with a career focus on wireless systems, communications theory and practice, and radio-frequency theory and practice . I have testified about RF engineering and electromagnetic safety at dozens, if not hundreds, of hearings on wireless communications facilities. I am a:
• Senior Member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE}, an international organization dedicated.to advancing innovation and technological excellence for the benefit of humanity, creating standards, and the world's largest technical professional society; • Member of the IEEE's International Committer! on Electromagnetic Safety {ICES},·which hosts the TC95 working group that produces the C95 family of standards, from which international regulatory agencies (including the Federal Communications Commission) derive their safety compliance methods for human exposure to electromagnetic energy; • • Member of the IEEE Committee on Man and Radiation {COMAR}; • Life Member of the IEEE Microwave Theory and Techniques Society (MTT0 S); and • Chair of the Deployment Working Group in the IEE E's Future Networks Technical Community.

Based on my background and stated qualifications, I ask that you consider me an expert witness on the topic of radiofrequency emission safety, including application of the IEEE C95 family of standards, the FCC's OET Bulletin 65 Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequen _cy Electromagnetic Fields, evaluation of electromagnetic engineering (EM£) reports, and related topics including w'ireless communication facility RF power levels and antenna patterns.

I will attend the Council Meeting in-person on April 17th 2024, and will be available to answer any questions from the council and city staff.

Sincerely, ~;}~,
David Witkowski
CEO & President
Oku Solutions LLC
d 3rd Party RF Engineer CUP 2022-0023 CDP 2022-0070 DEV2022-0206 ATT Carlsbad CA.docx Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From: Council Internet Email
Sent:

To:

Tuesday, April 16, 2024 8:54 AM
City Clerk
Subject: FW: Regarding AT&T Tower Meeting Tonight
From: Zach Schubert <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 7:47 AM
To: Council Internet Email <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Regarding AT&T Tower Meeting Tonight
---------- Forwarded message-------- -
From: Zach Schubert <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 7:39 AM
Subject: Regarding AT&T Tower Meeting Tonight
To: <priya.bhat [email protected]>
Good Morning,
My name is Zach Schubert. I live at 1031 Seahorse Ct, next to Poinsettia Park (The Cove).

I request you vote against the process of allowing an AT&T cell phone tower in Poinsettia Park, near my home. Cell towers do not blend with the numerous neighborhoods, Pacific Rim Elementary, and the thousands of daily visitors seeking green space. They belong in other areas where offices and warehouses are plenty- less visited, and less bothered during the weekends, and are farther isolated from pedestrians, bikers, and families.

I attended the past commission meeting at the City Hall, where I learned the tower at The Crossings was not considered to expand in height because AT&T wanted the most convenient option, even though a taller tower at The Crossings can service residents near Poinsettia Park. The congestion of The Crossings is way less compared to Poinsettia Park- just like business areas on weekends.

For those who work full time and want to enjoy healthy and happy weekends in Carlsbad, I hope you do not support installing the massive tower in Poinsettia Park.
1 Regards
Zach Schubert
1031 Seahorse Ct
The Cove
7605791712
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content i safe.
2 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Follow Up Flag:

Flag Status:

Hola Kyle,
Nora George <[email protected]>
Friday, April 12, 2024 3:55 PM
Kyle Van Leeuwen
Eric Lardy
Poinsettia Park appeal
Follow up
Completed
I think some of the information on the staff report that has been given to the'"city Council Members merits some clarification and additional information. Is there any way to correct or clarify? Here are my concerns:

1. Planning Comm ission hearing: We didn't say a public park doesn't qualify as a preferred location for WCF, but that it is on opposite ends of the location lists AND that they are listed in order of preference or discourage - our argument is that the. intent of CP64 is to locate them in other places other than parks/open space per the listed hierarchy in CP64.

2. If you are going state that there were two emails in support of that location, then state how many were received against the Poinsettia Park location - that's only fair.

3. You stated that, "A total of 28 individuals sent emails to city staff with questions and concerns about the project during the months of January and February 2023." You should also state how many were received prior to the Planning Commission meetings in December '23 and January '24, otherwiseJ it seems like only 28 people TOTAL sent emails.

4. Same with the number of public speakers at the planning commission meetings - please state the totals for BOTH meetings as the speakers were not all the same.

I am happy that we'll be given an opportunity to explain our case and finally have an opportunity for rebuttal as public comment isn't suitable for that. Thank you for all your assistance.

Kind regards,
Nora George
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content i 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject :

Hello Kyle,
Nora George <[email protected] >
Sunday, April 14, 2024 7:57 PM
Kyle Van Leeuwen
Eric Lardy; Jeff Murphy
another council packet omission
I just discovered that four pages of the Council Policy 64 that was included in City Council's packet/staff report for our item as been mysteriously deleted , not truncated, as it ends with the correct paragraph; although, the ending map has been omitted as well. I am referring to CP 64 pages 19-24, inclusive. This is "E. Application and Review Guidelines #s 17- 20" but the document does come back and end with the correct final paragraph, "SEVERABILITY", which is why it is odd.

Please provide those missing pages of CP 64 to the City Council prior to Tuesday's meeting and include the map on page

24. Also, as mentioned in my previous email, please clarify/correct the number of speakers at BOTH meetings (remember some of us spoke for 4 people) and the number of emails received TOTAL for this item, not just for the short period you stated in the staff report . I have heard both planning commissioners and council members say they've received "hundreds ". We all want what's best for the city so it is important that City Council is privy to all and complete information .· Thanks so much for your assistance.

Kind regards,
Nora George
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:
( City of
Carlsbad
Dr. Melanie Burkholder
City Council Member, District 1
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
www .carlsbadca.gov
442-339-2830 (City Hall)
442-637-2853 (mobile/text)
Melanie Burkholder
Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1 :45 PM
City Clerk
FW: Proposed Cell Tower
From: Robert Devich <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 12:02 PM
All Receive - Agenda Item # J...3
For the Information of the:
. ,fir:<_ SOUNCIL
Oate'1l}Jd;J:/_ CA v CC ......!:C'
CM JL_ACM .,....-ocM(3) .J:C
To: Keith Blackburn <keith.blackburn@carlsbadca .gov>; Melanie Burkholder <melanie.burkholder@carlsbadca .gov>; carolyn [email protected]; Priya Bhat-Patel <priya [email protected]>; Teresa Acosta <[email protected]>; Cathy Devich <[email protected]> Subject: Proposed Cell Tower
Hello Respected City Council Members,
Please consider today's email a request for denying the proposed cell tower going into Poinsettia Park. I served as school principal at Kelly School (5 years), Pacific Rim (12 years and my home is directly above Pacific Rim), and currently I am the principal of Poinsettia School.

I believe that you will look at all the data points, along with very strong opinions, as you make a vote on the recommendation of our local planning commission. Alternative cell tower locations must be a top responsibility of your decision making tomorrow night and I believe you will pause the approval and 'go back to the drawing board' for a safer and alternative location site. There must be locations reconsidered that do not allow cell tower EM F's to fall 24-7 on residents in neighborhoods, and most importantly the children who live near and attend Pacific Rim School.

If this tower was proposed to be located in your neighborhood, I would assume that you would be opposed to it for obvious reasons. As stated above, I appreciate your valued work and I believe you will make the right decision to protect the safety and well being of the residence surrounding Poinsettia Park.

Thank you!
Robert Devich
Principal
Poinsettia Elementary School
2445 Mica Road
1 Carlsbad, CA 92009
(760) 331-6500
(760) 930-6005 Fax
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless ou recognize the sender and know the content i 2 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Dr. Melanie Burkholder
City Council Membe r, District 1
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
www .carlsbadca.gov
442-339-2830 (City Hall)
442-637-2853 (mobile/text)
-----Original Message-----
Melanie Burkholder
Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1:46 PM
City Clerk
FW: Poinsettia Park Cell tower
From: Martin Schubert <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 11:51 AM
To: Carolyn Luna <carolyn.luna@carlsbadca .gov>; Keith Blackburn <[email protected]>; Melanie Burkholder <[email protected]> ; Priya Bhat-Patel <[email protected]>; Teresa Acosta <[email protected]>
Subject: Poinsettia Park Cell tower
Dear City Council members,
I am opposed to the construction of the AT&T cell tower in poinsettia park in close proximity to the homes adjacent to the park. I will not be able to attend the meeting tomorrow due to other commitments. My biggest takeaway from the January meeting is that AT&T and the planning commission is using Poinsettia park as the easy solution for AT&T due to the convenient access it would have to build the tower. This is clearly favoritism of a large company wanting to minimize costs at the expense of a residential neighborhood and an aesthetic public space. There are so many other locations that may be utilized that would minimize the risk, perceived or actual to the public.

There is a standing moratorium on 5G towers being near airports due to interference with aircraft landing systems. If the FAA and other international governing aviation bodies are restricting deployment of 5G towers near airports for public safety, that same restriction should be considered for homes and families that are a mere couple hundred feet from this proposed tower location .

I request that the Council vote against this proposal and have AT&T resubmit their application using one of the alternative locations.

Thank you for your time ,
Martin Schubert
1031 Seahorse Ct
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Dr. Melanie Burkholder
City Council Member, District 1
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
www .ca rlsbad ca .gov
442-339-2830 (City Hall)
442-637-2853 (mobile/text)
-----Original Message-----
Melanie Burkholder
Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1 :46 PM
City Clerk
FW: Poinsettia Park Cell tower
From: Martin Schubert <[email protected]> ·
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 11:51 AM
To: Carolyn Luna <[email protected]>; Ke(th Blackburn <[email protected]>; Melanie Burkholder <[email protected]>; Priya Bhat-Patel <[email protected]>; Teresa Acosta <[email protected]>
Subject: Poinsettia Park Cell tower
Dear City Council members,
I am opposed to the construction of the AT&T cell tower in poinsettia park in close proximity to the homes adjacent to the park. I will not be able to attend the meeting tomorrow due to other commitments . My biggest takeaway from the January meeting is that AT&T and the planning commission is using Poinsettia park as the easy solution for AT&T due to the convenient access it would have to build the tower. This is clearly favoritism of a large company wanting to minimize costs at the expense of a residential neighborhood and an aesthetic public space. There are so many other locations that may be utilized that would minimize the risk, perceived or actual to the public. .

There is a standing moratorium on 5G towers being near airports due to interference with aircraft landing systems. If the FAA and other international governing aviation bodies are restricting deployment of 5G towers near airports for public safety, that same restriction should be considered for homes and families that are a mere couple hundred feet from this proposed tower location.

I request that the Council vote against this proposal and have AT&T resubmit their application using one of the alternative locations.

Thank you for your time,
Martin Schubert
1031 Seahorse Ct
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:
{_ City of
Carlsbad
Dr. Melanie Burkholder
City Council Member, District 1
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad; CA 92008
www .carlsbadca.gov
442-339-2830 (City Hall}
442-637-2853 (mobile/text)
Melanie Burkholder
Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1 :46 PM
City Clerk
FW: Proposed cell phone towers h at Poinsettia Park
From: Aileen Heimlich <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 9:37 AM
To: Melanie Burkholder <[email protected]> Subject: Proposed cell phone towers h at Poinsettia Park The application of Policy 64 in regard to proposed cell phone tower(s) in Poinsettia Park is totally misguided and we do NOT want these towers to flourish in our park(s).

To stand on the ground of keeping these facilities away from residences and list a park on the "preferred sites" list is preposterous, never mind recommending such placement at this time! Please take to heart the community's input and place them in one of the higher priority sites as listed in the policy.

At some time in the immediate future please rethink the verbiage of Policy and rewrite it with true intention.

Thank you!
Aileen Heimlich
Sent from my iPhone
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless ou reco nize the sender and know the content i safe.
1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From: Melanie Burkholder
Sent:

To:

Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1 :47 PM
City Clerk
Subject: FW: Proposed Cell Towers at Poinsettia Park
{ cityof
Carlsbad
Dr. M elanie Burkholder
City Council Member, District 1
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
www .carlsbadca.gov
442-339-2830 (City Hall)
442-637-2853 (mobile/text)
From: David Van Der Linden <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2024 2:35 PM
To: Keith Blackburn <keith [email protected]> ; Melanie Burkholde r <melan ie.burkholder@ca rlsbadca.gov>; Priya Bhat-Patel <priya .bhat-patel@carlsbadca .gov>; Carolyn Luna <carolyn [email protected]>; Teresa Acosta <teresa.acosta@ca rlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Proposed Cell Towers at Poinsettia Park
Dear Carlsbad City Council members,
I grew up in Carlsbad and have lived a couple blocks away from Poinsettia Park for over 25 years. The current proposal to install cell towers at the park is very disturbing. Would you want cell towers close to your home? My neighbors and I don't either!
While experts say there is currently no strong evidence to support that exposure to RF waves from cellphone towers causes "any noticeable health effects," officials still say more research is necessary to better understand the risk, as the towers' RF waves haven't been ruled completely safe, either.

In any event cell towers are visual blight and and should not be allowed in our great parks. I urge you to deny the request to install cell towers at Poinsettia Park and help keep our parks beautiful! Regards,
Dave Van Der Linden
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless ou recognize the sender and know the content i safe.
1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:
( City of
Carlsbad
Dr. Melanie Burkholder
City Council Member, District 1
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
www.carlsbadca.gov
442-339-2830 (City Hall)
442-637-2853 (mobile/text)
Melanie Burkholder
Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1 :47 PM
City Clerk
FW: 4/16 Meeting AT&T Poinsettia Park
From: Elizabeth H <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 14,_2_02410:03 AM
To: Keith Blackburn <[email protected]>; Melclnie Burkholder <[email protected]~; Carolyn Luna <[email protected]> ; Priya Bhat-Patel <priya.bhat-patel@carlsbadca .gov>; Teresa Acosta· <teresa .acosta@ca rlsbadca .gov>
Subject: 4/16 Meeting AT&T Poinsettia Park
Hello, I'm writing to urge you to deny the installation of an AT&T cell phone tower at Poinsettia Park. As a resident of the Cove neighborhood with AT&T as my cell phone provider, I'd like to say that I have zero issues with coverage in the area. Their argument that coverage is lacking here is not accurate. This is not unique to me since the Cove did a survey nearby and over 20 households used AT&T and reported perfect coverage.

Their argument that this will improve safety for 911 calls is not accurate. We don't need 5G to make phone calls. There is no demand for this.

Your constituents are out here doing local surveys, suggesting alternative locations, and reading/quoting legal policies. It is clear we do not want this. Meanwhile, AT&T has not done any additional work to suggest alternative sites because it is not as profitable/easy for them.

AT&T is a business. At the end of the day, their motivation is to be as profitable as possible. Which means expanding their network with cell phone towers for as cheap as possible so they're the most competitive in their market.

Of course they are not going to offer up any contingency plans when asked. 1 The location is not the best spot for your constituents. It is the best spot for AT&T's checkbooks.

Best,
Dr. Elizabeth Heckmuller, PT, DPT, CCI
714-883-1692 I [email protected]
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content i 2 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:
( City of
Carlsbad
Dr. Melanie Burkholder
City Council Member, District 1
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
www.carlsbadca.gov
442-339-2830 (City Hall)
442-637-2853 (mobile/text)
Melanie Burkholder
Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1 :47 PM
City Clerk
FW: Cell Tower in Poinsettia Park
From: Silvia Chang <kandmmom@yahoo .com>
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2024 3:41 PM
To: Teresa Acosta <[email protected]>; Priya Bhat-Patel <[email protected]> ; Carolyn Luna <[email protected]>; Melanie Burkholder <melanie.burkholder@car lsbadca.gov>; Keith Blackburn- · <keith.blackbu rn@ca rlsbadca .gov>
Subject: Cell Tower in Poinsettia Park
Dear City Council,
It has come to my attention that you are discussing whether or not to approve the placement of cell towers in Poinsettia Park. I find it interesting that you are even considering the park as a viable option given that it is located next to an elementary school and multiple housing developments and a lot of people use the park. These are areas that are among the last places to locate a cell tower based on your own list. Why in the world would you approve it given that there are so many different options? Why don't you put it on the hill by the golf course where people don't live and not as many people would be affected?
When I moved here to The Cove neighborhood in 2002, Carlsbad seemed to be a city that listened to what the people wanted and the City Council actually represented the people that elected them. Now, unfortunately , that seems to have changed with massive development and the destruction of the Village. I hope that each of you will think about what your role is - as a government official, you are a representative of the people. You are not there to tell people what you think is better for them - no, you are not the parent of the people you represent. You are there to represent what the people want.

The people of Carlsbad do not want cell towers in their parks that are next to houses and elementary schools . Please vote accordingly .
1 Thank you,
Silvia
Silvia Chang 760-310-2570
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on finks unless you recognize the sender and know the content i safe.
2 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Dr. Melanie Burkholder
City Council Member, District 1
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
www .carlsbadca.gov
442-339-2830 {City Hall)
442-637-2853 (mobile/text)
-----Original Message-----
Melanie Burkholder
Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1 :47 PM
City Clerk
FW: Cell tower
From: Donna Beyer <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2024 3:00 PM
To: Melanie Burkholder <melanie [email protected]> Subject: Cell tower
Good afternoon,
While I could go in and on listing all of the reasons Pointsettia Park is not the place for a cell tower, I'll keep this brief .

For all of the reasons that have already been presented-please vote to NOT PLACE A CELL TOWER AT POINTSETTIA PARK!!
Thank you,
Donna Beyer
1082 Seahorse Ct
Carlsbad CA 92011
760-505-6814
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:
( City of
Carlsbad
Dr. Melanie Burkholder
City Council Member, District 1
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
www.carlsbadca.gov
442-339-2830 (City Hall)
442-637-2853 (mobile/text)
Melanie Burkholder
Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1 :48 PM
City Clerk
FW: April 16 City Council Meeting Hearing re: Arguments to prevent AT&T Antenna Install at Poinesettia Park
From: Robin Sung <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2024 12:19 PM
Subject: April 16 City Council Meeting Hearing re: Arguments to prevent AT&T Antenna Install at Poinesettia Park Dear City Council Member - In January 2024, the Carlsbad City Planning Commission approved the AT&T application for a new cell tower in Poinsettia Park. A large group of neighbors from the Cove and su!rounding communities filed an appeal to the City-Council.

I attended this meeting to support NOT approving the AT&T application for a new cell tower in Poinsettia.

Also, this city policy allows other cell carriers to share the same light pole as AT&T is using to install their antennas. I do not want the visual blight in our parks.

There are numerous alternative locations that would be viable other than Poinsettia Park.

I am asking you as a Carlsbad City Council Board Member to honor the request of citizens living in this area and force AT&T to resubmit their application using one of the alternative locations.

I appreciate your time and service to maintain our beautiful City of Carlsbad. I sincerely ask that you not approve AT&T Application for a new cell tower in Poinsettia Park.

Sincerely,
Robin Sung,
22 Year Carlsbad Citizen
6717 Tea Tree St
Carlsbad, CA 92011
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content i 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Dr. Melan ie Burkholder
City Council Membe r, District 1
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
www .ca rlsbadca .gov
442-339-2830 (City Hall}
442-637-2853 (mobile/text)
-----Original Message-----
Melanie Burkholder
Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1 :48 PM
City Clerk
FW: Please vote no to save Poinsettia Park from a dangerous and ugly cell tower From: Ben Ehrlich <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2024 1:18 PM
To: Melan ie Burkholder <melanie.burkholder@carlsbadca .gov> Subject: Please vote no to save Poinsett ia Park from a dangerous and ugly cell tower This park is heavily used by our youth who should never be exposed to so much radiation . To put these towers in the park is just ridic ulous. Surely the city can find a safer location for these. I understand that Verizon has also applied to put one in. I just cannot imagine the hami they will potentially cause. My children are grown but I wish to speak for everyone else who uses our wonderfu l park on a daily or weekly basis.

Thanks for listening
Barbara Ehrlich
Sent from my iPad
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From: Melanie Burkholder
Sent:

To:

Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1 :48 PM
City Clerk
Subject:
( City of
Carlsbad
Dr. Melanie Burkholder
City Council Member, District 1
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
WWW .ca rlsbadca .gov
442-339-2830 (City Hall)
442-637-2853 (mobile/text)
FW: Cell Tower
From: Michaelene Mooney <letsbeihtouchnow@yahoo .com>
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2024 8:46 AM
To: Melanie Burkholder <melanie.burkholder@carlsbadca .gov> Subject: Cell Tower
I respectfully request that you refrain from putting the dangerous and hideous looking cell tower in our beautiful neighborhood Poinsettia Park!!
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration!!
Michaelene Mooney
619-972-0292
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recogniz e the sender and know the content i safe.
1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

City of
Carlsbad
Dr. Melanie Burkholder
City Council Member, District 1
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
www.carlsbadca.gov
442-339-2830 (City Hall)
442-637-2853 (mobile/text)
Melanie Burkholder
Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1 :48 PM
City Clerk
FW: PLEASE VOTE AGAINST - Poinsettia Park Cell Tower - City Council Hearing April 16 2024
From: Scott Morgan <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2024 7:30 AM
To: Melanie Burkholder <[email protected]> Subject: PLEASE VOTE AGAINST - Poinsettia Park Cell Tower - City Council Hearing April 16 2024 Dear Ms. Burkholder,
1 his is what we are trying to prevent from being installed next door at Poinsettia Park.

Please consider the request of our community in stating we don't want cell towers in our beautiful parks.a. Unfortunately, I will be working and unable to attend the meeting in person. Thank you.

Scott Morgan
664 7 Thrasher Pl
2 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:
( City of
Carlsbad
Dr. Melanie Burkholder
City Council Member, District 1
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
www.carlsbadca.gov
442-339-2830 (City Hall)
442-637-2853 (mobile/text)
Melanie Burkholder
Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1 :48 PM
City Clerk
FW: Please Drive By Calavera Hills Park
From: Frank Sung <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 8, 2024 10:20 AM
To: Melanie Burkholder <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Please Drive By Calavera Hills Park
Thank you Melanie. I just drove by Calavera Hills Park a couple of weeks ago to see them again. It was a stark reminder that I/we needed to work together to prevent this from happening again at our city parks.

Frank Sung
www.ficm.org
(m) 760-213-9036
On Sun, Apr 7, 2024 at 7:09 PM Melanie Burkholder <Melanie .Burkholder@carlsbadca .gov> wrote:

Hi Frank,
Thank you for your email. I know of the towers you mentioned . I have included the city manager for the appropriate response to your assertion about our policy (#64) which addresses the placement of such towers.

Best,
{ city of
Carlsbad
1 Dr. Melanie Burkholder
City Council Member, District 1
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
, Carlsbad, CA 92008
www.ca rlsbadca.gov
442-339-2830 (City Hall)
442-637-2853 (mobile/text)
From: Frank Sung <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2024 6:06:07 PM
To: Melanie Burkholder <[email protected]> Subject: Please Drive By Calavera Hills Park
Hi Melanie - Greetings! Hope/pray all is well! Thank you for serving on the City Council. I have a single request for you prior to the April 16th City Council Meeting. I would like you to drive up to Calavera Hills Park .. near the intersection of College and Carlsbad Village Drive .. cind take a look around the baseball field near the Community Center . You don't even'need to get out of your car from the parking lot. Please notice the 4 cellular transmissi9n poles around the Community Center and baseball field. I submit to you that's not what we want for each of our city parks. City Council Policy 64 allows us to prevent this from happening again-at a city • park. It's just not being implemented correctly by the Planning Departm~nt. The Planning Commission voted 4-3 to approve the AT&T application for the first cellular transmission pole at Poinsettia Park. An appeal to that decision will be presented at the _April 16th meeting by homeowners living around the park. This is a city wide issue and I wanted to bring it to your · attention. Thank you!
Frank Sung, Mariners Point HOA Board Member
(m) 760-213-9036
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you reco nize the sender and know the conten is safe.

CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content i safe.
2 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From: Teresa Acosta
Sent:

To:

Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1 :50 PM
City Clerk
Subject: FW: Proposed Cell Tower
From: Robert Devich <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 12:27 PM
To: Teresa Acosta <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Proposed Cell Tower
Thank you Teresa ... I appreciate you reaching back to me.

Happy Monday!
Robert Devich
Principal
Poinsettia Elementary School
2445 Mica Road
Carlsbad , CA 92009
(760) 331-6500
(760) 930-6005 Fax
On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 12:20 PM Teresa Acosta <[email protected]> wrote:

Thank you for taking the time to submit this email with your thoughts.

Regards,
Teresa
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Robert Devich <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 12:02:12 PM
To: Keith Blackburn <keith.blackburn@carlsbadca .gov>; Melanie Burkholder <melanie.burkholder@carlsbadca .gov>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Priya Bhat-Patel <[email protected]>; Teresa Acosta <[email protected]>; Cathy Devich <cdevich@carlsbadusd .net> Subject: Proposed Cell Tower
Hello Respected City Council Members,
Please consider today's email a request for denying the proposed cell tower going into Poinsettia Park. served as school principal at Kelly School (5 years), Pacific Rim (12 years and my home is directly above Pacific Rim), and currently I am the principal of Poinsettia School. 1 I believe that you will look at all the data points, along with very strong opinions, as you make a vote on the recommendation of our local planning commission. Alternative cell tower locations must be a top responsibility of your decision making tomorrow night and I believe you will pause the approval and 'go back to the drawing board' for a safer and alternative location site. There must be locations reconsidered that do not allow cell tower EMF's to fall 24-7 on residents in neighborhoods, and most importantly the children who live near and attend Pacific Rim School.

If this tower was proposed to be located in your neighborhood, I would assume that you would be opposed to it for obvious reasons. As stated above, I appreciate your valued work and I believe you will make the right decision to protect the safety and well being of the residence surrounding Poinsettia Park.

Thank you!
Robert Devich
Principal
Poinsettia Elementary School
2445 Mica Road
Carlsbad, CA 92009
(760) 331-6500
(760) 930-6005 Fax
I CAUTION: Do not o en attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the conten is safe.

CAUTION: Do not open attachment s or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content i safe.
2 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From: Teresa Acosta
Sent:

To:

Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1 :50 PM
City Clerk
Subject: FW: Please vote NO on SG towers
From: Teresa Acosta <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 2:45 PM
To: Lindy R <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Please vote NO on 5G towers
Thank you for taking the time to submit this email with your thoughts.

Regards,
Teresa
From: Lindy R <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 2:06 PM
To: Teresa Acosta <[email protected]>
Subject: Please vote NO on 5G towers
Dear Ms. Acosta,
I am opposed to SG towers at Poinsettia Park. I have resided in Carlsbad for nearly 25 years and appreciate our wonderful quality of life here. I have linked Dr. Mercola's information, below, on the serious health risks including:

Neurological and psychiatric problems,
Brain development impacts,
Altering the microbiome, and
Reductions in male fertility
Dr. Mercola's Article titled 'Ten New Studies Detail Health Risks of SG', dated April 14, 2024, link:
https: //tinyu rl .com/26 hjd9nw
Thank you for considering my input.

Sincerely,
1 Linda Rayner
6443 Merlin Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92011
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content i safe.
2 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From: Teresa Acosta
Sent:

To:

Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1 :51 PM
City Clerk
Subject: FW: Appea l of AT&T proposal for Poinsettia Park From: Teresa Acosta <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 12:31 PM
To: Laurenn Barker <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Appeal of AT&T proposal for Poinsettia Park Hi Laurenn,
Great seeing you last week! Thank you for taking the time to submit this email with your thoughts.

Regards,
Teresa
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Laurenn Barker <art1ark17@yahoo .com>
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 8:29:20 AM
To: Keith Blackburn <keith [email protected]>; [email protected] <pryia.bhat ­ [email protected]>; Teresa Acosta <teresa.acosta@car lsbadca.gov>; Melanie Burkholder <melanie.burkho [email protected]>; Carolyn Luna <[email protected]> Subject: Appeal of AT&T proposal for Poinsettia Park
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
This is a letter to register my support for the community appeal of the AT&T application to place a cell tower in Poinsettia Park.

This installation is not compatible with Carlsbad's Policy 64 regarding cell phone tower placement, parks are on top of the list of discouraged locations. AT&T has chosen it for their convenience only and has not adequately considered other more suitable sites for the people of the area.

I attended the Planning Commission meetings and read the community letters against the project in this location . I encourage the City to deny AT& T's application and require the company to consider more suitable locations. In fact, I have been told that at least one other site has already approved having the tower on their property and that should be explored . There are also othe r types of cell transmissions such as Small Wireless Transmissions being used in other cities and in Carlsbad in the Bressi Ranch and La Costa Glen areas. Those options should be explored.

Listening to the AT&T representative's presentat ion of the project, I found it to be quite superficial and his answers to audience questions, inadequate, or nonexistant. In contrast, I found the audience professionals who spoke to the subject to be very knowledgeable and their points very credible. I did not feel that the Planning Commissioners gave enough credence to those in the audience who had researched the subject and spoke to the facts versus AT& T's representative. 1 The following should be taken into consideration:

This proposed AT&T site is in an area of extensive housing and adjacent to an award winning primary school and one of Carlsbad's most frequented community parks for both adults and children of all ages. The park includes a toddler play area, two dog parks, the city's largest combined tennis and pickle ball complex and sports areas for many sports. It is also home to wildlife and birds such as the Osprey who nest there year after year. Carlsbad is one of the first commun ities in California to draft an ordinance protecting sensitive wildlife habitats. Ignoring these needs is in violation of our stat ed priorities and the sustainable, environmentally sensitive city that we want to be.

Calavaras Hills Park is already blighted with cell towers. I encourage you to not let the same happen to Poinsettia Park. I have heard people say that we can always deny the next applicant but in reality once you have approved one, others will follow and Verizon has already applied . The city cannot refuse subsequent applicants without fear of major crippling lawsuits.

I am sure with proper evaluation, a new site or, alternatively a Small, Wireless Transmission Network can be developed which is, perhaps a little more inconvenient for AT&T but is much better for the people of Carlsbad. We cannot let Carlsbad's parks become homes to cell phone towers; that is not their purpose.

Sincerely,
Laurenn Barker
Concerned Carlsbad mother and grandmother.

Former Arts Commissioner and Chair
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless ou recognize the sender and know the content i 2 Tammy Cloud-McMin n
From: Teresa Acosta
Sent:

To:

Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1 :51 PM
City Clerk
Subject : FW: Poinsettia Park eel phone tower(s)
From: Teresa Acosta <Teresa.Acosta@carlsbadca .gov>
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 12:29 PM
To: Aileen Heimlich <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Poinsettia Park eel phone tower(s)
Thank you for taking the time to submit this email with your thoughts.

Regards,
Teresa
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Aileen Heimlich <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 9:38:53 AM
To: Teresa Acosta <teresa [email protected]>
Subject: Poinsettia Park eel phone tower(s)
The application of Policy 64 in regard to proposed cell phone tower(s) in Poinsettia Park is totally misguided and we do NOT want these towers to flourish in our park(s).

To stand on the ground of keeping these facilities away from residences and list a park on the "preferred sites" list is preposterous, never mind recommending such placement at this time! Please take to heart the community's input and place them in one of the higher priority sites as listed in the policy .

At some time in the immediate future please rethink the verbiage of Policy and rewrite it with true intention .

Thank you!
Aileen Heimlich
Sent from my iPhone
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From: Teresa Acosta
Sent:

To:

Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1 :51 PM
City Clerk
Subject: FW: Poinsettia Park Cell tower
From: Teresa Acosta <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 12:21 PM
To: Martin Schubert <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Poinsettia Park Cell tower
Thank you for taking the time to submit this email with your thoughts .

Regards,
Teresa
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Martin Schubert <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 11:51:28 AM
To: Carolyn Luna <[email protected]>; Keith Blackburn <[email protected]>; Melanie Burkholder <[email protected]>; Priya Bhat-Patel <[email protected]>; Teresa Acosta <[email protected]>
Subject: Poinsettia Park Cell tower
Dear City Council members,
I am opposed to the construction of the AT&T cell tower in poinsettia park in close proximity to the homes adjacent to the park. I will not be able to attend the meeting tomorrow due to other commitments. My biggest takeaway from the January meeting is that AT&T and the planning commission is using Poinsettia park as the easy solution for AT&T due to the convenient access it would have to build the tower. This is clearly favoritism of a large company wanting to minimize costs at the expense of a residential neighborhood and an aesthetic public space.

There are so many other locations that may be utilized that would minimize the risk, perceived or actual to the public.

There is a standing moratorium on 5G towers being near airports due to interference with aircraft landing systems .

If the FAA and other international governing aviation bodies are restr icting deployment of 5G towers near airports for public safety , that same restriction should be considered for homes and families that are a mere couple hundred feet from this proposed tower location.

I request that the Council vote against this proposal and have AT&T resubmit their application using one of the alternative locations.

Thank you for your time,
Martin Schubert
1 1031 Seahorse Ct
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
2 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From: Teresa Acosta
Sent:

To:

Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1 :52 PM
City Clerk
Subject: FW: April 16 City Council Meeting Hearing re: Arguments to prevent AT&T Antenna Install at Poinesettia Park
From: Teresa Acosta <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2024 9:37 PM
To: Robin Sung <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: April 16 City Council Meeting Hearing re: Arguments to prevent AT&T Antenna Install at Poinesettia Park _, Thank you for taking the time to submit this email with your thoughts.

Regards,
Teresa
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Robin Sung <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2024 12:18:43 PM
Subject: April 16 City Council Meeting Hearing re: Arguments to prevent AT&T Antenna Install at Poinesettia Park Dear City Council Member - In January 2024, the Carlsbad City Planning Commission approved the AT&T application for a new cell tower in Poinsettia Park. A large group of neighbors from the Cove and surrounding communities filed an appeal to the City Council.

I attended this meeting to support NOT approving the AT&T application for a new cell tower in Poinsettia.

Also, this city policy allows other cell carriers to share the same light pole as AT&T is using to install their antennas. I do not want the visual blight in our parks.

There are numerous alternative locations that would be viable other than Poinsettia Park.

I am asking you as a Carlsbad City Council Board Member to honor the request of citizens living in this area and force AT&T to resubmit their application using one of the alternative locations.

I appreciate your time and service to maintain our beautiful City of Carlsbad. I sincerely ask that you not approve AT&T Application for a new cell tower in Poinsettia Park.

Sincerely,
Robin Sung,
22 Year Carlsbad Citizen
6717 Tea Tree St
Carlsbad, CA 92011
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content i safe.
1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From: Teresa Acosta
Sent:

To:

Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1 :52 PM
City Clerk
Subject: FW: Cell Towers at Poinsettia Park
From: Teresa Acosta <Teresa.Acosta@carlsbadca .gov>
Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2024 9:36 PM
To: Stephen Davis <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Cell Towers at Poinsettia Park
Thank you for taking the time to submit this email with your thoughts.

Regards,
Teresa
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Stephen Davis <[email protected] > Sent: Friday, April 12, 2024 2:54:01 PM
To: Teresa Acosta <[email protected] >
Subject: Cell Towers at Poinsettia Park
Just a short note that I am not in favor of the new AT&T cell towers to be installed at Poinsettia Park.

Steve Davis
Editor, Lakeshore Gardens News
Bringing Value to Your Life through better
Health, Income, and Living Near the Beach!
Steve Davis , Real Estate Broker - 760-473-2509
Davis Coastal Properties - CA Lie #00788648 & #01333841 7302 San Benito Street Carlsbad CA 92011
C}ffictatC/U~
- of the 202 3 -
NSDCR R.E.A.L. AWARDS
REAL £STAT£ ACHIEVEMENTS & LEADERSHIP
,~,11:~.iu:~,ou1 ,n

REALTORS
1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From: Teresa Acosta
Sent:

To:

Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1 :52 PM
City Clerk
Subject: FW: Cell tower
From: Teresa Acosta <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2024 9:36 PM
To: Donna Beyer <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Cell tower
Thank you for taking the time to submit this email with your thoughts.

Regards,
Teresa
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Donna Beyer <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2024 2:59:06 PM
To: Teresa Acosta <[email protected]>
Subject: Cell tower
Good afternoon,
While I could go in and on listing all of the reasons Pointsettia Park is not the place for a cell tower, I'll keep this brief .

For all of the reasons that have already been presented-please vote to NOT PLACE A CELL TOWER AT POINTSETTIA PARK!!
Thank you,
Donna Beyer
1082 Seahorse Ct
Carlsbad CA 92011
760-505-6814
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From: Teresa Acosta
Sent:

To:

Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1 :52 PM
City Clerk
Subject: FW: No cell tower
From: Teresa Acosta <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2024 9:35 PM
To: Katie Beyer <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: No cell tower
Thank you for tak ing the time to submit this email with your thoughts .

Regards,
Teresa
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Katie Beyer <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2024 3:04:48 PM
To: Teresa Acosta <[email protected]>
Subject: No cell tower
Good afternoon,
I vote NO CELL TOWER at poinsettia park. Install in alternate location to protect the health and safety of our poinsettia community.

Thank you,
Kathryn Beyer
1082 Seahorse Ct
Carlsbad CA 92011
760-405-7211
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content i safe.
1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From: Sheila Cobian
Sent:

To:

Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1 :52 PM
City Clerk
Subject: FW: Poinsettia Park Cell tower opposition
From: Scott Chadwick <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1:48 PM
To: Sheila Cobian <Sheila.Cobian@c,arlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Fwd: Poinsettia Park Cell tower opposition
Scott Chadwick
City Manager
City of Carlsbad
(Sent from my iPhone)
From: Priya Bhat-Patel <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1:19:39 PM
To: Scott Chadwick <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Poinsettia Park Cell tower opposition
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Cathy Prvanov <[email protected] >
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1:17:40 PM
To: Priya Bhat-Patel <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Poinsettia Park Cell tower opposition
I sure hope you are going to vote against this and stand up for the people that voted you into office.

This is crazy to put this so close to a school, in a park where children and families play and hundreds of houses nearby .

We have never proven that any of this technology is safe. We are gambling peoples health and livelihood There are plenty of less dense spaces where this could be located.

Why were the neighborhoods that would be directly impacted not notified? I have seen nothing in city newsletters which I do regularly follow.

I would have attended ar:,d spoken tonight but I am in flight shortly Thanks for your consideration
1 Catherine Prvanov
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 16, 2024, at 1:05 PM, Priya Bhat-Patel <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Cathy,
Thank you for your feedback.

Priya
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Cathy <[email protected] >
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 10:36:09 AM
To: Priya Bhat-Patel <priya.bhat-patel@carlsbadca .gov> Cc: Cathy Prvanov <[email protected] >
Subject: Poinsettia Park Cell tower opposition
------- - - •
From: Cathy <[email protected]>
Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 at 10:34 AM
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]~1 "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "priya.bhat­ [email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Poinsettia Park Cell tower
Dear City Council members,
I am opposed to the construction of the AT&T cell tower in Poinsettia Park near homes and where children play. I can not attend the meeting tonight as I will be out of town. My biggest takeaway from the January meeting is that AT&T and the planning commission is using Poinsettia park as the easy solution for AT&T due to the convenient access it would have to build the tower. This is clearly favoritism of a large company wanting to minimize costs at the expense of a residential neighborhood and an aesthetic public space and potential harmful health effects. There are so many other locations that may be utilized that wouffl minimize the risk, perceived or actual to the public.

There is a standing moratorium on SG towers being near airports due to interference with aircraft landing systems . If the FAA and other international governing aviation bodies are restricting deployment of SG towers near airports for public safety, that same restriction 2 should be considered for homes and families that are a mere couple hundred feet from this proposed tower location .

There continue to be studies coming out showing the risks of EMF and 5G on our bodies. I'll link below my email some of this info here and pertinent excerpts. The Children 's Health Defense organization led by Robert F Kennedy has already filed a lawsuit against the FCC pertaining to safety issues and the lack of studies done by the government. Doe the city of Carlsbad want to invite litigation over this? I think the city is opening themselves up to lawsuits if they continue to approve putting 5G cell towers next to neighborhoods and in parks where children play. The debate over 5G safety is far from over. I believe there are numerous open questions about the impact to our biological health . Why would we ever place towers directly next to homes and in a park where children play and perform a giant experiment with health? The towers should be placed in more industrial areas.

Do we really want to trust our health to a multi-billion-dollar telecom giant whose only motivation is profits? This reminds me of the tobacco industry convincing the public that smoking was not dangerous.

I request that the Council vote against this proposal and have AT&T resubmit their application using one of the alternative locations.

Thank you for your time,
Catherine Prvanov
6575 Windflower Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92011
EXCERPTS:
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/5g-cell-towers-microwave­ syndrome/ Robert F Kennedy's website
"A new case report on two previously healthy men who developed "microwave syndrome" symptoms after a SG cell tower was installed on the roof of their office, and a similar report published last month, show that non-ionizing SG radiation can cause health problems in people with no prior history of electromagnetic sensitivity." See article for more detail. Clearly there are not enough studies done on the impacts. Do we really want to trust a multibillion dollar telecom giant about safety? They only have profits as their motivation. https ://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/5g -and-wireless-technology-health-effects/ - Robert F Kennedy's website.
"Most recently, on November 1, 2018, the final report of the Federal Government National Toxicology Program (NTP), the government expert agency on toxins, was published. The $30 million 19-year study 3 fou nd CLEAR EVIDENCE that this radiat ion causes cancer and breaks DNA. This study confi rmed what other studies already showed decades ago including reports and studies by the Navy, Air-Force, NASA, and the EPA which recognized and documented the profound bio-effects of wireless technology. The NTP study should have been a game changer and put a halt to further deployment of wireless technology. The NTP scientists said that the public should be informed. Instead, The FCC has been fast­ tracking the deployment of SG. SG is the infrastructure for the internet of things and is intended to wirelessly connect 20 billion more devices and for that purpose, deploy 800,000 more cell towers and launch 20,000 satellites which will exponentially increase our exposure to this harmful radiation.

The deployment of the 800,000 SG "small" cell antennas on poles near every few homes has begun and is progressing quickly. Most of these antennas are 4G and some will uti lize millimeter wave frequencies.

Studies show profound bio-effects from millimeter waves as well. Federal laws and FCC regulations enabled this forced deployment by removing any barriers, preempting municipal authority, and giving the wireless industry almost unlimited access to our public rights of ways.

These antennas are being forced on residents within a few feet of their homes without their informed consent, and they are being prevented from effective ly objecting from their installat ion on any grounds, · ' .
including health . These antennas may be smaller_ but because of their proximity, they increase the levels of radiation on our streets by thousands of times . Families who have had these "small" antennas installed near their homes are becoming sick, sometimes within days after they are installed . There is a reason why insurance companies refuse to insure the wireless industry for healt h effects.

If you don't want to wake up in the morning and have a SG cell tower a few feet from your children's bedroom window, it is time to become informed and help efforts to get US cities and states to "Just Say No" to the FCC & SG."
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/Sg-airgig-what -is-it-and-should-you-be-worried/ On December 4, 2019, the FCC announced that it is not going to review its outdated guidelines, proclaiming that there is no evidence of harm. As a result , Children 's Health Defense and other Petitioners filed a lawsuit agains..1_tt,_e_FCC on February 2, 2020. The other Petitioners include parents of children who have been injured, doctors and Professor ,.,, ....

David Carpenter-the Co-Editor of the Bio Initiative Report, which is the largest review of ",;,·
the science on this issue . The lawsuit claims the FCC's decision not to review its safety guidelines is capricious . arbitracy. non-evidence-bas ed and an abuse of discretion . This 4 historic case attacks the premise upon which the deployment and proliferation of wireless technology is based. Likely, it is the only way we can sue the government for the harm it has been creating and enabling .
htt ps://childrenshealthdefe nse.org/defender/5g-harms-huma ils-animals-plants/ Following the passage of New Hampshire House Bill 522, the New Hampshire legislative Commission to Study the Environmental and Health Effects of Evolving 5G Technology was formed . The commission was engaged to "study the environmental and health effects of 5G wireless technology in 2019."
The commission was made up of 13 members whose education included epidemiology, occupational health , toxicology, physics, engineering electromagnetics and a representative from the wireless industry . As quoted from EMF Safety Network, the ·-- .
commission was asked to answer eight pointed questions , including :

Why thousands of peer-reviewed radiofrequency (RF) studies that show a wide range of health effects, including DNA damage, brain and heart tumors, infertility and many other ailments, have been ignored by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC).

Why the FCC guidelines do not account for health effects of wireless technology.

Why the FCC RF limits are 100 times higher than those in other countries.

Why the FCC is ignoring the World Health Organization classification of wireless as a possible carcinogen.

Why, when the world's leading scientists signed an appeal to protect public health from wireless radiation , nothing has been done.

The commission heard from experts and ultimately all except the telecommunication representative acknowledged that RF radiation coming from wireless devices had an effect on humans, animals, insects and plants. The commission wrote :
"There is mounting evidence that DNA damage can occur from radiation outside of the ionizing part of the spectrum . The Commission heard arguments on both sides of this issue with many now saying there are findings showing biological effects in this range. This argument gets amplified as millimeter waves within the microwave range are beginning to be utilized."
5 https://www .investigate -europe.eu/posts/5g-covid­
conspiracy?ie s=ga&pk campaign=en -
.5.g&pk source=google&pk medium =cpc&gad source=1 &gclid=C jwKCAjww iwBhApEiwAu G6ccJo7vX hBDX cnQcUvZB14vaGT jF3Bk0AjfRo9sfm4qK SE63SghoC8SwQAvD BwE SG is an upgrade of the previous generations of 2, 3 and 4G. But it is also much more than that . The powerful technology is going to be the base for what the telecom industry calls a l"revolutio n."I It will allow the so-called internet of things, where everything is on line and connected . SG is needed to sustain driverless cars, remote surgery, as well as smart cities and homes, including ultra-fast access to films and music
To achieve all this, the SG network will also use the millimeter waves part of the frequency spectrum .

These are low-power , short-range waves, unable to break through walls or other obstacles, such as trees. They can be directed individually , but they have to be relayed from a base station via small antennas to avoid obstacles and reach their destination . These stations will be small, the size of fire alarm boxes.

This will compel data companies to place tens of thousands of these small base stations on street furniture, lampposts, and on the exterior and interior of buildings. Currently, the 4G network uses fewer antennas, more powerful, furthe r away from our daily lives, thanks to its longer transmission range.

It is from the-coming high number of antennas that some of the new fear of harmful effects of mobile radiation arises.

CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless know the content is safe.
6 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From: Teresa Acosta
Sent:

To:

Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1 :52 PM
City Clerk
Subject: FW: Cell Tower in Poinsettia Park
From: Teresa Acosta <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2024 9:35 PM
To: Silvia Chang <kandmmom@yahoo .com>
Subject: Re: Cell Tower in Poinsettia Park
Thank you for taking the time to submit this email with your thoughts.

Regards,
Teresa
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Silvia Chang <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2024 3:41:24 PM
To: Teresa Acosta <teresa [email protected]>; Priya Bhat-Patel <[email protected]>; Carolyn Luna <[email protected]>; Melanie Burkholder <[email protected]>; Keith Blackburn <[email protected]>
Subject: Cell Tower in Poinsettia Park
Dear City Council,
It has come to my attention that you are discussing whether or not to approve the placement of cell towers in Poinsettia Park. I find it interesting that you are even considering the park as a viable option given that it is located next to an elementary school and multiple housing developments and a lot of people use the park. These are areas that are among the last places to locate a cell tower based on your own list. Why in the world would you approve it given that there are so many different options? Why don't you put it on the hill by the golf course where people don't live and not as many people would be affected?
When I moved here to The Cove neighborhood in 2002, Carlsbad seemed to be a city that listened to what the people wanted and the City Council actually represented the people that elected them. Now, unfortunately, that seems to have changed with massive development and the destruction of the Village. I hope that each of you will think about what your role is - as a government official, you are a representative of the people. You are not there to tell people what you think is better for them - no, you are not the parent of the people you represent. You are there to represent what the people want.

The people of Carlsbad do not want cell towers in their parks that are next to houses and elementary schools. Please vote accordingly.
1 Thank you,
Silvia
Silvia Chang 760-310-2570
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content i safe.
2 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Teresa Acosta
Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1 :52 PM
City Clerk
FW: 4/16 Meeting AT&T Poinsettia Park
From: Teresa Acosta <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2024 9:33 PM
To: Elizabeth H <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 4/16 Meeting AT&T Poinsettia Park
Thank you for taking the time to submit this email with your thoughts .

Regards,
Teresa
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Elizabeth H <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2024 10:02:42 AM
To: Keith Blackburn <keith .blackburn@carlsbadca .gov>; Melanie Burkholder <melanie.burkholder@carlsbadca .gov>; Carolyn Luna <carolyn.luna~carlsbadca .gov>; Priya Bhat-Patel <[email protected]>; Teresa Acosta <[email protected]>
Subject: 4/16 Meeting AT&T Poinsettia Park
Hello, I'm writing to urge you to deny the installation of an AT&T cell phone tower at Poinsettia Park. As a resident of the Cove neighborhood with AT&T as my cell phone provider, I'd like to say that I have zero issues with coverage in the area. Their argument that coverage is lacking here is not accurate. This is not unique to me since the Cove did a survey nearby and over 20 households used AT&T and reported perfect coverage. Their argument that this will improve safety for 911 calls is not accurate. We don't need 5G to make phone calls . There is no demand for this.

Your constituents are out here doing local surveys, suggesting alternative locations, and reading/quoting legal policies. It is clear we do not want this. Meanwhile, AT&T has not done any additional work to suggest alternative sites because it is not as profitable/easy for them.

AT&T is a business. At the end of the day, their motivation is to be as profitable as possible . Which means expanding their network with cell phone towers for as cheap as possible so they're the most competitive in their market .

Of cour.se they are not going to offer up any contingency plans when asked.

The locat ion is not the best spot for your constituents. It is the best spot for AT& T's checkbooks. 1 Best,
Dr. Elizabeth Heckmuller, PT, DPT, CCI
714-883-1692 I [email protected]
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content i 2 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From: Teresa Acosta
Sent:

To:

Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1 :53 PM
City Clerk
Subject: FW: Proposed Cell Towers at Poinsettia Park
From: Teresa Acosta <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2024 9:33 PM
To: David Van Der Linden <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Proposed Cell Towers at Poinsettia Park
Thank you for taking the time to submit this email with your thoughts .

Regards,
Teresa
Get Outlook for iOS
From: David Van Der Linqen <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2024 2:35:29 PM
To: Keith Blackburn <[email protected]>; Melanie Burkholder <melanie.burkholder@carlsbadca .gov>; Priya Bhat-Patel <[email protected]>; Carolyn Luna <[email protected]> ; Teresa Acosta <teresa.acosta@carlsbadca .gov>
Subject: Proposed Cell Towers at Poinsettia Park
Dear Carlsbad City Council members,
I grew up in Carlsbad and have lived a couple blocks away from Poinsettia Park for over 25 years. The current proposal to install cell towers at the park is very disturbing. Would you want cell towers close to your home? My neighbors and I don't either!
While experts say there is currently no strong evidence to support that exposure to RF waves from cellphone towers causes "any noticeable health effects," officials still say more research is necessary to better understand the risk, as the towers' RF waves haven't been ruled completely safe, either.

In any event cell towers are visual blight and and should not be allowed in our great parks. I urge you to deny the request to install cell towers at Poinsettia Park and help keep our parks beautiful! Regards,
Dave Van Der Linden
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content i 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From: Teresa Acosta
Sent:

To:

Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1 :53 PM
City Clerk
Subject: FW: Tuesday's WCF Appeal
From: Teresa Acosta <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2024 9:32 PM
To: Nora George <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Tuesday's WCF Appeal
Thank you, Nora!
I appreciate your feedback and input.

See you soon,
Teresa
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Nora George <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2024 7:30 :07 PM
To: Teresa Acosta <[email protected]>
Subject: Tuesday's WCF Appeal
Dear Teresa,
Thank you for com ing to the Art Comm ission meeting and sharing your excitement for your new legislative endeavors . I share your joy as I have done that for our district's PTA and know it is exhilarating playing a role in shaping our future . Please encourage other council members to do the same - it would be great to hear what everyone is doing other than just read about it in weekly manager reports.

I am looking forward to Tuesday's City Council meeting where I will have the opportunity to explain why our neighborhood has been challenging the proposed Wireless Communication Facility at Poinsettia Park. We feel the Planning Commission was manipulated by AT&T into believing there are no alternatives to a WCF at Poinsettia Park. As you know, the decision was a split 4-3, telling of considerable doubt. There ARE viable alternatives and even a different technology that was revealed at the Planing Commission meeting as AT&T's (more expensive) contingency plan. It is frustrating to see big corporations putting profit over a community's well being. Please keep an open mind to the options and to the possibility that staff might have missed something . More importantly, with so much at stake, and the level of confusion and discontent with this item , please consider all the facts thoroughly before entering in to a lease agreement with AT&T.

Respectfully,
Nora Jimenez George, MCP
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From: Sheila Cobian
Sent:

To:

Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1 :53 PM
City Clerk
Subject: FW: AT&T application for cell tower in Poinsettia Park informat ion request please From: Scott Chadwick <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1:47 PM
To: Sheila Cobian <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: AT&T application for cell tower in Poinsettia Park information request please Scott Chadwick
City Manager
City of Carlsbad
(Sent from my iPhone)
From: Priya Bhat-Patel <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1:32:08 PM
To: Scott Chadwick <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: AT&T application for cell tower in Poinsettia Park information request please Get Outlook for iOS
From: Craig Ryan <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2024 7:01:50 AM
To: Priya Bhat-Patel <[email protected]>
Subject: AT&T application for cell tower in Poinsettia Park information request please Priya,
Where can I get additional inform ation regarding the AT&T application and approval fo r a cell tower in Poinsett ia Park. I understand there was an appeal filed and a hearing will be held on April 16, 2024 at 5pm . I would like to understand the conditions of the applicat ion and approval, also the basis for the appeal so that I can make an informed decision for support or opposition of the actions taken. Thank you Warm Regard s,
Craig Ryan
Poinsettia Cove
1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From: Teresa Acosta
Sent:

To:

Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1 :55 PM
City Clerk
Subject: FW: Poinsettia Park Cell tower
From: Cathy Prvanov <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1:35 PM
To: Carolyn Luna <carolyn [email protected]>; Keith Blackburn <[email protected]>; Melanie Burkholder <[email protected]>; Teresa Acosta <[email protected]>; Priya Bhat-Patel <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Poinsettia Park Cell tower
Please appeal the planning commissions decision to locate an AT£T tower at Poinsettia Park I am aware that other sites are available for the tower.

Why would we place a tower next door to a school and in a park where our children play and next to hundreds of homes? This is the largest park in our community and affects all of Carlsbad residents as this park is utilized for baseball, Friday night lights , soccer, concerts in the park, Easter and so many other community events that are too long to list. This technology has not proven safe. Relying on the industry to self police and who lobby hard with money to our elected officials does not give any assurances. We are literally gambling health of our youngest most vulnerable citizens with an experiment that has not proven safe.

Please advocate in today's meeting for the residents of Carlsbad that elected you that do NOT want this tower in their backyard. Silence is saying that you approve .

Thank you for your consideration
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 16, 2024, at 10:34 AM, Cathy <[email protected] > wrote:

Dear City Council members ,
I am opposed to the construction of the AT&T cell tower in Poinsettia Park near homes and where children play. I can not attend the meeting tonight as I will be out of town. My 1 biggest takeaway from the January meeting is that AT&T and the planning commission is using Poinsettia park as the easy solution for AT&T due to the convenient access it would have to build the tower . This is clearly favoritism of a large company wanting to minimize costs at the expense of a residential neighborhood and an aesthetic public space and potential harmful health effects. There are so many other locations that may be utilized that would minimize the risk, perceived or actual to the public .

There is a standing moratorium on 5G towers being near airports due to interference with aircraft landing systems. If the FAA and other international governing aviation bodies are restricting deployment of 5G towers near airports for public safety, that same restriction should be considered for homes and families that are a mere couple hundred feet from this proposed tower location.

There continue to be studies coming out showing the risks of EMF and 5G on our bodies . I'll link below my email some of this info here and pertinent excerpts . The Children 's Health Defense organization led by Robert F Kennedy has already filed a lawsuit against the FCC pertaining to safety issues and the lack of studies done by the government. Doe the city of Carlsbad want to invite litigation over this? I think the city is opening themselves up to lawsuits if they continue to approve putting 5G cell towers next to neighborhoods and in parks where children play. The debate over 5G safety is far from over. I believe there are numerous open questions about the impact to our biological health. Why would we ever place towers directly next to homes and in a park where children play and perform a giant experiment with health? The towers should be placed in more industrial areas.

Do we really want to trust our health to a multi-billion-dollar telecom giant whose only motivation is profits? This reminds me of the tobacco industry convincing the public that smoking was not dangerous.

I request that the Council vote against this proposal and have AT&T resubmit their application using one of the alternative locations.

Thank you for your time,
Catherine Prvanov
6575 Windflower Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92011
EXCERPTS:
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/5g-cell-towers-microwave­ syndrome/ Robert F Kennedy's website
"A new case report on two previously healthy men who developed "microwave syndrome " symptoms after a 5G cell tower was installed on the roof of their office, and a similar report 2 published last month , show that non-ionizing SG radiation can cause health problems in people with no prior history of electromagnetic sensitivity ." See article for more detail . Clearly there are not enough studies done on the impacts. Do we really want to trust a multibillion dollar telecom giant about safety? They only have profits as their motivation. https://childrenshealthdefense .org/news/5g -and-wireless-technology-health -effects/ - Robert F Kennedy's website .
"Most recently, on November 1, 2018, the final report of the Federal Government National Toxicology Program (NTP), the government expert agency on toxins, was published . The $30 million 19-year study found CLEAR EVIDENCE that this radiation causes cancer and breaks DNA. This study confirmed what other studies already showed decades ago including reports and studies by the Navy, Air-Force, NASA, and the EPA which recognized and documented the profound bio-effects of wireless technology. The NTP study should have been a game changer and put a halt to further deployment of wireless technology. The NTP scientists said that the public should be informed. Instead, The FCC has been fast­ tracking the deployment of SG. SG is the infrastructure for the internet of things and is intended to wirelessly connect 20 billion more devices and for that purpose, deploy 800,000 more cell towers and launch 20,000 satellites which will exponentially increase our exposure to this harmful radiation.

The deployment of the 800,000 SG "small" cell antennas on poles near every few homes has begun and is progressing quickly. Most of these antennas are 4G and some will utilize millimeter wave frequencies.

Studies show profound bio-effects from millimeter waves as well. Federal laws and FCC regulations enabled this forced deployment by removing any barriers, preempting municipal authority, and giving the wireless industry almost unlimited access to our public rights of ways.

These antennas are being forced on residents within a few feet of their homes without their informed consent, and they are being prevented from effectively objecting from their installation on any grounds, including health . These antennas may be smaller but because of their proximity, they increase the levels of radiation on our streets by thousands of times. Families who have had these "small" antennas installed near their homes are becoming sick, sometimes within days after they are installed. There is a reason why insurance companies refuse to insure the wireless industry for health effects.

If you don't want to wake up in the morning and have a SG cell tower a few feet from your children's bedroom window, it is time to become informed and help efforts to get US cities and states to "Just Say No" to the FCC & SG."
https ://children shealthdefense .org/news/Sg -airgig-what -is-it-and -should-you-be-worried/ 3 ..

On December 4, 2019, the FCC announced that it is not going to review its outdated guidelines, proclaiming that there is no evidence of harm. As a result, Children's Health Defense and other Petitioners filed a la.\fll.suit against the FCC on February 2, 2020. The other Petitioners include parents of children who have been injured, doctors and Professor David Carpenter-the Co-Editor of the Biolnitiative Report, which is the largest review of the science on this issue. The lawsuit claims the FCC's decision not to review its safety guidelines is .Q.aPricious, arbitrary . non-evidence-based and an abuse of discretion . This historic case attacks the premise upon which the deployment and proliferation of wireless technology is based. Likely, it is the only way we can sue the government for the harm it has been creating and enabling.
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/5g-harms -humans -animals-plants/ Following the passage of New Hampshire House Bill 522, the New Hampshire legislative Commission to Study the Environmental and Health Effects of Evolving 5G Technology was formed . The commission was engaged to "study the environmental and health effects of 5G wireless technology in 2019."
The commission was made up of 13 members whose education included epidemiology, occupational health, toxicology, physics, engineering electromagnetrcs and a representative from the wireless industry. As quoted from EMF Safety Network, the commission was asked to answer eight pointed questions , including:

1. Why thousands of peer-reviewed radiofrequency (RF) studies that show a wide range of health effects, including DNA damage, brain and heart tumors, infertility and many other ailments, have been ignored by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC).

2. Why the FCC guidelines do not account for health effects of wireless technology .

3. Why the FCC RF limits are 100 times higher than those in other countries .

4. Why the FCC is ignoring the World Health Organization classification of wireless as a possible carcinogen .

5. Why, when the world's leading scientists signed an appeal to protect public health from wireless radiation , nothing has been done. 4 The commission heard from experts and ultimately all except the telecommunication representative acknowledged that RF radiation coming from wireless devices had an effect on humans , animals , insects and plants . The commission wrote :
"There is mounting evidence that DNA damage can occur from radiat ion outside of the ionizing part of the spectrum. The Commission heard arguments on both sides of this issue with many now saying there are findings showing biological effects in this range. This argument gets amplified as millimeter waves within the microwave range are beginning to be utilized ."
https ://www . i nvestigate-eu rope. eu/posts/5g-covid­ cons pi racy?ie s==ga&pk campaign==en-
5g&pk source==google&pk medium==cpc&gad source==1 &gclid==CjwKCAjww iwBhApEiwAu G6ccJo7vX hBDX cnQcUvZB14vaGT jF3Bk0AjfRo9sfm4qK SE63SghoC8SwQAvD BwE SG is an upgrade of the previous generations of 2, 3 and 4G.-But it is also much more than that. The powerful technology is going to be the base for what the telecom industry calls a l"revolution. "I It will allow the so-called internet of things, where everyth ing is online and connected. SG is needed to sustain driverless cars, remote surgery, as well as smart cities and homes, including ultra-fast access to films and music
To achieve all this, the SG network will also use the millimeter waves part of the frequency spectrum .

These are low-power , short-range waves, unable to break through walls or other obstacles, such as trees. They can be directed individually , but they have to be relayed from a base station via small antennas to avoid obstacles and reach their destination . These stations will be small, the size of fire alarm boxes.

This will compel data companies to place tens of thousands of these small base stations on street furniture, lampposts, and on the exter ior and interior of buildings. Currently , the 4G network uses fewer antennas, more powerful, further away from our daily lives, thanks to its longer transmission range.

It is from the coming high number of antennas that some of the new fear of harmful effects of mobile radiation arises.
5 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From: Sheila Cobian
Sent:

To:

Tuesday, April 16, 2024 2:02 PM
City Clerk
Subject: FW: NO CELL TOWERS IN POINSETTIA PARK!
From: Keith Blackburn <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 2:00 PM
To: Sheila Cobian <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: NO CELL TOWERS IN POINSETTIA PARK!
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Jessica Price <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 12:39:45 PM
To: Keith Blackburn <[email protected]>
Subject: NO CELL TOWERS IN POINSETTIA PARK!
Hi Mayor Blackburn,
We have been on the same side of so many issues: dog park_~eing moved to where it is now at Poinsettia, not including the land behind Mariposa to be included in future large housing projects, and now this - I actually don't know where you stand!
I am hopeful we can find a different location for these cell towers that is not close to where families live and play.

I appreciate your research into this matter and I'm hopeful that you or other council members can come up with a more favorable solution as you have always managed to do in the past.

Thank you!
Jessica Price
Former Cove owner, now in Mariner's Point
Sent from my phone
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From: Sheila Cobian
Sent:

To:

Tuesday, April 16, 2024 2:02 PM
City Clerk
Subject : FW: Poinsettia Cell Towers
From: Keith Blackburn <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 2:00 PM
To: Sheila Cobian <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Poinsettia Cell Towers
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Sandra Abbott <[email protected]> •
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 12:25:22 PM • • . .

To.: Carolyn Luna <[email protected]>; Keith Blackburn <keith.blackbur [email protected]>; Melanie Burkholder <melanie.burkholder@carlsbadca .gov>; PriyaBhat ,~Patel <[email protected]> Subject: Poinsettia Cell Towers
Dear City Council members,
I am strongly opposed to the construction cif the AT&T cell tower in poinsettia park which is in very close proximity to the homes adjacent to the park. I will not be able to attend the meeting today because I am out of town. "'.1Y biggest takeaway from the January meeting is that AT&T and the planning commission is using Poinsettia park as the easy solution for AT&T due to the convenient access it would have to build the tower. This is clearly favoritism of a large company wanting to minimize costs at the expense of a residential neighborhood and an aesthetic public space. There are so many other locations that may be utilized that would minimize the risk, perceived or actual to the public.

There is a standing moratorium on SG towers being near airports due to interference with aircraft landing systems. If the FAA and other international governing aviation bodies are restricting deployment of SG towers near airports for public safety, that same restriction should be considered for homes and families that are a mere couple hundred feet from this proposed tower location.

I request that the Council vote against this proposal and have AT&T resubmit their application using one of the alternative locations.

Thank you for your time,
Sandra Abbott
6583 Windflower Dr
1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From: Priya Bhat-Patel
Sent:

To:

Tuesday, April 16, 2024 2:03 PM
City Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Cell tower in poinsettia park
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Valerie Rubin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 2:00:11 PM
To: Keith Blackburn <[email protected]>; Melanie Burkholder <[email protected]>; Priya Bhat-Patel <Priya.bhat-patel@carlsbadca .gov>; Carolyn Luna <[email protected]>; Teresa Acosta <te resa .acosta@ca rlsbadca .gov>
Cc: Nora George <[email protected]>
Subject: Cell tower in poinsettia park
Dear City leaders and Planning Commission,
>
>>>>
»» I am again sending an email about the proposed AT and T cell tower at Poinsettia Park. >
>
»» Please do not allow the installation of the AT and T cell tower at Poinsettia Park as proposed. The location is just a few hundred feet away from homes on my street (Beacon Bay) and it is also in a highly used city park. City policy 64 lists parks and private residential areas at the bottom of the list of allowed sites for this type of installation. There must be other options.

I have lived in Carlsbad for over two decades and visit Poinsettia Park several times a week. The cell tower as proposed will be unsightly inside our beautiful park. Additionally, I fear for the safety hazards it presents to the children who play at the park and to the residents like myself and my neighbors who live so close to the proposed spot.

There are many other locations nearby that seem to be much more suitable such as the Encinas Water Plant, near the electrical transformers behind the Crossings golf course, or near the water tower along Poinsettia Avenue. Even within Poinsettia Park itself, the proposed location is one of the least ideal. The park only has one border (the southern side) where private homes fully abut the park - and that's where the cell tower is meant to be built! Even within the park, AT and T appears to get their first choice. Why not force them to use a location in the park that is the furthest from private residences such as the most western end near the Arena soccer field? I have been told that other locations are not as ideal for AT and T due to the elevation or the ability to easily access the site. My concern is that AT and T does not appear to compromise at all, while the city is forced to go further and further down our list for proposed locations.

Please deny AT and T the permission to install their device in the proposed spot in our park! Let's continue to keep our city beautiful to value outdoor recreation.

Valerie Rubin, MD
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:

Sent:

To:

Teresa Acosta
Tuesday, April 16, 2024 2:06 PM
City Clerk
Subject: FW: Poinsettia Park Cell tower - opposed
From: Yrena Friedmann <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 11:59 AM
To: Carolyn Luna <[email protected]>; Keith Blackburn <[email protected]>; Melanie Burkholder <melanie [email protected]>; priya [email protected]; Teresa Acosta <[email protected]>
Subject: Poinsettia Park Cell tower - opposed
Dear City Council members,
I am writing due to health and safety concerns for the proposed cell towers in Poinsettia Park. I am requesting the city council reject the proposal from AT&T and ask them to resubmit a proposal for another more remote area.

My grandchildren play in the park often as do neighbors due pickle ball and fur the dog park eg this is a highly utilized park. There are other locations that can be utilized that would minimize the risk to the public .

There is a standing moratorium on 5G towers being near airports due to interference with aircraft landing systems. If the FAA and other international governing aviation bodies are restricting deployment of 5G towers near airports for public safety, that same restriction should be considered for homes and families that are a mere couple hundred feet from this proposed tower location.

There continue to be studies coming out showing the risks of EMF and 5G on our bodies. I'll link below my email some of this info here and pertinent excerpts . The Children's Health Defense organization led by Robert F Kennedy has already filed a lawsuit against the FCC pertaining to safety issues and the lack of studies done by the government and I would hate for Carlsbad to be added to this list. The towers should be placed in more industrial areas.
1 Thank you for your thoughtful consideration,
Yrena Friedmann Niewald
6571 Windflower Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92011
EXCERPTS:
https://childrenshealthdefense .org/defender/5g-cell-towers-microwave­ syndrom e/ Robert F Kennedy's website
"A new case report on two previously healthy men who developed "microwave syndrome " symptoms after a SG cell tower was installed on the roof of their office, and a similar report published last month , show that non-ionizing SG radiation can cause health problems in people with no prior history of electromagnetic sensitivity." See article for more detail. Clearly there are not enough studies done on the impacts . Do we really want to trust a multibillion dollar telecom giant about safety? They only have profits as their motivation. https://children shealthdefense.org/news/5g-and -wireless -technology -health -effects/ - Robert F Kennedy's website.
11 Most recently, on November 1, 2018, the final report of the Federal Government National Toxicology Program (NTP), the government expert agency on toxins, was published. The $30 million 19-year study found CLEAR EVIDENCE that this radiation causes cancer and breaks DNA. This study confirmed what other studies already showed decades ago including reports and studies by the Navy, Air-Force, NASA, and the EPA which recognized and documented the profound bio-effects of wireless technology. The NTP study should have been a game changer and put a halt to further deployment of wireless technology. The NTP scientists said that the public should be informed . Instead, The FCC has been fast­ tracking the deployment of SG. SG is the infrastructure for the internet of things and is intended to 2 wirelessly connect 20 billion more devices and for that purpose, deploy 800,000 more cell towers and launch 20,000 satellites which will exponentially increase our exposure to this harmful radiation.

The deployment of the 800,000 SG "small" cell antennas on poles near every few homes has begun and is progressing quickly. Most of these antennas are 4G and some will utilize millimeter wave frequencies.

Studies show profound bio-effects from millimeter waves as well. Federal laws and FCC regulations enabled this forced deployment by removing any barriers, preempting municipal authority, and giving the wireless industry almost unlimited access to our public rights of ways.

These antennas are being forced on residents within a few feet of their homes without their informed consent, and they are being prevented from effectively objecting from the ir installation on any grounds, including health. These antennas may be smaller but because of their proximity, they increase the levels of radiation on our streets by thousands of times . Families who have had these "small" antennas installed near their homes are becoming sick, sometimes within days after they are installed. There is a reason why insurance companies refuse to insure the wireless industry for health effects .

If you don't want to wake up in the morning and have a SG cell tower a few feet from your children's bedroom window, it is time to become informed and help efforts to get US cities and states to "Just Say No" to the FCC & SG."
https://childrenshealthdefense .org/news/Sg-airgig-what-is-it-and-should-you-be-worried/ On December 4, 2019, the FCC announced that it is not going to review its outdated guidelines, proclaiming that there is no evidence of harm. As a result, Children 's Health Defense and other Petitioners filed a laws uit against the FCC on February 2, 2020. The other Petitioners include parents of children who have been injured, doctors and Professor David Carpenter-the Co-Editor of the Biolnitiative Report, which is the largest review of the science on this issue. The lawsu it claims the FCC's decision not to review its safety guidelines is capricious, arbitrary . non-evidence-based and an abuse of discretion . This historic case attacks the premise upon which the deployment and proliferation of wireless technology is based. Likely. it is the only way we can sue the government for the harm it has been creating and enabling.
3 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/5g-harms-humans -animals-plants/ Following the passage of New Hampshire House Bill 522, the New Hampshire legislative Commission to Study the Environmental and Health Effects of Evolving 5G Technology was formed . The commission was engaged to "study the environmental and health effects of 5G wireless technology in 2019."
The commission was made up of 13 members whose education included epidemiology , occupational health , toxicology, physics , engineering electromagnetics and a representative from the wireless industry. As quoted from EMF Safety Network, the commission was asked to answer eight pointed questions , including:
• Why thousands of peer-reviewed radiofrequency (RF) studies that show a wide range of health effects , including DNA damage, brain and heart tumors, infertility and many other ailments , have been ignored by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC).
• Why the FCC guidelines do not account for health effects of wireless technology.
• Why the FCC RF limits are 100 times higher than those in other countries . • Why the FCC is ignoring the Worldfiealth Organization classification of wireless as a possible carcinogen .
• Why, when the world's leading scientists signed an appeal to protect public health from wireless rad_iation , nothing has been done.

The commission heard from experts and ultimately all except the telecommunication representative acknowledged that RF radiation coming from wireless devices had an effect on humans, animals, insects and plants. The commission wrote :
"There is mounting evidence that DNA damage can occur from radiation outs ide of the ionizing part of the spectrum . The Commission heard arguments on both sides of this issue with many now saying there are findings showing biological effects in this range. This argument gets amplified as millimeter waves within the microwave range are beginning to be utilized ."
4 https ://www. i nvestigate-e u rope. eu/posts/5g-covid ­ conspi racy?ie s=ga&pk campaign=en-
5g&pk source=google&pk medium=cpc&gad source=1 &gclid=CjwKCAjww iwBhApEiwAu G6ccJo7vX hBDX cnQcUvZB14vaGT jF3Bk0AjfRo9sfm4qK SE63SghoC8SwQAvD BwE SG is an upgrade of the previous generations of 2, 3 and 4G. But it is also much more than that. The powerful technology is going to be the base for what the telecom industry calls a l"revolution ."I It will allow the so-called internet of things, where everything is online and connected . SG is needed to sustain driverless cars, remote surgery, as well as smart cities and homes, including ultra-fast access to films and music
To achieve all this, the SG network will also use the millimeter waves part of the frequency spectrum.

These are low-power, short-range waves, unable to break through walls or other obstacles, such as trees. They can be directed individua lly, but they have to be relayed from a base station via small antennas to avoid obstacles and reach their destination. These stations will be small, the size of fire alarm boxes.

This will compel data companies to place tens of thousands of these small base stations on street furniture, lampposts, and on the exterior and interior of buildings. Currently , the 4G network uses fewer antennas, more powerful, further away from our daily lives, thanks to its longer transmission range.

It is from the coming high number of antennas that some of the new fear of harmful effects of mobile radiation arises.
5 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Get Outlook for iOS
Priya Bhat-Patel
Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1 :10 PM
City Clerk
Fwd: Poinsettia Cell Towers
From: Sandra Abbott <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2()24 12:25:22 PM
To; Carolyn luna :·<carolyn.lu'il~'@c~rlsbadca.gov>; Keith Blackburn <keith [email protected]>; Melanie Burkholder:' <[email protected]>; Priya Bhat-Patel <[email protected]> • Subject: Poin;ettia <:;eUTowers • • •
Dear City Cou_ncil members, __ ,
I am ·strongly opposed to the construction of the AT&T cell tower in poinsettia park which is in very close proximity to the homes adjacent to the park. I will not be able to atte.nd the meeting today because I am out of town. My biggest · takeaway from the January meeting is that AT&T and the planning commission is using Poinsett_ia park as the easy solution for AT&T due to the convenient access it would have to .build the tower. This is dearly favoritism of a large company wanting to minimize costs at the expense of a residential neighbo'rhood and an aesthetic public space. There are so many other locations that may be utilized that would minimize the risk, perceive~ :or actual to the public . .

There is a standing moratorium on 56 towers b~ing near airports due to interference with aircraft landfng·systems. If the FAA and other international governing aviation bodies are restricting deployment of 5G towers near airports for public safety, that same restriction should ,be considered for homes and families that are a mere couple hundred feet from this proposed tower location.

I request that the Council vote against this proposal and have AT&T resubmit their application using one of the alternative locations :

Thank you for your time,
Sandra Abbott
6583 Windflower Dr
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From: Priya Bhat-Patel
Sent:

To:

Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1 :19 PM
City Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Poinsettia Park Cell tower opposition
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Cathy <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 10:36 :09 AM
To: Priya Bhat-Patel <priya.bhat [email protected]> Cc: Cathy Prvanov <[email protected]>
Subject: Poinsettia Park Cell tower opposition
From: Cathy <[email protected]>
Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 at 10:34 AM
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <priya.bhat­ [email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Poinsettia Park Cell tower
Dear City Council members,
I am opposed to the construction of the AT&T cell tower in Poinsettia Park near homes and where children play. I can not attend the meeting tonight as I will be out of town. My biggest takeaway from the January meeting is that AT&T and the planning commission is using Poinsettia park as the easy solution for AT&T due to the convenient access it would have to build the tower. This is clearly favoritism of a large company wanting to minimize costs at the expense of a residential neighborhood and an aesthetic public space and potential harmful health effects. There are so many other locations that may be utilized that would minimize the risk, perceived or actual to the public.

There is a standing moratorium on 5G towers being near airports due to interference with aircraft landing systems . If the FAA and other international governing aviation bodies are restrict ing deployment of 5G towers near airports for public safety , that same restriction should be considered for homes and families that are a mere couple hundred feet from this proposed tower location .

There continue to be studies coming out showing the risks of EMF and 5G on our bodies . I'll link below my email some of this info here and pertinent excerpts . The Children 's Health Defense organization led by Robert F Kennedy has already filed a lawsuit against the FCC pertaining to safety issues and the lack of studies done by the government. Doe the city of Carlsbad want to invite litigation over this? I th ink the 1 city is opening themselves up to lawsu its if they continue to approve putting 5G cell towers next to neighborhoods and in parks where children play. The debate over 5G safety is far from over. I believe there are numerous open questions about the impact to our biological health . Why would we ever place towers directly next to homes and in a park where children play and perform a giant experiment with health? The towers should be placed in more industrial areas.

Do we really want to trust our health to a multi-billion-dollar telecom giant whose only motivation is profits? This reminds me of the tobacco industry convincing the public that smoking was not dangerous.

I request that the Council vote against this proposal and have AT&T resubmit their application using one of the alternative locations.

Thank you for your time ,
Catherine Prvanov
6575 Windflower Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92011
EXCERPTS:
https ://childrenshealthdefense .org/defender/5g-cell-towe rs-microwave-syndrome/ Robert F Kennedy's website
"A new case report on two previously healthy men who developed "microwave syndrome" symptoms after a 5G cell tower was installed on the roof of their office, and a similar report published last month, show that non-ionizing 5G radiation can cause health problems in people with no prior history of electromagnetic sensitivity." See article for more detail . Clearly there are not enough studies done on the impacts . Do we really want to trust a multibillion dollar telecom giant about safety? They only have profits as their motivation .
https://childrenshealthdefense .org/news/5g-and -wireless-technology-health -effects/ - Robert F Kennedy's website.
"Most recently, on November 1, 2018, the fina l report of the Federal Government National Toxicology Program (NTP), the government expert agency on toxins, was published. The $30 million 19-year study found CLEAR EVIDENCE that this radiat ion causes cancer and breaks DNA. This study confirmed what other studies already showed decades ago including reports and studies by the Navy, Air-Force, NASA, and the EPA which recognized and documented the profound bio­ effects of wireless technology . The NTP study should have been a game changer and put a halt to further deployment of wireless technology . The NTP scientists said that the public should be informed . Instead, The FCC has been fast-tracking the deployment of SG. SG is the infrastructure for the internet of things and is intended to wirelessly connect 20 billion 2 more devices and for that purpose, deploy 800,000 more cell towers and launch 20,000 satellites which will exponentially increase our exposure to this harmful radiation .

The deployment of the 800,000 SG "small" cell antennas on poles near every few homes has begun and is progressing quickly. Most of these antennas are 4G and some will utilize millimeter wave frequencies. Studies show profound bio­ effects from millimeter waves as well. Federal laws and FCC regulations enabled this forced deployment by removing any barriers, preempting municipal authority, and giving the wireless industry almost unlimited access to our public rights of ways.

These antennas are being forced on residents within a few feet of their homes without their informed consent, and they are being prevented from effectively objecting from their installation on any grounds, including health. These antennas may be smaller but because of their proximity, they increase the levels of radiation on our streets by thousands of times.

Families who have had these "small// ant-ennas installed near their homes are becoming sick, sometimes within days after they are installed. There is a reason why insurance companies refuse to insure the wireless industry for health effects.

If you don't want to wake up in the morning and have a SG cell tower a few feet from your children's bedroom window, it is time to become informed and help efforts to get US cities and states to "Just Say No" to the FCC & SG." https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/Sg-airgig-what-is-it-and-should-you-be-worried/ On December 4, 2019, the FCC announced that it is not going to review its outdated guidelines, proclaiming that there is no evidence of harm. As a result, Children's Health Defense and other Petitioners filed a lawsuit against the FCC on February 2, 2020. The other Petitioners include parents of children who have been injured, doctors and Professor David Carpenter-the Co-Editor of the Bio Initiative Report, which is the largest review of the science on this issue. The lawsuit claims the FCC's decision not to review its safety guidelines is capricious. arbitrary . non-evidence-based and an abuse of discretion. This historic case attacks the premise upon which the deployment and proliferation of wireless technology is based. Likely, it is the only way we can sue the government for the harm it has been creating and enabling .
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/5g-harms-humans-animals-plants/ Following the passage of New Hampshire House Bill 522, the New Hampshire le.gi_slative Commissj _on to Study the Environmental and Health Effects of Evolving 5G Technology was formed . The commission was .e.n_gaged to "study the environmental and health effects of 5G wireless technology in 2019." 3 The commission was made up of 13 members whose education included epidemiology, occupational health, toxicology, physics, engineering electromagnetics and a representative from the wireless industry. As quoted from EMF Safety Network, the commission was asked to answer eight pointed guestions, including:

Why thousands of peer-reviewed radiofrequency (RF) studies that show a wide range of health effects, including DNA damage, brain and heart tumors, infertility and many other ailments, have been ignored by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC).

Why the FCC guidelines do not account for health effects of wireless technology.

Why the FCC RF limits are 100 times higher than those in other countries.

Why the FCC is ignoring the World Health Organization classification of wireless as a possible carcinogen.

Why, when the world's leading scientists signed an appeal to protect public health from wireless radiation, nothing has been done.

The commission heard from experts and ultimately all except the telecommunication representative acknowledged that RF radiation coming from wireless devices had an effect on humans, animals, insects and plants. The commission wrote:
"There is mounting evidence that DNA damage can occur from radiation outside of the ionizing part of the spectrum. The Commission heard arguments on both sides of this issue with many now saying there are findings showing biological effects in this range. This argument gets amplified as millimeter waves within the microwave range are beginning to be utilized." https ://www.investigate-europe.eu/posts/5g-covid-conspiracy?ie s=ga&pk campaign=en- 5g&pk source=google&pk medium=cpc&gad source=1 &gclid=CjwKCAjww iwBhApEiwAuG6ccJo7vX hBDX cnQcUvZB14vaGT jF3Bk0AjfRo9sfm4qK SE63SghoC8SwQAvD BwE SG is an upgrade of the previous generations of 2, 3 and 4G. But it is also much more than that. The powerful technology is going to be the base for what the telecom industry calls a l"revolution."I It will allow the so-called internet of things, where everything is on line and connected. SG is needed to sustain driverless cars, remote surgery, as well as smart cities and homes, including ultra-fast access to films and music To achieve all this, the SG network will also use the millimeter waves part of the frequency spectrum. These are low­ power, short-range waves, unable to break through walls or other obstacles, such as trees. They can be directed 4 individually, but they have to be relayed from a base station via small antennas to avoid obstacles and reach their destination. These stations will be small, the size of fire alarm boxes.

This will compel data companies to place tens of thousands of these small base stations on street furniture, lampposts, and on the exterior and interior of buildings. Currently, the 4G network uses fewer antennas, more powerful, further away from our daily lives, thanks to its longer transmission range.

It is from the coming high number of antennas that some of the new fear of harmful effects of mobile radiation arises.

CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content i 5 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From: Priya Bhat-Patel
Sent:

To:

Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1 :27 PM
City Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Regarding AT&T Tower Meeting Tonight
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Zach Schubert <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 7:39:52 AM
To: Priya Bhat-Patel <priya.bhat [email protected]> Subject: Regarding AT&T Tower Meeting Tonight
Good Morning,
My name is Zach Schubert . I live at 1031 Seahorse Ct, next to Poinsettia Park (The Cove).

I request you vote against the process of allowing an AT&T cell phone tower in Poinsettia Park, near my home. Cell towers do not blend with the numerous neighborhoods, Pacific Rim Elementary, and the thousands of daily visitors seeking green space. They belong in other areas where offices and warehouses are plenty- less visited, and less bothered during the weekends, and are farther isolated from pedestrians, bikers, and families.

I attended the past commission meeting at the City Hall, where I learned the tower at The Crossings was not considered to expand in height because AT&T wanted the most convenient option, even though a taller tower at The Crossings can service residents near Poinsettia Park. The congestion of The Crossings is way less compared to Poinsettia Park- just like business areas on weekends .

For those who work full time and want to enjoy healthy and happy weekends in Carlsbad, I hope you do not support installing the massive tower in Poinsettia Park.

Regards
1 Zach Schubert
1031 Seahorse Ct
The Cove
7605791712
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content i 2 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Attachments:

Get Outlook for iOS
Priya Bhat-Patel
Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1 :27 PM
City Clerk
Fwd: Poinsettia Park Cell Phone Tower: Please vote no
Em and Cal.jpg; Hawaii Fam.jpg; Caljpg; 1996v2024.pptx
From: Deb von Rosenberg <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 3:30:06 PM
To: Keith Blackburn <keith.b [email protected]>; Melanie Burkholder <melanie.burkholder@carlsbadca .gov>; Carolyn Luna <carolyn.luna@carlsbadca .gov>; Teresa Acosta <[email protected]>; Priya Bhat-Patel <priya.bhat [email protected]>
Subject: Poinsettia Park Cell Phone Tower: Please vote no Good Afternoon Carlsbad City Council Members-
My name is Deborah von Rosenberg and I live at 1059 Beacon Bay Dr Carlsbad, CA 92011. This is the street that is directly parallel to the proposed site of the AT&T SG cell phone tower inside of Poinsettia Park. My husband Jeff and I have an 11 yr old daughter, Emmaline, and a 9 yr old son, Cal. We have lived in the Cove for almost 10 years. Our children walk to school daily, Pacific Rim Elementary, and play in Poinsettia Park. They both play Flag Football and my daughter plays soccer for City SC at Poinsettia Park. We also have two dogs that we walk and play with at Poinsettia Park. We are just one example of a family that lives and plays in the area.

The point of this is the constant exposure to radiation for all of us if a cell tower is erected . SG technology is about 5 years old. There have simply not been enough studies on the potential health risks from constant exposure to this radiation. My son was born with a lung malformation and had surgery at 10 months old and again at 24 months (pie attached). It was the most stressful awful time in our lives and not only do I never want to relive it, I would never want another child or family to endure it or anyone in YOUR family . Radiation exposure may cause cancer. Voting yes to this tower, puts all of your fellow citizens in the surrounding neighborhoods at risk. By taking your oath of office, it has become your responsibility to protect us and our babies. We voted you into Council trusting you would.

Also, AT&T is relying heavily on the Telecommunication Act of 1996. Please see the attached PPT slide of a cell phone and tower from 1996 vs 2024. This Act is outdated and quite frankly, has expired. The Act should not be taken into considerat ion since it is not the same technology as 1996. They are completely different products, both phones and towers and the phone from 1996 would not have the ability to even work with a SG tower . The Act should be dismissed.

I also firmly believe that, simply : cell towers should be prohibited from parks and neighborhoods .

I apologize and am upset that I am unable to attend the meeting tomorrow evening due to a work obligation. However, I beg you, please find a way to vote no on the cell tower erection in Poinsettia Park for all of us, especially for Emmy and Cal and all of our children.

Thank you for your time and consideration,
Deb von Rosenberg
603-489-9410
1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Get Outlook for iOS
Priya Bhat-Patel
Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1 :28 PM
City Clerk
Fwd: Please vote NO on SG towers
From: Lindy R <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 2:10:34 PM
To: Priya Bhat-Patel <[email protected]>
Subject: Please vote NO on SG towers
Dear Ms. Bhat-Patel,
I am opposed to SG towers at Poinsettia Park. I have resided in Carlsbad for nearly 2..5 years and appreciate our wonderful quality of life here. I have linked Dr.--Mercola's information, below, on the serious health risks including: •
Neurological and psychiatric_ problems,
Brain development impacts,
Altering the microbiome, and
Reductions in male fertility
Dr. Mercola's Article titled 'Ten New Studies Detail Health Risks of SG', dated April 14, 2024, link:
https: //tinyurl .com/26hjd9nw
Thank you for considering my input. I live adjacent to Poinsettia Park in the Seabright HOA.

Sincerely,
Linda Rayner
6443 Merlin Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92011
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content i safe.
1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From: Priya Bhat-Patel
Sent:

To:

Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1 :28 PM
City Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Proposed Cell Tower
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Robert Devich <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 12:02:12 PM
To: Keith Blackburn <keith.blackburn@carlsbadca .gov>; Melanie Burkholder <melanie [email protected]> ; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Priya Bhat-Patel <priya.bhat-patel@carlsbadca .gov>; Teresa Acosta <[email protected]>; Cathy Devich <[email protected]> Subject: Proposed Cell Tower
Hello Respected City Council Members,
Please consider today's email a request for denying the proposed cell tower going into Poinsettia Park. I served as school principal at Kelly School (5 years), Pacific Rim (12 years and my home is directly above Pacific Rim), and currently I am the principal of Poinsettia School.

I believe that you will look at all the data points, along with very strong opinions, as you make a vote on the recommendation of our local planning commiss_ion. Alternative cell tower locations must be a top responsibility of your decision making tomorrow night and I believe you will pause the approval and 'go back to the drawing board' for a safer and alternative location site. There must be locations reconsidered that do not allow cell tower EM F's to fall 24-7 on residents in neighborhoods, and most importantly the children who live near and attend Pacific Rim School.

If this tower was proposed to be located in your neighborhood, I would assume that you would be opposed to it for obvious reasons. As stated above, I appreciate your valued work and I believe you will make the right decision to protect the safety and well being of the residence surrounding Poinsettia Park.

Thank you!
Robert Devich
Principal
Poinsettia Elementary School
2445 Mica Road
Carlsbad, CA 92009
(760) 331-6500
(760) 930-6005 Fax
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content i safe.
1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Get Outlook for iOS
Priya Bhat-Patel
Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1 :28 PM
City Clerk
Fwd: Poinsettia Park Cell tower
From: Martin Schubert <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 11:51:28 AM
To: Carolyn Luna <[email protected]>; Keith Blackburn <keith.blackburn@carlsbadca .gov>; Melanie Burkholder <melanie.burkholder@carlsbadca .gov>; Priya Bhat-Patel <priya.bhat-patel@carlsbadca .gov>; Teresa Acosta <[email protected]>
Subject: Poinsettia Park Cell tower
Dear City Council members,
I am opposed to the construction of the AT&T cell tower in poinsettia park in close proximity to the homes adjacent to the park. I will not be able to attend the meeting tomorrow due to other commitments. My biggest takeaway from the January meeting is that AT&T and the planning commission is using Poinsettia park as the easy solution for AT&T due to the convenient access it would have to build the tower. This is clearly favoritism of a large company wanting to minimize costs at the expense of a residential neighborhood and an aesthetic public space. There are so many other locations that may be utilized that would minimize the risk, perceived or actual to the public.

There is a standing moratorium on SG towers being near airports due to inte~ference with aircraft landing systems. If the FAA and other international governing aviation bodies are restricting deployment of SG towe rs near airports for public safety, that same restriction should be considered for homes and families that are a mere couple hundred feet from this proposed tower location.

I request that the Council vote against this proposal and have AT&T resubmit their application using one of the alternative locations.

Thank you for your time,
Martin Schubert
1031 Seahorse Ct
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From: Priya Bhat-Patel
Sent:

To:

Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1 :28 PM
City Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Poinsettia Park cell phone tower(s)
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Aileen Heimlich <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 9:38:22 AM
To: Priya Bhat-Patel <[email protected]>
Subject: Poinsettia Park cell phone tower(s)
The application of Policy 64 in regard to proposed cell ph~ne tower(s) in Poinsettia Park is totally misguided and we do NOT want these towe rs to flou rish in our park(s).

To stand on the ground of keeping these facilities away from residences and list a park on the "preferred sites" list is preposterous, never mind recomme nding such placement at this time! Please take to heart the community's input and place them in one of the higher priority sites as listed in the policy .

At some time in the immediate future please rethink the verbiage of Policy and rewrite it with true intention.

Thank you!
Aileen Heimlich
Sent from my iPhone
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content i safe.
1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From: Priya Bhat-Patel
Sent:

To:

Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1 :29 PM
City Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Cell Tower at Poinsettia Park
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Timothy Hart <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2024 8:28:52 PM
To: Priya Bhat-Patel <[email protected]>
Subject: Cell Tower at Poinsettia Park
Please vote to disapprove of any cell towers here.

Not only are they unsightly, but the are still scientists and doctors who do not feel they are safe for children's health.

Many of my neighbors feel the same way
Thanks Tim Hart 6723 Camino del Prado. Carlsbad, CA 92011 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content i safe.
1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From: Priya Bhat-Patel
Sent:

To:

Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1 :29 PM
City Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Poinsettia Park Cell Tower
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Ben Ehrlich <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2024 8:35:26 PM
To: Priya Bhat-Patel <[email protected]>
Subject: Poinsettia Park Cell Tower
Hi
I cannot think of a worse place to allow cell towers than a community park that is very heavily used mostly by our youth. The towers are known to give off radiation and are extremely ugly. It is unsafe to allow these in the approved area. Also, if one is allowed many more will follow. Our safety is much more important than better cell service for some. Surely the city of Carlsbad can find a better place located away from such a populated ares. Please vote to overturn the existing plan!
Barbara Ehrlich
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From: Priya Bhat-Patel
Sent:

To:

Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1 :29 PM
City Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Tuesday's WCF Appeal
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Nora George <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2024 7:24:18 PM
To: Priya Bhat-Patel <Priya.bhat-patel@carlsbadca .gov> Subject: Tuesday's WCF Appeal
Dear Priya,
I am looking forward to Tuesday's City Council meeting where I will have the opportunity to explain why our neighborhood has been challenging the proposed Wireless Communication Facility at Poinsettia Park. We feel the Planning Commission was manipulated by AT&T into believing there are no alternatives to a WCF at Poinsettia Park. As you know, the decision was a split 4-3, telling of considerable doubt. There ARE viable alternat ives and even a different technology that was revealed at the Planing Commission meeting as AT&T's (more expensive) contingency plan. It is frustrating to see big corporations putting profit over a community's well being. Please keep an open mind to the options and to the possibility that staff might have missed something. More importantly, with so much at stake, and the level of confusion and discontent with this item, please consider all the facts thoroughly before entering in to a lease agreement with AT&T.

Respectfully,
Nora Jimenez George, MCP
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From: Priya Bhat-Patel
Sent:

To:

Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1 :29 PM
City Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Proposed Cell Towers at Poinsettia Park
Get Outlook for iOS
From: David Van Der Linden <davevdl@sbcgloba l.net>
Sent : Sunday, April 14, 2024 2:35:29 PM
To: Keith Blackburn <keith .blackburn@car lsbadca.gov>; Me lanie Burkholde r <melanie.burkholder@ca rlsbadca.gov>; Priya Bhat-Patel <priya.bhat-pate [email protected]>; Carolyn Luna <carolyn.luna@carlsbadca .gov>; Teresa Acosta <te resa [email protected]>
Subject: Proposed Cell Towe rs at Poinsettia Pa rk
Dear Carlsbad City Council members ,
I grew up in Carlsbad and have lived a couple blocks away from Poinsettia Park for over 25 years. The current proposal to install cell towers at the park is very disturbing. Would you want cell towers close to your home? My neighbors and I don't either!
While experts say there is currently no strong evidence to support that exposure to RF waves from cellphone towers causes "any noticeable health effects ," officials still say more research is necessary to better understand the risk, as the towers ' RF waves haven't been ruled completely safe , either.

In any event cell towers are visual blight and and should not be allowed in our great parks. I urge you to deny the request to install cell towers at Poinsettia Park and help keep our parks beautiful! Regards,
Dave Van Der Linden
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content i safe.
1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From: Priya Bhat-Patel
Sent:

To:

Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1 :29 PM
City Clerk
Subject: Fwd: No more cell towers in our parks!
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Richard Heimlich <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2024 1:59:22 PM
To: Keith Blackburn <[email protected]>; Priya Bhat-Patel <[email protected]> Cc: Aileen Heimlich <treasuresfound1995@yahoo .com>
Subject: No more cell towers in our parks!
Our Calavera Hills park is blighted by a series of cell towers, it has become an industrial cell farm surrounding a ball field.

It is contrary to our city's Policy 64 now in place that clearly states parks are the least preferred location for cell towers.

Since when do we use parks for commercial use?
Now the gem of our parks, Poinsettia, is approved by Carlsbad planning department for another tower location by ATT&T to be followed by a CUP for Verizon in the same park?! Can't we do better this time? Other locations are available in the Poinsettia park neighborhood.

Encinitas did a tower ban on behalf of their park. I thought we were the forward thinking city? Thanks for your reconsideration, not in our park.

Richard Heimlich
VP, HOA, Mariner's Point
Aileen Heimlich
Homeowner, Poinsettia Park neighborhood
For 26 years
Sent from my iPhone
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From: Priya Bhat-Patel
Sent:

To:

Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1 :30 PM
City Clerk
Subject: Fwd: 4/16 Meeting AT&T Poinsettia Park
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Elizabeth H <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2024 10:02:42 AM
To: Keith Blackburn <[email protected]>; Melanie Burkholder <melanie.burkholder@carlsbadca .gov>; Carolyn Luna <[email protected]>; Priya Bhat-Patel <[email protected]>; Teresa Acosta <[email protected]>
Subject: 4/16 Meeting AT&T Poinsettia Park
Hello, I'm writing to urge you to deny the installation of an AT&T cell phone tower at Poinsettia Park. As a resident of the Cove neighborhood with AT&T as my cell phone provider, I'd like to say that I have zero issues with coverage in the area.

Their argument that coverage is lacking here is not accurate . This is not unique to me since the Cove did a survey nearby and over 20 households used AT&T and reported perfect coverage. Their argument that this will improve safety for 911 calls is not accurate . We don't need SG to make phone calls. There is no demand for this.

Your constituents are out here doing local surveys, suggesting alternative locations, and reading/quoting legal policies. It is clear we do not want this. Meanwhile, AT&T has not done any additional work to suggest alternative sites because it is not as profitable/easy for them.

AT&T is a business. At the end of the day, their motivation is to be as profitable as possible. Which means expanding their network with cell phone towers for as cheap as possible so they're the most competitive in their market.

Of course they are not going to offer up any contingency plans when asked.

The location is not the best spot for your constituents. It is the best spot for AT& T's checkbooks.

Best,
Dr. Elizabeth Heckmuller, PT, DPT, CCI
714-883-1692 I [email protected]
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content i . safe.
1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Get Outlook for iOS
Priya Bhat-Patel
Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1 :30 PM
City Clerk
Fwd: Cell Tower in Poinsettia Park
From: Silvia Chang <kandmmom@yahoo .com>
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2024 3:41:24 PM
To: Teresa Acosta <teresa .acosta@carlsbadca .gov>; Priya Bhat-Patel <priya.bhat-patel@carlsbadca .gov>; Carolyn Luna <[email protected]>; Melanie Burkholder <[email protected]>; Keith Blackburn <[email protected]>
Subject: Cell Tower in Poinsettia Park
Dear City Council,
It has come to my attention that you are discussing whether or not to approve the placement of cell towers in Poinsettia Park. I find it interesting that you are even considering the park as a viable option given that it is located next to an elementary school and multiple housing developments and a lot of people use the park. These are areas that are among the last places to locate a cell tower based on your own list. Why in the world would you approve it given that there are so many different options? Why don't you put it on the hill by the golf course where people don't live and not as many people would be affected?
When I moved here to The Cove neighborhood in 2002, Carlsbad seemed to be a city that listened to what the people wanted and the City Council actually represented the people that elected them. Now, unfortunately, that seems to have changed with massive development and the destruction of the Village. I hope that each of you will think about what your role is - as a government official, you are a representative of the people. You are not there to tell people what you think is better for them - no, you are not the parent of the people you represent. You are there to represent what the people want.

The people of Carlsbad do not want cell towers in their parks that are next to houses and elementary schools. Please vote accordingly.

Thank you,
Silvia
Silvia Chang 760-310-2570
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you reco nize the sender and know the content i safe.
1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From: Priya Bhat-Patel
Sent:

To:

Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1 :30 PM
City Clerk
Subject: Fwd: No cell tower
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Katie Beyer <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2024 3:04:32 PM
To: Priya Bhat-Patel <[email protected]>
Subject: No cell tower
Good afternoon,
I vote NO CELL TOWER at poinsettia park. Install in alternate location to protect the health and safety of our poinsettia community.

Thank you,
Kathryn Beyer
1082 Seahorse Ct
Carlsbad CA 92011
760-405-7211
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless ou recognize the sender and know the content i safe.
1 Tammy Cloud-McM inn
From: Priya Bhat-Patel
Sent:

To:

Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1 :30 PM
City Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Pointsettia park cell tower
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Donna Beyer <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2024 2:58:44 PM
To: Priya Bhat-Patel <priya.bhat- patel@carlsbadca .gov> Subject: Pointsettia park cell tower
Good afternoo n,
While I could go in and on listing all of the reasons Pointsettia Pa rk is not the place for a cell towe r, I'll keep this brief.

For all of the reasons that have already been presented-please vote to NOT PLACE A CELL TOWER AT POINTSETTIA PARK!!
Thank you,
Donna Beyer
1082 Seahorse Ct
Carlsbad CA 92011
760-505-6814
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the conte nt is safe. 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From: Priya Bhat-Patel
Sent:

To:

Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1 :31 PM
City Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Cell Tower
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Michaelene Mooney <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2024 8:46:36 AM
To: Priya Bhat-Patel <priya [email protected]> Subject: Cell Tower
I respectfully request that you refrain from putting the dangerous and hideous looking cell tower in our beautiful neighborhood Poinsettia Park!!
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration!!
Michaelene Mooney
619-972-0292
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you reco nize the sender and know the content i safe.
1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From: Priya Bhat-Patel
Sent:

To:

Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1 :31 PM
City Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Cell Phone Towers in Poiensettia Park
Get Outlook for iOS
From: DAVID LINZEY <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2024 2:56:45 PM
To: Priya Bhat-Patel <[email protected]>
Subject: Cell Phone Towers in Poiensettia Park
Please no more visual pollution in our Parks in Carlsbad. I really the income from the Cell Phone Companies are really the driving force behind this. There are some things more valuable than money.

Stop being money whores like other cities we wouldn't like to live in.

CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless ou recognize the sender and know the content i safe.
1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Get Out look for iOS
Priya Bhat-Patel
Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1 :31 PM
City Clerk
Fwd: PLEASE VOTE AGAINST - Poinsettia Park Cell Tower - City Council Hearing April 16 2024
From: Scott Morgan <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 20247 :34:52 AM
To: Priya Bhat-Patel <[email protected]>
Subject: PLEASE VOTE AGAINST - Poinsettia Park Cell Tower - City Council Hearing April 16 2024 Dear Ms. Bhat-Patel,
This is what we are trying to prevent from being installed next door at Poinsettia Park. 1 Please consider the request of our community in stating we don't want cell towers in our beautiful parks.a. Unfortunately, I will be working and unable to attend the meeting in person. Thank you.

Scott Morgan
664 7 Thrasher Pl
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless 2 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From: Priya Bhat-Patel
Sent:

To:

Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1 :32 PM
City Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Poinsettia Park Cell Towers
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Vickey Syage <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2024 8:37:43 AM
To: Priya Bhat-Patel <[email protected]>
Subject: Poinsettia Park Cell Towers
Dear Councilmember Bhat-Patel,
Please vote against these awful cell towers in Poinsettia Park, and any other Carlsbad Park.

I understand there are 3 installed in Calavera Park, but those cell towers were installed BEFORE the City created its cell tower placement policy. The Calavera cell towers never should have been installed.

One bad decision years ago shouldn't beget a whole lot of future bad decisions. Please don't allow the City to make the same mistake at Poinsettia Park, or any other park in Carlsbad. Parks and open space are our City's crown jewels . Please don't blight them with these hideous cell towers. Once the Council says yes to one company, the flood gates are open.

BTW - as a regular user of Poinsettia Park, the cell coverage for voice and data is just fine. A simple test of dog owners at the park, all of whom used a variety of carriers - ATT, Verizon, Tmobile, Sprint, a couple of pay as you go ..... We were all fine.

Thank you. Please keep the park as it is.

Kind Regards,
Vickey Syage
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Get Outlook for iOS
Priya Bhat-Patel
Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1 :32 PM
City Clerk
Fwd: AT&T application for cell tower in Poinsettia Park information request please From: Craig Ryan <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2024 7:01:50 AM
To: Priya Bhat-Patel <priya.bhat [email protected]> Subject: AT&T application for cell tower in Poinsettia Park information request please Priya,
Where can I get additiona l information regarding the AT&T applica ti on and app roval for a cell towe r in Poinsettia Park. I understand there was an appeal filed and a hearing will be held on April 16, 2024 at 5pm. I would like to understand the condit ions of the application and approval, also the basis for the appeal so that I can make an informed decision for suppo rt or opposition of the actions taken . Thank you Warm Regards,
Craig Ryan
Poinsettia Cove
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless ou recognize the sender and know the content i safe.
1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From: Priya Bhat-Patel
Sent:

To:

Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1 :33 PM
City Clerk
Subject: Fwd: cell tower in poinsettia park - a pro voice Get Outlook for iOS
From: James Hedgecock <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 9:45:26 AM
To: Priya Bhat-Patel <[email protected]>
Subject: cell tower in poinsettia park - a pro voice
Priya,
I know there is some staunch resistance to the cell towers in Poinsettia Park. If there is a nicer place to put them I would be for that. But more importantly for those of us that work from home, the cell reception in our Cove neighborhood and around Poinsettia Park is terrible! Many of us work from home and we NEED better cell reception. It is crazy that it is 2024 and I have trouble taking and making calls from my h-ouse in Carlsbad. So if push comes to shove, I am one citizen in favor of adding cell towers.

I just wanted to make sure you knew that there are more quiet voices you may not have heard from on the pro side of this issue.

Thank you!
James Hedgecock
1051 Lighthouse Rd, Carlsbad, Ca 92011
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content i 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From: Priya Bhat-Patel
Sent:

To:

Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1 :34 PM
City Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Please Drive By Calavera Hills Park
Get Outl ook fo r iOS
From: Frank Sung <frank [email protected]>
Sent: Thur sday, April 4, 2024 6:02:46 PM
To: Priya Bhat-Patel <Priya.Bhat [email protected]> Subject: Please Drive By Calavera Hills Park
Hi Priya - Greetings! Hope/pray all is well! I have a single request for you prior to the April 16th City Council Meeting. I would like you to drive up to Calavera Hills Park .. near the intersection of College and Carlsbad Village Drive .. and take a look around the baseball field near the Community Center. You don't even need to get out of your car from the parking lot. Please notice the 4 cellular transmission poles around the Community Center and baseball field . I submit to you that's not what we want for each of our city parks. City Council Policy 64 allows us to prevent this from happening again at a city park. It's just not being implemented correctly by the Planning Department. The Planning Commission voted 4-3 to approve the AT&T application for the first cellular transmission pole at Poinsettia Park. An appeal to that decision will be presented at the April 16th meeting by homeowners living around the park. Thank you! 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 i safe.
1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From: Melanie Burkholder
Sent:

To:

Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1 :44 PM
City Clerk
Subject: FW: Poinsettia Park Cell tower
• Cityof
Carlsbad
Dr. Melanie Burkholder
City Council Member, District 1
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
www.carlsbadca.gov
442-339-2830 (City Hall)
442-637-2853 (mobile/text)
From: Cathy Prvanov <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1:35 PM
To: Carolyn Luna <carolyn.luna@carlsbadca .gov>; Keith Blackburn <[email protected]>; Melanie Burkholder <melanie.burkholder@carlsbadca .gov>; Teresa Acosta <[email protected]>; Priya Bhat-Patel <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Poinsettia Park Cell tower
Please appeal the planning commissions decision to locate an AT£T tower at Poinsettia Park I am aware that other sites are available for the tower.

Why would we place a tower next door to a school and in a park where our children play and next to hundreds of homes? This is the largest park in our community and affects all of Carlsbad residents as this park is utilized for baseball, Friday night lights, soccer, concerts in the park, Easter and so many other community events that are too long to list. This technology has not proven safe. Relying on the industry to self police and who lobby hard with money to our elected officials does not give any assurances. We are literally gambling health of our youngest most vulnerable citizens with an experiment that has not proven safe.

Please advocate in today's meeting for the residents of Carlsbad that elected you that do NOT want this tower in their backyard. Silence is saying that you approve .

Thank you for your consideration
1 Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 16, 2024, at 10:34 AM, Cathy <[email protected] > wrote :

Dear City Council members,
I am opposed to the construction of the AT&T cell tower in Poinsettia Park near homes and where children play. I can not attend the meeting tonight as I will be out of town . My biggesttakeaway from the January meeting is that AT&T and the planning commission is using Poinsettia park as the easy solution for AT&T due to the convenient access it would have to build the tower. This is clearly favoritism of a large company wanting to minimize costs at the expense of a residential neighborhood and an aesthetic public space and potential harmful health effects. There are so many other locations that may be utilized that would minimize the risk, perceived or actual to the public.

There is a standing moratorium on 5G towers being near airports due to interference with aircraft landing systems. If the FAA and other international governing aviation bodies are restricting deployment of 5G towers near airports for public safety, that same restriction should be considered for homes and families that are a mere couple hundred feet from this proposed tower location.

There continue to be studies coming out showing the risks of EMF and 5G on our bodies. I'll link below my email some of this info here and pertinent excerpts. The Children's Health Defense organization led by Robert F Kennedy has already filed a lawsuit against the FCC pertaining to safety issues and the lack of studies done by the government . Doe the city of Carlsbad want to invite litigation over this? I think the city is opening themselves up to lawsuits if they continue to approve putting 5G cell towers next to neighborhoods and in parks where children play. The debate over 5G safety is far from over. I believe there are numerous open questions about the impact to our biolog ical health. Why would we ever place towers directly next to homes and in a park where children play and perform a giant experiment with health? The towers should be placed in more industrial areas.

Do we really want to trust our health to a multi-billion-dollar telecom giant whose only mot ivation is profits? This reminds me of the tobacco industry convinc ing the public that smoking was not dangerous.

I request that the Council vote against this proposal and have AT&T resubmit the ir application using one of the alternative locations .

Thank you for your time,
2 Catherine Prvanov
6575 Windflower Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92011
EXCERPTS:
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/5g -cell -towers-microwave­ syndrome/ Robert F Kennedy's website
"A new case report on two previously healthy men who developed "mi crowave syndrome " symptoms after a 5G cell tower was installed on the roof of their office , and a similar report published last month, show that non-ionizing 5G radiation can cause health problems in people with no prior history of electromagnetic sensitivity ." See article for more detail. Clearly there are not enough studies done on the impacts. Do we really want to trust a multibillion dollar telecom giant about safety? They only have profits as their motivation. https ://childrenshealthdefense .org/news/5g-and-wireless-technology-health-effects/ - Robert F Kennedy's website.
"Most recently, on November 1, 2018, the final report of the Federal Government National Toxicology Program (NTP), the government expert agency on toxins, was published. The $30 million 19-year study found CLEAR EVIDENCE that this radiation causes cancer and breaks DNA. This study confirmed what other studies already showed decades ago including reports and studies by the Navy, Air-Force, NASA, and the EPA which recognized and documented the profound bio-effects of wireless technology . The NTP study should have been a game changer and put a halt to further deployment of wireless technology. The NTP scientists said that the public should be informed. Instead, The FCC has been fast­ tracking the deployment of SG. SG is the infrastructure for the internet of things and is intended to wirelessly connect 20 billion more devices and for that purpose, deploy 800,000 more cell towers and launch 20,000 satellites which will exponentially increase our exposure to this harmful radiation.

The deployment ofthe 800,000 SG "small" cell antennas on poles near every few homes has begun and is progressing quickly. Most of these antennas are 4G and some will utilize millimeter wave frequencies.

Studies show profound bio-effects from millimeter waves as well. Federal laws and FCC regulations enabled this forced deployment by removing any barriers, preempting municipal authority, and giving the wireless industry almost unlimited access to our public rights of ways.

These antennas are being forced on residents within a few feet of their homes without their informed consent, and they are being prevented from effectively objecting from their installation on any grounds, including health. These antennas may be smaller but because of their proximity, they increase the levels 3 of radiation on our streets by thousands of times . Families who have had these "small" antennas installed near their homes are becoming sick, sometimes within days after they are installed . There is a reason why insurance companies refuse to insure the wireless industry for health effects .

If you don't want to wake up in the morning and have a SG cell tower a few feet from your children's bedroom window, it is time to become informed and help efforts to get US cities and states to "Just Say No" to the FCC & SG."
https ://childrenshealthdefe nse.org/news/Sg -airgig-what-is-it-and-should-you-be-worried/ • On December 4, 2019, the FCC announced that it is not going to review its outdated guidelines, proclaiming that there is no evidence of harm. As a result, Children's Health Defense and other Petitioners filed a lawsuit against the EGG on February 2, 2020. The other Petitioners include parents of children who have been injured, doctors and Professor David Carpenter-the Co-Editor of the Biolnitiative Report, which is the largest review of the science on this issue. The lawsuit claims the FCC's decision not to review its safety guidelines is capricious, arbitrary , non-evidence-based and an abuse of discretion . This historic case attacks the premise upon which the deployment and proliferation of wireless technology is t:iased. Likely, it is the only way we can sue the government for the harm it has been creating and enabling.
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/5g -harms -humans -animals -plants/ Following the passage of New Hampshire House Bill 522, the New Hampshire legislative Commission to Study the Environmental and Health Effects of Evolving 5G Technology was formed. The commission was engaged to "study the environmental and health effects of 5G wireless technology in 2019."
The commission was made up of 13 members whose education included epidemiology, occupational health, toxicology, physics, engineering electromagnetics and a representative from the wireless industry. As quoted from EMF Safety Network, the commission was asked to answer eight pointed questions , including :

1. Why thousands of peer-reviewed radiofrequency (RF) studies that show a wide range of health effects, including DNA damage, brain and heart tumors, infertility and many other ailments, have been ignored by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC).
4 2. Why the FCC guidelines do not account for health effects of wireless technology .

3. Why the FCC RF limits are 100 times higher than those in other countries.

4. Why the FCC is ignoring the World Health Organization classification of wireless as a possible carcinogen .

5. Why, when the world 's leading scientists signed an appeal to protect public health from wireless radiation , nothing has been done.

The commission heard from experts and ultimately all except the telecommunication representative acknowledged that RF radiation coming from wireless devices had an effect on humans, animals , insects and plants . The commission wrote :
"There is mounting evidence that DNA damage can occur from radiation outside of the ionizing part of the spectrum . The Commission heard arguments on both sides of this issue with many now saying there are findings showing biological effects in this range. This argument gets amplified as millimeter waves within the microwave range are beginning to be utilized."
https:/ /www. i nvestigate -eu rope. e u/posts/5g-covid­ consp i racy?ie s=ga&pk campaign=en-
5g&pk source=google&pk medium=cpc&gad source=1 &gclid=CjwKCAjww iwBhApEiwAu G6ccJo7vX hBDX cnQcUvZB14vaGT jF3Bk0AjfRo9sfm4qK SE63SghoC8SwQAvD BwE SG is an upgrade of the previous generations of 2, 3 and 4G. But it is also much more than that . The powerful technology is going to be the base for what the telecom industry calls a l"revolut ion."I It will allow the so-called internet of things, where everyth ing is on line and connected. SG is needed to sustain driverless cars, remote surgery, as well as smart cities and homes, including ultra -fast access to films and music
To achieve all this, the SG network will also use the millimeter waves part of the frequency spectrum .

These are low-power, short-range waves, unable to break through walls or other obstacles, such as trees . They can be directed individually , but they have to be relayed from a base stat ion via small antennas to avoid obstacles and reach their destinat ion. These stations will be small, the size of fire alarm boxes.

This will compel data companies to place tens of thousands of these small base stations on street furniture, lampposts, and on the exterior and interior of buildings. Currently , the 4G netwo rk uses fewer antennas, more powerful, further away from our daily lives, thanks to its longer t ransmission range. 5 It is from the coming high number of antennas that some of the new fear of harmful effects of mobile radiation arises.

CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless 6 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Dr. Melanie Burkholder
City Council Member, District 1
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
www.carlsbadca.gov
442-339-2830 (City Hall)
442-637-2853 (mobile/text)
-----Original Message-----
Melanie Burkholder
Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1 :44 PM
City Clerk
FW: Poinsettia Cell Towers
From: Sandra Abbott <[email protected]>
S.ent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 12:25 PM
To: Carolyn Luna <[email protected]>; Keith Blackburn <[email protected]>; Melanie Burkholder <[email protected]>; Priya Bhat-Patel <[email protected]> Subject: Poinsettia Cell Towers
Dear City Council members,
I am strongly opposed to the construction of the AT&T cell tower in poinsettia park which is in very close proximity to the homes adjacent to the park. I will not be able to attend the meeting today because I am out of town. My biggest takeaway from the January meeting is that AT&T and the planning commission is using Poinsettia park as the easy solution for AT&T due to the convenient access it would have to build the tower ~ This is clearly favoritism of a large company wanting to minimize costs at the expense of a residential neighborhood and an aesthetic public space. There are so many other locations that may be utilized that would minimize the risk, perceived or actual to the public .

There is a standing moratorium on SG towers being near airports due to interference with aircraft landing systems. If the FAA and other international governing aviation bodies are restricting deployment of SG towers near airports for public safety, that same restriction should be considered for homes and families that are a mere couple hundred feet from this proposed tower location.

I request that the Council vote against this proposal and have AT&T resubmit their application using one of the alternative locations.

Thank you for your time,
1 Sandra Abbott
6583 Windflower Dr
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 2 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From: Melanie Burkholder
Sent:

To:

Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1 :45 PM
City Clerk
Subject: FW: Poinsettia Park Cell tower - opposed
City of
Carlsbad
Dr. Melanie Burkholder
City Council Member, District 1
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
www.carlsbadca .gov
442-339-2830 (City Hall)
442-637-2853 (mobile/text)
From: Yrena Friedmann <yfriedmann@yahoo .com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 11:59 AM
To: Carolyn Luna <carolyn.luna@carlsbadca .gov>; Keith Blackburn <keith.blackburn@carlsbadca .gov>; Melanie Burkholder <[email protected]>; priya.bhat-patel@carslbadca .gov; Teresa Acosta <[email protected]>
Subject: Poinsettia Park Cell tower - opposed
Dear City Council members,
I am writing due to health and safety concerns for the proposed cell towers in Poinsettia Park. I am requesting the city council reject the proposal from AT&T and ask them to resubmit a proposal for another more remote area.

My grandchildren play in the park often as do neighbors due pickleball and fur the dog park eg this is a highly utilized park. There are other locations that can be utilized that would minimize the risk to the public.

There is a standing moratorium on SG towers being near airports due to interference with aircraft landing systems. If the FAA and other international governing aviation bodies are restricting deployment 1 of SG towers near airports for public safety, that same restriction should be considered for homes and fami lies that are a mere couple hundred feet from this proposed tower location .

There continue to be studies coming out showing the risks of EMF and SG on our bodies. I'll link below my email some of this info here and pert inent excerpts. The Children's Health Defense organization led by Robert F Kennedy has already filed a lawsuit against the FCC pertaining to safety issues and the lack of studies done by the government and I would hate for Carlsbad to be added to this list. The towers should be placed in more industrial areas.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration,
Yrena Friedmann Niewald
6571 Windflower Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92011
EXCERPTS:
https://childrenshea lthdefense.org/defender/Sg-ce ll-towers -microwave -syndrome/ Robert F Kennedy's websit.e
"A new case report on two previously healthy men who developed 11 microwave syndrome
11 symptoms
after a 5G cell tower was installed on the roof of their office1 and a similar report published last month 1 show that non-ionizing 5G radiation can cause health problems in people with no prior history of electromagnetic sensitivity .
11 See article for more detail . Clearly there are not enough studies done on the impacts. Do we really want to trust a multibil/ion dollar telecom giant about safety? They only have profits as their motivation.
https://childre nshealthdefense.org/news/Sg -and-wireless-technology-health-effects/ - Robert F Kennedy's website.
"Most recently, on November 1, 2018, the final report of the Federal Government National Toxicology Program (NTP), the government expert agency on toxins, was published . The $30 million 19-year study found CLEAR EVIDENCE t hat th is radiation causes cancer and breaks DNA. This study confirmed what 2 other studies already showed decades ago including reports and studies by the Navy, Air-Force, NASA, and the EPA which recognized and documented the profound bio-effects of wireless technology. The NTP study should have been a game changer and put a halt to further deployment of wireless technology. The NTP scientists said that the public should be informed. Instead, The FCC has been fast­ tracking the deployment of SG. SG is the infrastructure for the internet of things and is intended to wirelessly connect 20 billion more devices and for that purpose, deploy 800,000 more cell towers and launch 20,000 satellites which will exponentially increase our exposure to this harmful radiation.

The deployment of the 800,000 SG "small" cell antennas on poles near every few homes has begun and is progressing quickly . Most of these antennas are 4G and some will utilize millimeter wave frequencies.

Studies show profound bio-effects from millimeter waves as well. Federal laws and FCC regulations enabled this forced deployment by removing any barriers, preempting municipal authority, and giving the wireless industry almost unlimited access to our public rights of ways.

These antennas are being forced on residents within a few feet of their homes without their inform ed consent, and they are being prevented from effectively objecting from their installation on any grounds, including health. These antennas may be smaller but because of their proximity, they increase the levels of radiation on our streets by thousands of times. Families who have had these "small" antennas installed near their homes are becoming sick, sometimes within days after they are installed. There is a reason why insurance companies refuse to insure the wireless industry for health effects .

If you don't want to wake up in the morning and have a SG cell tower a few feet from your children's bedroom window, it is time to become informed and help efforts to get US cities and states to "Just Say No" to the FCC & SG."
https://ch ildrenshealthdefen se.org/news/Sg -airgig-what -is-it-and-should-you-be-worr ied/ On December 4, 2019, the FCC announced that it is not going to review its outdated guidelines, proclaiming that there is no evidence of harm. As a result, Children's Health Defense and other Petitioners filed a lawsuit against the FCC on February 2, 2020. The other Petitioners include parents of children who have been injur ed, doctors and Professor David Carpenter-the Co-Editor of the Bio Initiative Report, which is the largest review of the science on this issue. The lawsuit claims the FCC's decision not to review its safety guidelines is capricious, arbitrary, non-evidence-based and an abuse of discretion . This historic case attacks the premise upon which the deployment and proliferation 3 of wireless technology is based. Likely, it is the only way we can sue the government for the harm it has been creating and enabling.
https ://childrenshealthdefense .org/defender/Sg-harms-humans-animals-plants/ Following the passage of New Hampshire House Bill 522, the New Hampshire legislative Commission to Study the Environmental and Health Effects of Evolving SG Technology was formed. The commission was engaged to "study the environmental and health effects of SG wireless technology in 2019." The commission was made up of 13 members whose education included epidemiology, occupational health, toxicology, physics, engineering electromagnetics and a representative from the wireless industry . As quoted from EMF Safety Network, the commission was asked to answer eight pointed questions , including :
• Why thousands of peer-reviewed radiofrequency (RF) studies that show a wide range of health effects, including DNA damage, brain and heart tumors, infertility and many other ailments, have been ignored by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC). • Why the FCC guidelines do not account for health effects of wireless technology . • Why the FCC RF limits are 100 times higher than those in other countries . • Why the FCC is ignoring the World Health Organization classification of wireless as a possible carcinogen.
• Why, when the world's leading scientists signed an appeal to protect public health from wireless radiation , nothing has been done.

The commission heard from experts and ultimately all except the telecommunication representative acknowledged that RF radiation coming from wireless devices had an effect on humans, animals, insects and plants. The commission wrote :
"There is mounting evidence that DNA damage can occur from radiation outside of the ionizing part of the spectrum . The Commission heard arguments on both sides of this issue with many now saying there are findings showing biological effects in this range. This argument gets amplified as millimeter waves within the microwave range are beginning to be utilized." 4 https://www.investigate -europe.eu/posts/Sg-covid-conspiracy ?ie s=ga&pk campaign=en- Sg&pk source=google&pk medium=cpc&gad source=l&gclid=CjwKCAjww iwBhApEiwAuG6ccJo7vX hBDX cnQcUvZB14vaGT jF3Bk0AjfRo9sfm4qK SE63SghoC8SwQAvD BwE SG is an upgrade of the previous generations of 2, 3 and 4G. But it is also much more than that. The powerful technology is going to be the base for what the telecom industry calls a l"revolution." I It will allow the so-called internet ofthings, where everything is online and connected . SG is needed to sustain driverless cars, remote surgery, as well as smart cities and homes, including ultra-fast access to films and music
To achieve all this, the SG network will also use the millimeter waves part of the frequency spectrum .

These are low-power, short-range waves, unable to break through walls or other obstacles, such as trees. They can be directed individually, but they have to be relayed from a base station via small antennas to avoid obstacles and reach their destination. These stations will be small, the size of fire alarm boxes.

This will compel data companies to place tens of thousands of these small base stations on street furniture, lampposts, and on the exterior and interior of buildings. Currently, the 4G network uses fewer antennas, more powerful, further away from our daily lives, thanks to its longer transmission range.

It is from the coming high number of antennas that some of the new fear of harmful effects of mobile radiation arises.

CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless 5 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

City of
. lsbad
Dr. Melanie Burkholder
City Council Member, District 1
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
www .carlsbadca.gov
442-339-2830 (City Hall)
442-637-2853 (mobile/text)
Melanie Burkholder
Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1 :45 PM
City Clerk
FW: Poinsettia Park Cell tower
From: Cathy <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 10:35 AM
To: Carolyn Luna <carolyn [email protected]>; Keith Blackburn <[email protected]>; Melanie Burkholder <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Teresa Acosta <teresa.acosta@carlsbadca .gov>
Subject: Poinsettia Park Cell tower
Dear City Council members,
I am opposed to the construction of the AT&T cell tower in Poinsettia Park near homes and where children play. I can not attend the meeting tonight as I will be out of town. My biggest takeaway from the January meeting is that AT&T and the planning comm ission is using Poinsettia park as the easy solution for AT&T due to the convenient access it would have to build the tower . This is clearly favoritism of a large company wanting to minimize costs at the expense of a resident ial neighborhood and an aesthetic public space and potential harmful health effects . There are so many other locations that may be utilized that would minimize the risk, perceived or actual to the public .

There is a standing moratorium on 5G towers being near airports due to interference with aircraft landing systems. If the FAA and other international governing aviation bodies are restricting deployment of 5G towers near airports for public safety, that same restriction should be considered for homes and families that are a mere couple hundred feet from this proposed tower location.

There continue to be stud ies coming out showing the risks of EMF and 5G on our bodies . I'll link below my email some of this info here and pertinent excerpts . The Children's Health Defense organization led 1 by Robert F Kennedy has already filed a lawsuit against the FCC pertaining to safety issues and the lack of studies done by th_e government. Doe the city of Carlsbad want to invite litigation over this? I think the city is opening themselves up to lawsuits if they continue to approve putting 5G cell towers next to neighborhoods and in parks where children play. The debate over 5G safety is far from over. I believe there are numerous open questions about the impact to our biological health . Why would we ever place towers directly next to homes and in a park where children play and perform a giant experiment with health? The towers should be placed in more industrial areas.

Do we really want to trust our health to a multi -billion-dollar telecom giant whose only motivation is profits? This reminds me of the tobacco industry convincing the public that smoking was not dangerous .

I request that the Council vote against this proposal and have AT&T resubmit their application using one of the alternative locations.

Thank you for your time ,
Catherine Prvanov
6575 Windflower Drive
Carlsbad , CA 92011
EXCERPTS:
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/5g-cell-towers-microwave-syndrome/ Robert F Kennedy's website
"A new case report on two previously healthy men who developed "microwave syndrome " symptoms after a SG cell tower was installed on the roof of their office , and a similar report published last month, show that non-ionizing SG radiation can cause health problems in people with no prior history of electromagnetic sensitivity ." See article for more detail. Clearly there are not enough studies done on the impacts . Do we really want to trust a multibillion dollar telecom giant about safety? They only have profits as their motivation .
https://childrenshealthdefense .org/news/5g-and-wireless-technology-health -effects/ - Robert F Kennedy's website.
"Most recently, on November 1, 2018, the final report of the Federal Government National Toxicology Program (NTP), the government expert agency on toxins, was published . The $30 mill ion 19-year study found CLEAR EVIDENCE that this radiation causes cancer and breaks DNA. This study confirmed what other studies already showed decades ago including reports and studies by the Navy, Air-Force, NASA, and the EPA which recognized and documented the profound bio­ effects of wireless technology . The NTP study should have been a game changer and put a halt to further deployment of wireless technology. The NTP scientists said that the public should be informed. Instead, The FCC has been fast-tracking the deployment of SG. SG is the infrastructure for the internet of things and is intended to wirelessly connect 20 billion 2 more devices and for that purpose, deploy 800,000 more cell towers and launch 20,000 satellites which will exponentially increase our exposure to this harmful radiation .

The deployment of the 800,000 SG "small" cell antennas on poles near every few homes has begun and is progressing quickly. Most of these antennas are 4G and some will utilize millimeter wave frequencies. Studies show profound bio­ effects from millimeter waves as well. Federal laws and FCC regulations enabled this forced deployment by removing any barriers, preempting municipal authority, and giving the wireless industry almost unlimited access to our public rights of ways.
ffhese antennas are being forced on residents within a few feet of their homes without their informed consent, and they are being prevented from effectively objecting from their installation on any grounds, including health. These antennas may be smaller but because of their proximity, they increase the levels of radiation on our streets by thousands of times.

Families who have had these "small" antennas installed near their homes are becoming sick, sometimes within days after they are installed. There is a reason why insurance companies refuse to insure the wireless industry for health effects.

If you don't want to wake up in the morning and have a SG cell tower a few feet from your children's bedroom window, it is time to become informed and help efforts to get US cities and states to "Just Say No" to the FCC & SG." https ://chi Id re nshea lthdefense .o rg/ news/Sg-a i rgig-what -is-it-a nd-sho u Id-you-be-worried/ On December 4, 2019, the FCC announced that it is not going to review its outdated guidelines, proclaiming that there is no evidence of harm. As a result, Children's Health Defense and other Petitioners filed a laws uit aga_inst the FCC on February 2, 2020. The other Petitioners include parents of children who have been injured, doctors and Professor David Carpenter-the Co-Editor of the Biolnitiative Report, which is the largest review of the science on this issue . The lawsuit claims the FCC's decision not to review its safety guidelines is .c..apricious, arbitrary , non-evidence-based and an abuse of discretion . This historic case attacks the premise upon which the deployment and proliferation of wireless technology is based . Likely, it is the only way we can sue the government for the harm it has been creating and enabling.
https://ch ildrenshealthdefense.org/defender/5g-harms-humans-animals -plants/ Following the passage of New Hampshire House Bill 522, the New Hampshire legislative Commission to Study the Environmental and Health Effects of Evolving 5G Technology was formed . The commission was engaged to "study the environmental and health effects of 5G wireless technology in 2019." 3 The commission was made up of 13 members whose education included epidemiology , occupational health, toxicology, physics , engineering electromagnetics and a representative from the wireless industry . As quoted from EMF Safety Network, the commission was asked to answer eight pointed questions , including :
• Why thousands of peer-reviewed radiofrequency (RF) studies that show a wide range of health effects, including DNA damage, brain and heart tumors , infertility and many other ailments, have been ignored by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC). • Why the FCC guidelines do not account for health effects of wireless technology . • Why the FCC RF limits are 100 times higher than those in other countries. • Why the FCC is ignoring the World Health Organization classification of wireless as a possible carcinogen .
• Why, when the world 's leading scientists signed an appeal to protect public health from wireless radiation , nothing has been done.

The commission heard from experts and ultimately all except the telecommunication representative acknowledged that RF radiation comi-ng from wireless devices had an effec t on humans, animals , insects and plants . The commission wrote:
"There is mounting evidence that DNA damage can occur from radiation outside of the ionizing part of the spectrum . The Commission heard arguments on both sides of this issue with many now saying there are findings showing biological effects in this range. This argument gets amplified as millimeter waves within the microwave range are beginning to be utilized. " https://www.investigate-europe.eu/posts/5g-covid-conspiracy?ie s=ga&pk campaign=en - Sg&pk source=google&pk medium=cpc&gad source=1 &gclid=CjwKCAjww iwBhApEiwAuG6ccJo7vX hBDX cnQcUvZB14vaGT jF3Bk0AjfRo9sfm4qK SE63SghoC8SwQAvD BwE SG is an upgrade of the previous generations of 2, 3 and 4G. But it is also much more than that. The powerful technology is going to be the base for what the telecom industry calls a h evolution ."I It will allow the so-called internet of things, where everything is online and connected. SG is needed to sustain driverless cars, remote surgery, as well as smart cities and homes, including ultra-fast access to films and music To achieve all this, the SG network will also use the millimeter waves part of t he frequency spectrum . These are low­ power, short- range waves, unable to brea k t hrough walls or othe r obstacles, such as trees. They can be directed 4 indiv idually, but they have to be relayed from a base station via small antennas to avoid obstacles and reach their destination. These stations will be small, the size of fire alarm boxes.

This will compel data companies to place tens of thousands of these small base stations on street furniture, lampposts, and on the exterior and interior of buildings. Currently, the 4G network uses fewer antennas, more powerful, further away from our daily lives, thanks to its longer transmission range.

It is from the coming high number of antennas that some of the new fear of harmful effects of mobile radiation arises. 5 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:
{ City of
Carlsbad
Dr. Melanie Burkholder
City Council Member, District 1
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
www.carlsbadca.gov
442-339-2830 (City Hall)
442-637-2853 (mobile/text)
Melanie Burkholder
Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1 :45 PM
City Clerk
FW: Please Do NOT Approve a Cell Phone Tower in Poinsettia Park From: Lynda Schubert <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 11:00 PM
To: Melanie Burkholder <[email protected]> Subject: Please Do NOT Approve a Cell Phone Tower in Poinsettia Park Good Morning,
My name is Lynda Schubert, 1031 Seahorse. I live The Cove Community, next to Poinsettia Park.

I respectfully request you vote NO on approving an AT&T cell phone tower in Poinsettia Park, near family hom es. Cell phone towers do not belong in our public parks, true gems of Carlsbad. They belong in commercial and industrial areas.

As we have watched neighborhoods become more dense with ADUs, open natural space has become even more precious. The proposed monstrous ATT Cell phone tower would disrupt the ambiance and overall beauty of the park and devaluates our largest investment, our home.

Please do not give a large corporations shareholder's profit priority over the families of Carlsbad.

Please consider a diff erent location, away from family homes and out of our neighbor hood parks.

Thank you for your consideration.

R/S,
Lynda Schubert
1031 Seahorse Ct.
760.579.8160
1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From: Melanie Burkholder
Sent:

To:

Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1 :45 PM
City Clerk
Subject: FW: Please vote NO on SG Towers
( City of
Carlsbad
Dr. Melanie Burkholder
City Council Member, District 1
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
www.carlsbadca .gov
442-339-2830 (City Hall)
442-637-2853 (mobile/text)
From: Lindy R <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 2:09 PM
To: Melanie Burkholder <melanie .burkholder@carlsbadca .gov> Subject: Please vote NO on 5G Towers
Dear Ms. Burkholder,
I am opposed to SG towers at Poinsettia Park. I have resided in Carlsbad for nearly 25 years and appreciate our wonderful quality of life here. I have linked Dr. Mercola's information, below, on the serious health risks including:

Neurological and psychiatric problems,
Brain development impacts,
Altering the microbiome, and
Reductions in male fertility
Dr. Mercola's Article titled 'Ten New Studies Detail Health Risks of SG', dated April 14, 2024, link:
https: //tinyurl .com/26hjd9nw
Thank you for considering my input. I live adjacent to Poinsettia Park in the Seabright HOA.

Sincerely,
Linda Rayner
6443 Merlin Drive
1 Carlsbad, CA 92011
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless ou recognize the sender and know the content i safe.
-..
2 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Attachment s:
r-City of
Carls.bad
Dr. M elanie Burkholder
City Council Member, District 1
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
www.carlsbadca.gov
442-339-2830 (City Hall)
442-637-2853 (mobile/t~xt)
Melanie Burkholder
Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1 :45 PM
City Clerk
FW: Poinsettia Park Cell Phone Tower: Please vote no
Em and Caljpg; Hawaii Famjpg; Caljpg; 1996v2024.pptx
From: Deb van Rosenberg <[email protected]>
Sent: Mo"nday, April 15, 2024 3:30 PM
To: Keith Blackburn <[email protected]>; Melanie Burkholder <[email protected]>; Carolyn Luna <[email protected]>; Teresa Acosta <[email protected]>; Priya Bhat-Patel <priya.bhat-patel@carlsbadca .gov>
Subject: Poinsettia Park Cell Phone Tower: Please vote no Good Afternoon Carlsbad City Council Members-
My name is Deborah van Rosenberg and I live at 1059 Beacon Bay Dr Carlsbad, CA 92011. This is the street that is directly parallel to the proposed site of the AT&T 5G cell phone tower inside of Poinsettia Park. My husband Jeff and I have an 11 yr old daughter, Emmaline, and a 9 yr old son, Cal. We have lived in the Cove for almost 10 years. Our children walk to school daily, Pacific Rim Elementary, and play in Poinsettia Park. They both play Flag Football and my daughter plays soccer for City SC at Poinsettia Park. We also have two dogs that we walk and play with at Poinsettia Park. We are just one example of a family that lives and plays in t he area.

The point of this is the constant exposure to radiat ion for all of us if a cell tower is erected . SG technology is about 5 years old. There have simply not been enough studies on the potential health risks from constant exposure to this radiation. My son was born with a lung malformation and had surgery at 10 months old and again at 24 months (pie attached). It was the most stressful awful time in our lives and not only do I never want to relive it, I would never want another child or family to endure it or anyone in YOUR family. Radiation exposure may cause cancer. Voting yes to this tower, puts all of your fellow citizens in the surrounding neighborhoods at risk. By taking your oath of office , it has become your responsibility to protect us and our babies. We voted you into Council trusting you would.

Also, AT&T is relying heavily on the Telecommunication Act of 1996. Please see the attached PPT slide of a cell phone and tower fro m 1996 vs 2024. This Act is outdated and quite frankly, has expired. The Act should not be taken into 1 consideration since it is not the same technology as 1996. They are completely different products, both phones and towers and the phone from 1996 would not have the ability to even work with a SG tower . The Act should be dismissed. ·1 also firmly believe that, simply: cell towers should be prohibited from parks and neighborhoods.

I apologize and am upset that I am unable to attend the meeting tomorrow evening due to a work obligation. However, I beg you, please find a way to vote no on the cell tower erection in Poinsettia Park for all of us, especially for Emmy and Cal and all of our children .

Thank you for your time and consideration,
Deb von Rosenberg
603-489-9410
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you reco nize the sender and know the content i 2 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Teresa Acosta
Tuesday, April 16, 2024 2:08 PM
City Clerk
FW: Poinsettia Park Cell tower
From: Cathy <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 10:35 AM
To: Carolyn Luna <carolyn [email protected]>; Keith Blackburn <[email protected]> ; Melanie Burkholder <[email protected]>; priya.bhat-patel@carslbadca .gov; Teresa Acosta <teresa [email protected]>
Subject: Poinsettia Park Cell tower
Dear City Council members,
I am opposed to the construction of the AT&T cell tower in Poinsettia Park near homes and where children play. I can not attend the meeting tonight as I will be out of town. My biggest takeaway from the January meeting is that AT&T and the planning commission is using Poinsettia park as the easy solution for AT&T due to the convenient access it would have to build the tower. This is clearly favoritism of a large company wanting to minimize costs at the expense of a residential neighborhood and an aesthetic public space and potential harmful health effects. There are so many other locations that may be utilized that would minimize the risk, perceived or actual to the public .

There is a standing moratorium on 5G towers being near airports due to interference with aircraft landing systems . If the FAA and other international governing aviation bodies are restricting deployment of 5G towers near airports for publfc safety, that same restriction should be considered for homes and families that are a mere couple hundred feet from this proposed tower location .

There continue to be studies coming out showing the risks of EMF and 5G on our bodies. I'll link below my email some of this info here and pertinent excerpts. The Children's Health Defense organization led by Robert F Kennedy has already filed a lawsuit against the FCC pertaining to safety issues and the lack of studies done by the government . Doe the city of Carlsbad want to invite litigation over this? I think the city is opening themselves up to lawsuits if they continue to approve putting 5G cell towers next to neighborhoods and in parks where children play. The debate over 5G safety is far from over. I believe there are numerous open questions about the impact to our biological health . Why would we ever place towers directly next to homes and in a park where children play and perform a giant experiment with health? The towers should be placed in more industrial areas.

Do we really want to trust our health to a multi-billion-dollar telecom giant whose only motivation is profits? This reminds me of the tobacco industry convincing the public that smoking was not dangerous.
1 I request that the Council vote against this proposal and have AT&T resubmit their applicat ion using one of the alternative locations.

Thank you for your time ,
Catherine Prvanov
6575 Windflower Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92011
EXCERPTS:
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/5g-cell-towers-microwave-syndrome/ Robert F Kennedy's website
"A new case report on two previously healthy men who developed "microwave syndrome" symptoms after a 5G cell tower was installed on the roof of their office, and a similar report published last month , show that non-ionizing SG radiation can cause health problems in people with no prior history of electromagnetic sensitivity." See article for more detail . Clearly there are not enough studies done on the impacts . Do we really want to trust a multibillion dollar telecom giant about safety? They only have Qrofits as their motivation.
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/5g-and-wireless-technology-health-effects/ - Robert F Kennedy's website.
"Most recently, on November 1, 2018, the final report ofthe Federal Government National Toxicology Program (NTP), the government expert agency on toxins, was published. The $30 million 19-year study found CLEAR EVIDENCE that this radiation causes cancer and breaks DNA. This study confirmed what other studies already showed decades ago including reports and studies by the Navy, Air-Force, NASA, and the EPA which recognized and documented the profound bio­ effects of wireless technology. The NTP study should have been a game changer and put a halt to further deployment of wireless technology . The NTP scientists said that the public should be informed . Instead, The FCC has been fast-tracking the deployment of SG. SG is the infrastructure for the internet of things and is intended to wirelessly connect 20 billion more devices and for that purpose, deploy 800,000 more cell towers and launch 20,000 satellites which will exponentially increase our exposure to this harmful radiation.

The deployment of the 800,000 SG "small" cell antennas on poles near every few homes has begun and is progressing quickly. Most of these antennas are 4G and some will utilize millimeter wave frequencies. Studies show profound bio­ effects from millimeter waves as well. Federal laws and FCC regulations enabled this forced deployment by remov ing any barriers, preempt ing municipal autho rity, and giving the wireless industry almost unlimited access to our public rights of ways.
2 These antennas are being forced on residents within a few feet of their homes without their informed consent, and they are being prevented from effectively objecting from their installation on any grounds, including health. These antennas may be smaller but because of their proximity, they increase the levels of radiati on on our streets by thousands of times.

Families who have had these "small" antennas installed near their homes are becoming sick, sometimes within days after they are installed. There is a reason why insurance companies refuse to insure the wireless industry for health effects.

If you don't want to wake up in the morning and have a SG cell tower a few feet from your children's bedroom window, it is time to become informed and help efforts to get US cities and states to "Just Say No" to the FCC & SG." https:// child re nshea lthdefe nse .org/ news/Sg-a i rgig-what -is-it-a nd-sho u Id-you-be-worried/ On December 4, 2019, the FCC announced that it is not going to review its outdated guidelines, proclaiming that there is no evidence of harm. As a result, Children's Health Defense and other Petitioners filed a lawsuit against the FCC on February 2, 2020. The other Petitioners include parents of children who have been injured, doctors and Professor David Carpenter-the Co-Editor of the Biolnitiative Report, which is the largest review of the science on this issue. The lawsuit claims the FCC's decision not to review its safety guidelines is capricious. arbitrary . non-evidence-based and an abuse of discretion . This historic case attacks the premise upon which the deployment and proliferation of wireless technology is based. Likely, it is the only way we can sue the government for the harm it has been creating and enabling.
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/5g -harms-humans-animals -plants/ Following the passage of New Hampshire House Bill 522. the New Hampshire .Legislative Comm ission to Study the Environmental and Health Effects of Evolving 5G Technology was formed. The commission was engaged to "study the environmental and health effects of 5G wireless technology in 2019." The commission was made up of 13 members whose educat ion included epidemiology, occupational health, toxicology , physics, engineering electromagnet ics and a representative from the wireless industry. As quoted from EMF Safety Network, the commission was asked to answer eight pointed questions, includin g:
• Why thousands of peer-reviewed radiofrequency (RF) studies that show a wide range of health effects , including DNA damage, brain and heart tumors, infertility and many other ailments, have been ignored by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC). • Why the FCC guidelines do not account for health effects of wireless technology. 3 • Why the FCC RF limits are 100 time s higher than th ose in othe r countr ies. • Why the FCC is ignori ng the World Health Organization classif ication of wireless as a possible carcinogen .
• Why, when the world's leadin g scientis ts signed an appeal to protec t public health from wireless radiation , nothing has been done.
he commission heard from experts and ultimately all except the telecomm unication representative acknowledged that RF radiati on coming from wireless devices had an effect on huma ns, animals , insects and plants . The commission wrote :
"There is mounting evidence that DNA damage can occu r from radiation outs ide of the ionizing part of the spectrum. The Commission heard arguments on both sides of this issue with many now saying there are findings showing biological effects in this range. This argument gets amplified as millimete r waves within the microwave range are beginning to be utilized." https://www.investigate-europe.eu/posts/5g-covid-conspiracy?ie s=ga&pk campaign =en- 5g&pk source=google&pk medium=cpc&gad source=1 &gclid=CjwKCAjww iwBhApEiwAuG6ccJo7vX hBDX cnQcUvZB14vaGT jF3Bk0AjfRo9sfm4gK SE63SghoC8SwQAvD BwE SG is an upgrade of the previous generations of 2, 3 and 4G. But it is also much more than that. The powerful technology is going to be the base for what the te lecom industry calls a l"revolution." I It wil l allow the so-called internet of things, where everything is online and connect ed. SG is needed to sustain driverless cars, remote surgery, as well as smart cities and homes, including ultra-fast access to films and music To achieve all this, the SG network will also use the millimeter waves part of the frequency spectrum . These are low­ power, short-range waves, unable to break through walls or other obstacles, such as trees . They can be directed individually, but they have to be relayed from a base stat ion via small antennas to avoid obstacles and reach the ir destination . These stations will be small, the size of fire alarm boxes.

This will compe l data companies to place tens of thousands of these small base stations on street furniture, lampposts, and on the exterior and interio r of buildings . Currently, the 4G network uses fewer antennas, more power ful, further away from our daily lives, thanks to its longer transmission range.

It is from the coming high number of antennas that some of t he new fear of harmful effects of mobile radiatio n arises. 4 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From: Teresa Acosta
Sent:

To:

Tuesday, April 16, 2024 2:14 PM
City Clerk
Subject: FW: Please Vote NO on a cell tower in Poinsettia Park From: Lynda Schubert <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 11:03 PM
To: Teresa Acosta <teresa .acosta@car lsbadca.gov>
Subject: Please Vote NO on a cell tower in Poinsettia Park Good Morning,
My name is Lynda Schubert, 1031 Seahcirse. I live The Cove Community , next to Poinsettia Park.

I respectfully request yo_u vote NO on approving an AT&T cell phone tower ir, Poinsettia Park, near family homes . Cell phone towers do not belong in our public parks; tr"ue gems of Carls.bad. They belong in commercial and industrial areas. As we have watched neighborhoods becor:ne more dense with ADLJs, open natural space has become even mOre precious . Jhe proposed monstrous A TT Cell phone tower would disrupt the ambiance and overall beauty of the park a~d devaluates our largest.investment, our. home.

Please do not give a large corporations shareholder 's profit priority over the families of Carlsbad.

Please cons ider a differen t location, away from family homes and 9ut of our _~eighborhood parks.

Thank you for your considerat ion.

R/S,
Lynda Schubert
1031 Seahorse Ct.
760.579.8160
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content i 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From: Melanie Burkholder
Sent:

To:

Tuesday, April 16, 2024 2:18 PM
City Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Poinsettia Park/ SG / Cell Towers - PLEASE STOP! ( City of
Carlsbad
Dr. Melanie Burkholder
City Council Member, District 1
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
www.carlsbadca.gov
442-339-2830 (City Hall)
442-637-2853 (mobile/text)
From: Kam Stehly <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 2:16:36 PM
To: Carolyn Luna <[email protected]>; Keith Blackburn <[email protected]>; Melanie Burkholder <melanie.burkholder@carlsbadca .gov>; Priya Bhat-Patel <[email protected]>; Teresa Acosta <teresa [email protected]>
Subject: Poinsettia Park/ SG / Cell Towers - PLEASE STOP! Dear City Council members,
I am opposed to the construction of the AT&T cell tower in poinsettia park in close proximity to the homes adjacent to the park. I will not be able to attend the meeting. My biggest takeaway from the January meeting is that AT&T and the planning commission is using Poinsettia park as the easy solution for AT&T due to the convenient access it would have to build the tower. This is clearly favoritism of a large company wanting to minimize costs at the expense of a residential neighborhood and an aesthetic public space. There are so many other locations that may be utilized that would minimize the risk, perceived or actual to the public.

There is a standing moratorium on SG towers being near airports due to interference with aircraft landing systems. If the FAA and other international governing aviation bodies are restricting deployment of SG towers near airports for public safety, that same restriction should be considered for homes and families that are a mere couple hundred feet from this proposed tower location.

I request that the Council vote against this proposal and have AT&T resubmit their application using one of the alternative locations.
1 Unfortunately, there are a lot of residents, including myself, that are just becoming aware of this situation . I am sure your emails will be flooded with concerned residents as more people start figuring out what is proposed! Thank you for your time ,
Kam Stehly
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless ou recognize the sender and know the content i safe.
2 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

C_cityof
Carlsbad:

Dr. Melanie Burkholder
City Counci~_~en,ber, District 1
City of Carlsbad' •
1200 Carisbad Village D-rive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
www .ca rlsbadca .gov
442-339-2830 (City Hall}
442-637-2853 (mobile/text)
Melanie Burkholder
Tuesday, April 16, 2024 2:19 PM
City Clerk
Fwd: Appeal Poinsettia Cell Tower
. .

From: Chris Barnes <[email protected]> .•
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 2:18:28 PM .

To: Ca_rnlyn Luna <[email protected]>; Keith Blackburn <keith .blackbum@carlsbadca .gov>; Melanie Burkholder <melante [email protected]>; Teresa Acosta <[email protected]>; Priya Bhat-Patel <[email protected]>
Subject: Appeal Poinsehia Cell Tower
Dear Council Members,
I am writing to you today because I am unable to attend the council meeting this evening in person.

Please do not allow AT&T to build a 5G cell tower at Poinsettia Park.

The park is a central location in south Carlsbad where thousands of families and children come together for sports and other activities. It is also adjacent to many residential homes -- all of which could be put at risk from 5G radiation, which an increasing number of studies have shown negative and harmful health effects. If AT&T is permitted to install its tower, it would inevitably invite the other carriers to follow suit, which would only amplify the potential health risks.

Please consider the health and safety of South Carlsbad citizens and recommend alternate locations for the cell towers.

Thank you,
Chris Barnes
6404 Calmeria Pl
858-864-8766
1 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless ou recognize the sender and know the content i safe.
2 Tammy Cloud-McM inn
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Teresa Acosta
Tuesday, April 16, 2024 2:20 PM
City Clerk
FW: Appeal Poinsettia Cell Tower
From: Chris Barnes <[email protected]>
Sent : Tuesday, April 16, 2024 2:18 PM
To: Carolyn Luna <carolyn [email protected]> ; Keith Blackburn <keith.blackburn@carlsbadca .gov>; Melanie Burkholder <melanie .burkholder@ca rlsbadca.gov>; Teresa Acosta <teresa .acosta@carlsbadca .gov>; Priya Bhat-Patel <Priya.Bhat-Patel@car lsbadca.gov>
Subject: Appeal Poinsett ia Cell Towe r
Dear Council Members,
I am writing to you today because I am unable to attend the council meeting this evening in person.

Please do not allow AT&T to build a 5G cell tower at Poinsettia Park.

The park is a central location in south Carlsbad where thousands of families and children come together for sports and other act ivities. It is also adjacent to many residential homes -- all of which could be put at risk from 5G radiation , which an increasing numbe r of studies have shown negative and harmful health effects . If AT&T is permitted to install its tower, it wou ld inevitably invite the other carriers to follow suit, which would only amplify the potent ial health risks.

Please consider the health and safety of South Carlsbad cit izens and recommend alterna te locations for the cell towe rs.

Thank you,
Chris Barnes
6404 Calmer ia Pl
858-864-8766
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content i 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Teresa Acosta
Tuesday, April 16, 2024 2:20 PM
City Clerk
FW: Poinsettia Park/ SG / Cell Towers - PLEASE STOP!
From: Kam Stehly <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 2:17 PM
To: Carolyn Luna <carolyn [email protected]>; Keith Blackburn <[email protected]>; Melanie Burkholder <melanie [email protected]>; Priya Bhat-Patel <priya.bhat-patel@carlsbadca .gov>; Teresa Acosta <teresa.acosta@carlsbadca. -gov>
Subject: Poinsettia Park/ SG / Cell Towers - PLEASE STOP! Dear City Council members,
I am opposed to the construction of the AT&T cell tower in poinsettia park in close proximity to the ~omes adjacent to the park. I will not be able to attend the meeting . My biggest takeaway from the January meeting is that AT&T and the planning commission is using Poinsettia park as the easy solution for AT&T due to the convenient access it would have to build the tower. This is clearly favoritism of a large company wanting to minimize costs at the expense of a residential neighborhood and an aesthetic public space. There are so many other locations that may be utilized that would minimize the risk, perceived or actual to the public.

There is a standing moratorium on 5G towers being near airports due to interference with aircraft landing systems. If the FAA and other international governing aviation bodies are restricting deployment of 5G towers near airports for public safety, that same restriction should be considered for homes and families that are a mere couple hundred feet from
this proposed tower location.

I request that the Council vote against this proposal and have AT&T resubmit their application using one of the alternative locations.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of residents, including myself, that are just becoming aware of this situation. I am sure your emails will be flooded with concerned residents as more people start figuring out what is proposed!
Thank you for your time,
Kam Stehly
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content i safe.
1 Subject: RE: AT&T Cell Tower Propoaal Question
From: Scott McClelland <[email protected]>
Dat8: 112312024, 7:56 NA
To: Kevin Fritz Panorama Photo <[email protected]> CC: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Mr Fritz,

DISTRIBUTED DURING PUBLIC
COMMENT AT TIOUN~ L
MEETING OF L\ 1 c,, I '7_;
As a follow up to our mnversatfon I am providing you with the lnfonnatton that was presented to the Endna Board of Directors In February of 2021 concerning the potential for a cell tower lease on Enclna property. This effort went on for nearly a year while Enclna negotiated In good faith with MD7. Eventually, MD7 walked away from the conversation abruptly, I believe over the land leasing fees. The Enclna Board Members all supported staff's recommendation to negotiate with MD7. The Carlsbad members were Keith Blackburn and Cori Shumacher.

Please let me know If you have any further questtons.

Scott McClelland
General Manager
Enclna Wastewater Authority
14 February 24, 2021

ENCINA WASTEWATER AUTHORITY

BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Item
Date
To
From
Issue
Honorable Chair and Board of Directors
Michael Steinlicht, General Manager 1V\icAR ~

SOUTH PARCEL CONDITIONAL USE LEASING CONSIDERATION
STAFF RECOMMENDS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS:

1. Author ize the General Manager to continue negotiations for South Parcel conditional use related to cellular communication facilities .

2. Discuss and take other action as appropriate.

BACKGROUND
On October 26, 2016, the Board of Directors authorized the General Manager to appropriately respond to South Parcel lease and purchase proposals based on the established land use framework. Staff contin ues to receive new proposals for potential leasing opportunities on the South Parcel including one from AT&T for siting a communication facility in the northeasterly corner of the property. This was not one of the potential uses discussed in the October 15, 2019 Policy Development Workshop and therefore requires Board review and approval prior to proceeding further.

FIVE-YEAR STRATEGIC BUSINESS PLAN REFERENCE
Strategic Initiative No. 6-6 of the 2021 Tactical Plan directs EWA to consider proposed leasing and revenue generation options on the South Parcel that follow the EWA Board of Directors Framework Policy for South Parcel Leasing.

DISCUSSION
On October 26, 2016, the Board of Directors authorized the General Manager to appropriately respond to South Parcel lease and purchase proposals based on the following established land use framework :

South Parcel Land Use Framework:

1. Lease-based consideration.

2. Passive utilization that does not require permanent structures or other large-scale improvements. Passive uses could include parking or potential storage solutions.

3. Income justification that benefits EWA.

4. Efficient reversion back to EWA for mission related utilization .

On August 7, 2018, the Board of Directors adopted Resolution No. 2018-10 establishing a policy for review and approval of leases, easements, and licenses.
14-1 Ref: Admin.21-14433
February 24, 2021
Encina Wastewater Authority (EWA) Board of Directors (BOD) South Parcel Conditional Use Leasing Consideration
AT&T contacted EWA in 2020 to determine if a communication facility including a cellular communication tower could be sited on the northeast side of the equalization basins. The following initial terms have been proposed by AT&T:

Use - cellular communication facility .

Size - 600 square feet with up to 25 vertical feet clear above the footprint .

Duration -five years with four renewal options each for a five-year duration (25 years in total).

Rent -$2,500 with 12% escalation every 5 years.

Tenant is responsible for obtaining planning and building and any other permits required from the City or other regulatory agencies.

The proposed location is not in conflict with current or predicted uses at this time. Based on previous experience, once one carrier has been granted a lease, others often follow with subsequent proposals.

Similarly, if AT&T decides to abandon th is proposal, another carrier could follow shortly after with a similar proposal. Therefore, it is important that this be a general consideration for one or multiple carriers (AT&T and/or others) to lease a portion of the South Parcel for the purposes of siting a communication facility.

This authorization allows for Staff and General Counsel to negotiate terms based on comparable leases in the area and incorporate them into a final ground lease. Once the ground lease document has been developed, this item will return to the PFC and the full Board for review and authorization. If authorization is provided at that future date, the tenant can initiate permitting with the City of Carlsbad who will provide the final modifications and potential acceptance.

GENERAL COUNSEL REVIEW
General Counsel was engaged to develop an initial lease agreement for a communication facility on the South Parcel.

POLICY AND FINANCE COMMITTEE REVIEW
The Policy and Finance Committee was briefed on this proposal in their February meeting. Three significant requests were made to proceed with this recommendation:

1. This lease should be for conditional use not a prescriptive permitted use. a. Staff/General Counsel

2. Antenna must be camouflaged
a. Final requirements and specifics shall be provided by the City of Carlsbad during the permitting process.

3. Compensation must be at fair market value
a. Staff will investigate comparable leases to determine the fair market value.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact with this action.
14-2 Ref: Admin .21-14433
February 24, 2021
Encina Wastewater Authority (EWA) Board of Directors
South Parcel Conditional Use Leasing Consideration
THEREFORE, STAFF RECOMMENDS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS:
l. Authorize the General Manager to continue negotiat ions for South Parcel conditional use related to cellular communication facilities .

2. Discuss and take other action as appropriate.

Attachment 1: Presentation
Prepared by: Tucker Southern, Director of Technical Services Reviewed by: Scott McClelland, Assistant General Manager Approved by: Michael Steinlicht, General Manager
14-3 Ref: Admin .21-14433

2022
President's Award
David Marchand
Seivice Director
Toyota Carlsbad
6020 Avenida Encinas
Carlsbad, CA 92011
(760} 438-2000
Direct: (760) 918-3719
[email protected]
President's Award 34 Year Recipient
2022 Board of Governors Recipient

DISTRIBUTED DURING PUBLIC

COMMENT AT COUNCIL
MEETING OF "1- /11o I 1..4

STRIBUTED DURING PUBLI
COMMENT AT COUNC~
MEETING OF :VI yJ : .........

To:

City of Carlsbad
Planning Development Services
Department
1635 Faraday Ave.,
Carlsbad, CA 92008
MD7
May 1, 2023
From:
\~~l3

DISTRIBUTED DURING PUBLIC
COMMEN T AT COUl;,IC~ L
MEETING OF \..\JI b ( L ---'--'-~-+ - - -
Harold Thomas Jr, MD7,LLC
obo . AT&T Wireless
10590 W. Ocean Air Drive, Suite 250
San Diego, CA 92130
(858) 750-1798
[email protected]
Alternative Site Analysis Report
Development Approval for a New Wireless Telecommunication Facility Project Description:

AT & T is seeking Development Approval to allow for the construction of a new Telecommunications 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 instating entitlements for this facility following the guidelines outlined by the city. This proposed facility will also meet all guidelines and regulations that the FCC has outlined for telecommunications facilities. AT&T has also looked for viable alternatives in both design and location 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 installation 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 installation of a Telco / Fiber Service, and a 200A Electrical Power Service.

Candidate #1- lndustria(
When evaluating potential 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, locations in industria l zones had dependable coverage. As a result, we were unable to proceed further with the establishment of a cell site .
10590W ESTOCEANAIR DRIVE / SUITE 300 / SAN DIEGO,CA9 2130 MDI
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 cities preferred zones for wireless telecommunication facilities. 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 location ofthe project was no longer feasible. There was no feasible location as to where we could have placed our facility due to there being no room on the site. A rooftop facility was also proposed as an option for the site, however the property owner ultimately declined. In addition, when comparing differences in elevation, this site would have been lower than the proposed site by 73 feet . This would compromise and strain the coverage even further. After 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 still within the top sites that the city would prefer for a cell site to be located. During our outreach we proposed our initial idea to the property owner. However, despite negotiations they property owner was not interested in having a cell site on their property . In addition to the coverage report maps, produced by our RF engineer, establishing a site at this location would not have been the best use of resources. As this location had a fair amount of existing coverage. Thereby adding a site here would have, done little to improve an already fair amount of coverage. In turn, having a cell site established for the sake of having a site. ,,,. J}C/ ;Jf! ~ _/ Candidate #4- Public right-of-way of roads adjacent to industrial and commercial zon':Ji,,.;t()f Pr' )CA - 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 utility) zone, AT&T would be within one of the cities preferred zones for wireless telecommunications facilities. Similar to the previous site this location, this site would have been located near the San Diego Freeway. Unlike the previous candidate, this location 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 potential candidate for the cell tower. Like the location 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 meeting any objective in assisting the community significantly.
10590 WEST OCEAN AIR DRIVE/ SUITE 300 / SAN DIEGO, CA 92130 MD7
Candidate #6 - Major power transmission towers in non-resident AT&T had also sought to collocate onto an existing 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 options. As a result we were unable to proceed with this site as a viable option.

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 opportunities to locate onto a private utility installation located at 705 Palomar Airport Rd. Similar to candidate 4 this site would have been located near the 1-5 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 elevational disadvantage than the proposed site location. Where Poinsettia Park has an elevation of 175 feet, this location has an elevation of roughly 63-feet. With a significant elevational disadvantage of a little 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 opportunities to locate onto a public right-of-way road, along Paseo El Norte. This location would have closer within the target area. However, this site would not have been a viable option as the location also presented elevational
10590 WEST OCEAN AIR DRIVE/ SUITE 300 / SAN DIEGO, CA 92130 MD?
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 potential. That whatever height was proposed, it would be to a height that would integrate to the existing landscape to avoid distraction and serve to its potential, and not for greed. As we evaluated the area, we noticed the existing light poles and sought a design that would integrate with the existing 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 addition, the tower would implement a stealth design. The National Institute of Health's Wireless Substitution Report for the second half of 2020 estimates that 65.3% of adults and 75.5% of children live in wireless- only homes (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/wire1ess202108-508.pdf), and it is estimated that in many areas of the US, 80% or more of 911 calls are made from a wireless device (https://www.nena.org/page/911Statistics). 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 connectivity, they intend on doing so in ways to avoid disrupting the natural landscape. This was pivotal in our pursuit for a viable site for the tower.

Our site will be able to best serve: the neighboring residences, Poinsettia Kinder Care and Pacific Rim Elementary School, Carlsbad Fire Station 4, and nearby local businesses. Our site will allow people to work remotely from home because it can enhance connectivity through phone hotspots if service is dependable. This is less time on the road, greater flexibility, and a consistent connective source. When we created our coverage map, our priority was to ensure that the height and location we chose, will be following the existing standards governing health safety, and welfare. The facility will be engineered and constructed in accordance the standards in effect at the time of building permit application, 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. 10590WESTOCEANAIR DRIVE/ SUITE 300 / SAN DIEGO, CA92130 Candidate(s) Location Site Map
1fh'!' .... ~
'l,CC:,:~=:...c..:'----' ~L.~-,;\
~~;t,,r~(;ff
'
MD?
9 )'it 1~~~-~~'Mlf
~"~~,
(
I
i
.......
i .,
...
)11''/:tf.,.,..-;;.,t,~ 9
r1.!~:~%1;V~9
e
-r~i:,~::~s:9 ~ 9
·•
Coverage Map
CAL01850
Cunant
-O~A,TST'lnl~~
~ ... ~
Good
r,i,
·-
~q i;,iitt:,:Pl'W~
~, .........
~ l'I
'M,4 f
'?~-, ..... , f
10590 WEST OCEAN AIR DRIVE/ SUITE 300 / SAN DIEGO, CA 92130 1-1 ·
.;..!;! .. '
Candidate #5
-~
\"'(,. ~
,.;/''
"'}
~ ~:t::~:~~~• .-M,. •••·
•
MD/
CAL01850
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns .

Best,
r/ t:Vl#tU 7k1na4- <;,
Harold Thomas Jr
Land Use I
[email protected]
(858) 750-1798
10590WESTOCEANAIR DRIVE/ SUITE 300 / SAN DIEGO, CA 92130 To:

City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
1635 Faraday Avenue .,
Carlsbad, CA 92011
January 10, 2024
From:

MD7 LLC

DISTRIBUTED DURING PUBLIC
COMMENT AT jOUN Ct
MEETING OF L\ 16 r2
Harold Thomas Jr obo. AT&T Wireless
10590 W. Ocean Air Drive Suite 250.,
San Diego, CA 92130
hthomasjr@md7 .com
(858) 750-1798
Additional Alternative Site Analysis
Candidate #1 - Carlsbad Municipal Water Tank City Owned near 6585 Black Rail Road:

AT&T has an existing facility mounted onto the water tank located 0.6miles away. This site is providing the strong coverage that is being depicted to the east area of the coverage map. A power increase, while being beneficial to the area, it will not be able to cover and reach the low coverage area that Poinsettia Park is depicting. Additionally, a site at this location will not allow AT&T to be able to complete their network. This conflicts with Policy 64, Policy Review Section , bullet point 2. Additionally, this site is outside of our search area.

Candidate #2 -1330 Poinsettia Ln., Carlsbad, CA 92011 SDGE Lattice Tower This site is located within a Residential Zone (R-1-Q). Per Policy 64 2.8 , Residential Zones are under the discouraged locations for wireless facilities . Additionally, area is being serviced by the existing wireless facility that is mounted on the Carlsbad Municipal Water Tank (0.6 miles away) listed in the above candidate list. Placement of the tower at this location would not allow us to be able to complete our AT&T network. These conflicts with Policy 64, Policy Review Section , bullet point 2, and is located outside of our target area.

Candidate (3 & 4 combined)- North Coast Calvary Chapel & Lattice Tower -1330 Poinsettia Ln
This area is currently being serviced by the existing wireless facility that is mounted on the Carlsbad Municipal Water Tank listed in the above candidate list (6585 Black Rail Road, 0.6 miles away). Therefore , installation of a facility at this location will add no benefit in coverage nor allow us to complete our network. This conflicts with Policy 64, Policy Review Section , bullet point 2. There is also a lattice tower located to the northeastern portion of the church . However, the issue faced with this location, utility companies have not allowed wireless facilities to be located on their structure or within their easement. Additionally, this site is outside of our search area.

MDI
Candidate #5 - 5805 Armada Dr
This site is located within a Commercial Zone (C-T-Q). While co-location is feasible , it still will not be able to provide coverage to the central area that is found within Poinsettia Park. Co­ location here will provide no added benefit for AT&T users located to the south of the parcel in question . As there is an existing AT&T cell facility located less than 0.2 miles on the buildings rooftop just north of this proposed location Therefore installation of a facility at this location will add no benefit in coverage nor allow us to complete our network. This conflicts with per Policy 64, Policy Review Section, bullet point 2, and is located outside of our target area.

Candidate #6 - 6671 Paseo Del Norte AltaMira RV lot
This site is belongs to the AltaMira company an is being used frequently. If the facility were to be located here it would be taking up usable space for RV parking. In a space that is already limited, a site here could lead to the site not being able to meet its parking requirements . This would be a disservice to those who enjoy the area. Additionally , a tower at this location would be less than 150 ft from the nearest residential property line. If the tower were located near the hillside it would lead to the destruction and removal of the vegetation and trees that line, the tree side.

Candidate# 7 Transmission Tower 50' north of Altamira (In the hillside) As previously mentioned for Candidates 3 & 4, utility companies have not allowed wireless facilities to be located on their structure or within their easement. Additionally , installation of a tower at this location would lead to the destruction and removal of the various trees and natural vegetation .

Candidate # 8 6885 Batiquitos Dr
There were a few reasons why a site at this location would not have been feasible . The Fire Station has a limited amount of parking (8) Parking spaces in total , with a rear access path for the fire trucks to be able to access the garage . A facility located near the front of the property would have been taking away usable space for fire department staff. To the rear of the parcel , it is filled with dense vegetation . To propose a facility to rear the parcel would have led to the removal of existing vegetation that had been growing in the area. A rooftop facility would not have been a feasible option to have been able to accommodate a facility due to the limited MD?
height of the fire station. Building height is around 14 feet compared to the 78 foot structure .

Leaving a difference of 64-feet.

Candidate #9 CalTrans Maintenance Facility - 6050 Paseo Del Norte A tower installation at this location would not have been feasible, due to an existing AT&T cell facility being located 0.3 miles away at 5805 Armada Dr, Carlsbad, CA 92008. Therefore , installation of a facility at this location would provide no additional benefit to the area.

Additionally, placement of the tower at this location would not allow us to be able to complete our AT&T network. This conflicts with Policy 64, Policy Review Section, bullet point 2.

Additionally, this site is located outside of the target area.

Candidate #1 0 Crossings Golf Course
A tower installation at this location would not have been feasible, as there is an existing 35-foot AT&T faux tree that is already servicing the area near the pond. Placement of the tower at this location would not allow us to be able to complete our AT & T network. Placement of a tower at this location would not allow AT&T to complete their network these conflicts with policy 64, Policy Review Section , bullet point 2. The site is also located outside of the target area.

Preferred Zones - Council Policy No. 64 - Wireless communications facilities 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.

MDt
Response : AT&T did their due diligence when looking at the most preferred locations and found that within this search area and coverage objective, this was not feasible . Several factors contributed to this including location was out of Search Ring, building heights , elevations and its proximity to an existing facility .

JI>
MD7
Below is our search ring in question, along with our zoning analysis.

Green Ring - Primary Search Area.

Red Ring: Secondary Search Area.

Red Below represents discouraged locations: One Family Residential, RD-M, Residential Density- Mobile, P-C, Planned Community, and OS, Open Space Green below represents the preferred location that is in this Search Ring: Parks and communi facilities
MD7
In conclusion , the following preferred locations were not found within the Search Ring:

Industrial, Commercial , Other non-residential zones, except for open space , Public right-of­ way of roads adjacent to industrial and commercial zones , 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) .

Project objectives : Coverage to the south of the Park.

AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
TO: CITY (;LERK
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: '-/ /; 1..p/dcJ;;l lf
suBJECT: "f?-ow~ &A-1< l,)Q1= {IJ-1-1-]J
LOCATION: ~00 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008 D Other : ________________ _
• DATE POSTED TO CITY WEBSITE :::);}_2/c:2.w-Lf
DATE NOTICES MAILED TO PROPERTY OWNERS: __ L_,_/-'--/ __,, .... 51:...:..1-=~:......Y"----­ NUMBER, MAILED:

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws. of the State of California that I ~m employed by the City of Carlsbad and the foregoing is true and correct.

DEPARTMENT: GJ6n' CLERK'S OFFICE □ OTHER _______ _
Signature
SENT TO FOR PUBLICATION VIA E-MAIL TO: □ Union Tribune on ___ _ [2j" Coa.st News on-2);}.g/d. Y
PUBLICATION DATE: Union Tribune _____________ _
Coast News ---l-'/...J.../ _,_5;...:.....-/'--';;2_==a _d _.J..tj ____ _ I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that I am employed by the City of Carlsbad and the foregoing is true and correct.

DEPARTMENT: [a'cjTY CLERK'S OFFICE □ OTHER _______ _
a:::'.

Signature
Attachments: 1) Mailing Labels
2) Notice w/ attachments

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chamber, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 5 p.m. on Tuesday, April 16, 2024, to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission decision to approve a Minor Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit to allow the installation , operation, and maintenance of a wireless communication facility consisting of six panel antennas mounted within a 48 inch radome cylinder on a new 78-foot -tall light pole, that will replace an existing light pole, and associated ground equipment within an eight-foot tall enclosure in and adjacent to the northwest corner of the southern parking lot of poinsettia community park generally located at 6600 Hidden Valley Road (assessor parcel number 214-140-13-00). The property is within the Mello II Segment of the Certified Local Coastal Program and Local Facilities Management Zone 20, and more parti cularly 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
Whereas, on Jan. 17, 2024, the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission voted 4-3-0 (Commissioners Lafferty, Hubinger, and Sabellico voting no) to approve a Minor Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit to allow the installation, operation, and maintenance of a wireless communication facility consisting of six panel antennas mounted within a 48 inch radome cylinder on a new 78-foot -tall light pole, that will replace an existing light pole, and associated ground equipment within an eight-foot tall enclosure in and adjacent to the northwest corner of the southern parking lot of poinsettia community park generally located at 6600 Hidden Valley Road. This item was approved by the Planning Commission and was appealed; therefore , the appeal and final decision is being considered by the City Council.

Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after Friday, April 12, 2024. If you have any questions, please contact Kyle Van Leeuwen in the Planning Division at (442) 339-2611 or [email protected].

The meeting can be viewed online at https://www.carlsbadca.gov/city-hall/meetings-agendas or on the city's cable channel. In addition , written comments may be submitted to the City Council at or prior to the hearing via U.S. Mail to the attention of Office of the City Clerk, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, or via email to [email protected].

If you challenge the Minor Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad, Attn: City Clerk's Office, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or prior to the public hearing.

CASE FILE:

CASE NAME:

PUBLISH:

CUP 2022-0023/CDP 2022-0070

POINSETTIA PARK WCF (AT&T)
FRIDAY, APRIL 5, 2024

CITY OF CARLSBAD

CITY COUNCIL
Cm ' OFCARISIIAO
NQTICt'Qf PI JBI 1cu1:8 BING
NOTICE IS HER.EBY GIVEN to you, because your inteiut may be &ffcctcd, that the City Council o(the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambtr, 1200 Carls­ bad Village Drive, Carl5bad, California, AL 5 p.m. on Tut:$day, April 16, 202+. lO consider an appeal of the Planning CommiSik>n decision to approve a Minor Conditiona1 Use Permit and Coastal Development Pe.nnil to allow the installation, operation, and ma.intenant"e of a wireless communication facility consisting of six panel antennas mounted within a 4-8 inch radome t)'linder on a new 78-foovtal l light pole, that will replace Ill existing light pole, and a.ssociat.ed ground equipment within an eight,.fOOl tall enclolure in and adjacent to I.he northwest comer of lhe touthe m parking: lot of poinsettia community park generally k>cated at 6600 Hidden Valley Road (assessor pa.reel number 214·1+0·13-00). 'rhe property is within the MeJlo JI Seg­ ment of the Certified Local Coutal Program and Local Facilities M&nagemcnt Zeme 20, and more particularly desc:ribtd u:

THAT PORTION OF THE WEST HALF OP SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP
12 SOUTH, RANCE 4 WES'l', SAN llEllNAR DlNO l\tERJOIAN , lN T HE Cl1Y CARLSBAD, COUNTY OP SAN DCEGO, STATE OP CALU"ORNIA,

ACCORDING TO UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT SURVEY
Whett:as, on Jan. 17, 202-4, the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission voted 4-3-0 (Commis­ sioners La.lTerty, Hubinger, and Sabellico voti"S no) to approve a Minor Conditional Use Permit and Coa.sta1 Development Permit to a1low the inmJlation, ope.ration. and maintenance of a ~ communication facility consb ting of six panel anten nas mounted within a 4-8 inch r,.dome cylinder on a new 78-foot-tall light pole, that will replace an existing light pole, and associated ground equipment within an eight-foot tall enclosure in and atlja~nt to the north­ welt comer of the sou them parking loto ( poinsettia community park generally located at 6600 Hidden V1.1ley Road. This it.em wu approVfld by the Planning Commission and was 1.ppuled ; therefore. lhc appeal and final deci1ion is bciug considered by the City Council.

Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal arc cordially invited to attend the public he.a.ring. Copie, o(thestatf report \\ill be ava.ilableoa and~ Friday.April 12, 202-♦. Jf you have any questions. please contact. Kyle Van Leeuwen in the Planning Division at (♦42) 339· 2611 orlQ-Jenn \eeuwco@cads badce gov The meeting can beviewedon lineatb.ups.:,l.lwww. cadsbadca ga,dcily-baDtrncttings-ageodas l)r on the city's cable channel. ln a.ddiUOn, written comment.a may be 1ubmitted to the City Council at or prior to the hearing via US. Mail to the Ul.t'ntion o( Office of the City Clerk, I 200 CarL,bad Village Drive. Carl~ba(l, CA 92008, or via email tocltrk@c atlsbadca gov
l(~u challenge the Minor ConditionaJ Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit in court. you maybe limit.ed to rais.iagonly those issues you or someone else n.iscd at the public hearing deteribed in thi, notice or in \0/l'ltten correspo~ence delh·ered to the City o( Cu-lsbad, Alln:

City Clerk's Office, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive. Carlsbad. CA 92008, ator prior to the public hearing.

CASE PILE:

CASE NAME,

PUBLISH,
CllY OP CARLSBAD

CITY COUNCIL
CUP 2022-0023/CDP 2022-0070
POINSETflA PARK WCP(AT&T)
PRI DAY, APRJ L 5, 2024
3 col X 7"
21" X $15
$315.00

OCCUPANT
104 7 TURNSTONE RD
CARLSBAD CA 92011
1 OCCUPANT
, 1032 BEACONBAYRD
CARLSBAD CA 920 I I
I
I
I
I
l
;-
I
I -
(
I
I
~

OCCUPANT
6585 SCAUP ST
CARLSBAD CA 92011

OCCUPANT
6578 SCAUP ST
CARLSBAD CA 9201 1

OCCUPANT
, I 1066 TURNSTONE RD
CARLSBAD CA 920 11
I I
\
l I
I I
I I
/

OCCUPANT
1068 BEACON BAY DR
CARLSBAD CA 920 11

OCCUPANT
1110 DOWITCHER CT
CARLSBAD CA 920 11

OCCUPANT
6574 SCAUP ST
CARLSBAD CA 920 11
l I

OCCUPANT
1100 CAMINO DE LAS ONDAS
CARLSBAD CA 92009

OCCUPANT
I 1200 PLUMTREERD
CARLSBAD CA 920 I I
I ,
I
i I
I I
I I
I [
I I
I I
I '.

I I
l
I
I
I
I I
I I
I
I !
I
I
I

OCCUPANT
1106 DO WITCHER CT
CARLSBAD CA 9201 1
1 FENTON H G COMPANY
7577 MISSION VALLEY RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92 108

PAUL & KATHLEEN A ZOMBOLAS
1043 TIJRNSTONE !ID
' CARLSBAD CA 920 11

ELLEN L NAKAMURA
1031 TURNSTONE RD
CARLSBAD CA 920 l l

EDMAN LARS R TRUST
IO 19 TURNSTONE RD
CARLSBAD CA 920 11

SHOWPROPREDLANDSLLC
UNIT201
2275 W 190TH ST
TORRANCE CA 90504

DAVID R & STEPHANIE H FIGGAT
I 045 GOLDENEYE VW
CARLSBAD CA 920 11
\
JONA THAN M & P A..'v1ELA J TUCKER
I 034 TURNSTONE RD
CARLSBAD CA 92011
ROBERT M & SUSA,'\/ R SAVAGE
I 046 TURNSTONE RD
CARLSBAD CA 92011

HEENEFAMI LYREVOCABLELIVING
TRUST
1088 GOLDENEYE VW
CARLSBAD CA 92011

CATHEY L & MCKIRNAN CHERYL M
GREENFfELD
129 LEGACY HLS
NEW BRAUNFELS TX 78132

SEABRIGHT CARLSBAD HOMEOWNERS
ASSN
UNIT I 12B
438 CAMINO DEL RIO S
SAN DIEGO CA 92108

SCHW AEBE FAMILY TRUST
1039 TURNSTONE RD
CARLSBAD CA 92011
I I MARCUS J & SABRINA R SHA w
1027 TURNSTONE RD
CARLSBAD CA 92011
, I EHRLICH FAMILY TRUST
IO 15 TURNSTONE RD
CARLSBAD CA 92011
I .

I

MOORE FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST
1048 GOLDENEYE VW
CARLSBAD CA 920 11

ROBERT & DEBRA MANDOS
1041 GOLDENEYE VW
CARLSBAD CA 920 11

CASTILLO BILLIE D TRUST
207 CHESTNUT A VE
CARLSBAD CA 92008

PROVINE JOHN W REVOCABLE TRUST
1096 GOLDENEYE VW
CARLSBAD CA 92011
SCHEIDECKER FAMILY 2010 TRUST
I 084 GOLDENEYE VW
CARLSBAD CA 92011

TARAS & ALBINA S BEDA
I 072 GOLDENEYE VW
CARLSBAD CA 92011
I I
I I
I I

LOUGEAY FAMILY TRUST
177 NEPTUNE A VE
ENCINITAS CA 92024

CANTERBURY FAMILY TRUST
1035 TURNSTONE RD
CARLSBAD CA 920 I 1

GERHARDT HUGH G & CHERYL M

LIVING TRUST
1023 TURNSTONE RD
CARLSBAD CA 9201 1

TOM SCHUTZ
1037 GOLDENEYE VW
CARLSBAD CA 9201 1
COLCLASER FAMILY 1995 TRUST
I 049 GOLDENEYE VW
CARLSBAD CA 92011

EVGENY & ANTONIKOV ANIKA

RAKHMATULIN
I 030 TURNSTONE RD
CARLSBAD CA 92011

FLORENTINO P & CAROL C CALIP
I 042 TURNSTONE RD
CARLSBAD CA 92011

PILI LIVING TRUST
1092 GOLDENEYE VW
CARLSBAD CA 9201 I

DEBRAH L BEEKMAN
1080 GOLDENEYE VW
CARLSBAD CA 92011

SITINA M SEBETA
1068 GOLDENEYE VW
CARLSBAD CA 92011
\
r

ANDREW J & BROSTROM BRIANA

OGORMAN
I 064 GOLDENEYE VW
CARLSBAD CA 92011

ADAM S & JENNIFER L GOLDSTEIN
1060 GOLDENEYE VW
CARLSBAD CA 92011

TANG LARRY & AILENE FAMILY

REVOCABLE TRUST
I 053 GOLDENEYE VW
CARLSBAD CA 920 I I

ALEXANDER & BENNA WALKER
I 065 GOLDENEYE VW
CARLSBAD CA 92011

ERICA S HAUSHEER
1077 GOLDENEYEVW
CARLSBAD CA 92011

DANIEL & MARIELA L LEHMAN
I 089 GOLDENEYE VW
CARLSBAD CA 92011

CORDELLA CHRISTOPHER & BRISHA

FAMILY TRUST
6484 KITE PL
CARLSBAD CA 92011

KEVIN M & EMIL YR BACA
6483 KITEPL
CARLSBAD CA 92011

SEABRIGHT CARLSBAD HOMEOWNERS
ASSN
UNIT 112B
438 CAMINO DEL RIO S
SAN DIEGO CA 92108

CHARLES FAMILY TRUST
6446 TOPMAST DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011

ODONNELL MICHAEL & MARY LIFE
TRUST
6454 MERLIN DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011

MICHAEL WEINER
1056 GOLDENEYE VW
CARLSBAD CA 92011
CHARLES R& KATHLEEN J 1995

WILLIAMS
15871 EDMUND DR
LOS GATOS CA 95032
JAMES F & TREVINO CYNTIIlA Y BUTZ
I 069 GOLDENEYE VW
I CARLSBAD CA 92011
! \
I I
I

GUSTAVO & ARANGO MONICA GOMEZ
1081 GOLDENEYE VW
CARLSBAD CA 92011

KUEMMERLE FAMILY TRUST
13924 RECUERDO DR
DEL MAR CA 92014

QUINT ANA FAMILY TRUST
6482 KITE PL
CARLSBAD CA 92011
WEN WU
1054 TURNSTONE RD
CARLSBAD CA 92011

DOUGHERTY LIVING TRUST
6438 TOPMAST DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011

MICHAEL & JENNIFER HANLEY
6450 TOPMAST DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011

LYNNNERWIN
I 062 GOLDENEYE VW
CARLSBAD CA 920 I I

PHILLIP N & PAMELA KORA Y
I 052 GOLDENEYE VW
CARLSBAD CA 9201 I

MATTHEW R & BETH A DRISCOLL
1061 GOLDENEYE VW
CARLSBAD CA 92011

KONSTANTIN & SINITSYNA IRINA

SINITSYN
1073 GOLDENEYE VW
CARLSBAD CA 92011
BRUCKS JERRY D REVOCABLE 2001
TRUST
1085 GOLDENEYE VW
CARLSBAD CA 92011
I

HELENE TIN
I
I I 6488 KITE PL
CARLSBAD CA 92011
I
I I
I

JEFFREY R & FUSARO GIANNA M
MILLER
6479 KITE PL
CARLSBAD CA 92011

STONE HERBERT L TRUST
I 050 TURNSTONE RD
CARLSBAD CA 92011

PETERSON FAMILY TRUST
6442 TOPMAST DR
CARLSBAD CA 9201 I

JEREMY & BANDA LESLEY HORTON
6454 TOPMAST DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011

GLEN J & MICHELLE E YANDA
1214 WIND STAR WAY
CARLSBAD CA 920 i 1

DUNPHY FAMJL Y TRUST
1219 WIND STAR WAY
CARLSBAD CA 920 11

MYUNGSUK & JENNY J KO
1207 WIND STAR WAY
1 CARLSBAD CA 92011

SAMBA V ARAM FAMILY TRUST
6457 TOPMAST DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011

MATTHEW SEPPER
6445 TOPMAST DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011

ROBERT W & ROSEMARIE H REILLY
6433 TOPMAST DR
CARLSBAD CA 9201 1

PAUL & KATHRYN PREDKI
1230 MARIPOSA RD
CARLSBAD CA 9201 1

BEHRUZ HEYDARI
PO BOX 27692
SAN DIEGO CA 92198
ANDO MIYA & SERRA SHELTER 2019

REVOCABLE TRUST
UNIT7
224E52ND ST
NEW YORK NY 10022

LYKE FAMILY TRUST
15792 DEL MONTE FARMS RD
CASTROVILLE CA 95012

TROY B WOOLLEY
1 1218 WIND STAR WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92011
' I

BLAISE KWONG LIANG & CAITLIN T
YEN
1215 WIND STAR WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92011

WELLMAN MICHAEL & CORY J
REVOCABLE 1996TRUST
, 6465 TOPMAST DR
CARLSBAD CA 920 11
i , RAPOZAMATTHEWJ&SARAJFAMILY
TRUST
6453 TOPMAST DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011
I • PREDRAG & MAHTA NAKIC
6441 TOPMAST DR
! I CARLSBAD CA 92011
I I

SALTAIRE AT CARLSBAD

HOMEOWNERS ASSN
UNIT225
703 PALOMARAIRPORTRD
CARLSBAD CA 920 11

XIAO DONG & ZHOU MIN WANG
859 RORKE WAY
PALO ALTO CA 94303

CITY OF CARLSBAD
1200 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008

DOHADW ALA FAMILY LIVING TRUST
1170 QUINCE A VE
SUNNYVALE CA 94087

RAJA C OGIRALA
UNIT A
6675 PASEO DEL NORTE
CARLSBAD CA 9201 I

DAVID H & MARIA E RHYNE
1222 WIND STAR WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92011

MCLELLAN LIVING TRUST
12 11 WIND STAR WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92011

MARK A & MARIA C RICHEY
6461 TOPMAST DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011

ANDRE J & SHANNON PINSETT
UNIT 107-2
2307 FENTONPKWAY
SAN DIEGO CA 92108

DAVID E & BARBARA M THURMAN
6437 TOPMAST DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011

CULLEN FAMILY TRUST
1234 MARIPOSA RD
CARLSBAD CA 92011

TOWER NEV ADA TRUST
1222 MARIPOSA RD
CARLSBAD CA 92011

CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
6225 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92009

SCOTT & LIANG JIANSHAN

VANDUTTON
UNITD
6675 PASEO DEL NORTE
CARLSBAD CA 92011
I : TSAI & NEE FAMIL y TRUST
·1 I 17878 CALLE SAN LUCAS
ROWLAND HGHTS CA 91748
I
I

SHARON CHRISTIANSON
UNIT!
6673 PASEO DEL NORTE
CARLSBAD CA 92011
1 SLATER FAMILY TRUST
, 5275EMEZZANINEWAY
\
LONG BEACH CA 90808

MALCOLM C SUNBERG
UNITC
6673 PASEO DEL NORTE
CARLSBAD CA 920 11

POPOVICH MICHAEL R & OCONNOR

MARYE TRUST
UNITB
6673 PASEO DEL NORTE
CARLSBAD CA 92011

BAYDOUN SEPARATE PROPERTY
TRUST
UNITD
6677 PASEO DEL NORTE
CARLSBAD CA 92011
ROOSE OLIVIA M LIVING 1991 TRUST
PO BOX 15205
N HOLLYWOOD CA 91615
r
V ANON1 FAMILY TRUST
2753 VICTORIA A VE
CARLSBAD CA 92010

JANICE M HAMMETT
POBOX314
BIGFORK MT 59911
GRAY FAMILY TR{-!ST
6957 PEACH TREE RD
CARLSBAD CA 92011

WELTON HERSHEL & SHERIL YNN

LIVING TRUST
1108 POWELL DR ·
PLACENTIA CA 928'.70
(
I
' I
I
I
I l
I
i
I
I
I .

I
ANDREW N & SUSAN P PETRA.KES
23534 ROUNDUP PL
ALDIE VA 20105

BRANDT FAMILY TRUST
UNITE
6673 PASEO DEL NORTE
CARLSBAD CA 920 11

NANCY V ALDANA
UNITD
6673 PASEO DEL NORTE
CARLSBAD CA 920 11

CHAO TRUST
2827 HUXLEY PL
FREMONT CA 94555

SHULL KELLI L TRUST
UNITE
6677 PASEO DEL NORTE
CARLSBAD CA 92011
EPPERSON REVOCABLE LIVING 2003
TRUST
768 RAVENSBURY ST
LAKE SHERWOOD CA 9136 1

RAPHAELA R RATCLIFF
UNITF
6673 PASEO DEL NORTE
CARLSBAD CA 92011

CURRAN MICHAELA C LIVING TRUST
UNIT A
6673 PASEO DEL NORTE
CARLSBAD CA 92011

SULLIVAN JAMES M REVOCABLE
TRUST
UNITG
6677 PASEO DEL NORTE
I I CARLSBAD CA 92011
I
I i

IRWIN LAWRENCE TRUST
UNITC
6677 PASEO DEL NORTE
CARLSBAD CA 92011

WALWORTH RICHARD R & A VERONICA I

REVOCABLE TRUST

PAUL AND DEBRA MARX FAMILY

I LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
3951 SIERRA LINDA DR
ESCONDIDO CA 92025
34815 VALLEY CENTER RD I
VALLEY CENTER CA 92082 I

BROWN BARRY & IRENE TRUST
UNITE
6679 PASEO DEL NORTE
CARLSBAD CA 920 11

SHNABLE ELIZABETH A TRUST
UNITA
6679 PASEO DEL NORTE
CARLSBAD CA 92011
J

VANDA FAMILY TRUST
UNITE
6679 PASEO DEL NORTE
CARLSBAD CA 92011

R L LIVING TRUST
7103 SURFBIRD CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92011

JOHN G LESLIE
UNITD

I I ARJUN & DHAR ANWASHA MUKHERJI
2652 LA COSTA AVE
918 CAMINITO ESTRADA
CARLSBAD CA 92011

ANDRES JOEL TRUST
UNITB
918 CAMINITO ESTRADA
CARLSBAD CA 92011
CARLSBAD CA 92009

JOHNS SUSAN L SEPARATE PROPERTY
TRUST
I 699 SAMAR DR
COSTA MESA CA 92626

MAYNARD FAMILY TRUST
6747 MONTIA CT
CARLSBAD CA 9201 1

NICHOLAS CALABRIA
UNITG .
916 CAMINITO ESTRADA
CARLSBAD CA 920 I I
1 DONALD K & MARGARET H MOOTE
UNITD
l
r
I
916 CAMINITO ESTRADA
CARLSBAD CA 920 I I
ALTAMIRA UNIT NO 4
POBOX612
CARLSBAD CA 920 I 8

MORSE JOANN J LIVING TRUST
420 COUNTY ROUTE 111
HANNACROIX NY l2087

DALE VINCENT
UNIT A
917 CAMINITO ESTRADA
CARLSBAD CA 92011

LEWIS FAMILY TRUST
UNITD
917 CAMINITO ESTRADA
CARLSBAD CA 92011

CORAZZA JOHANNA LTVING TRUST
UNITC
6701 PASEO DEL NORTE
CARLSBAD CA 92011

JO A & SELOVER PEGGY J BEALL
UNIT A
6703 PASEO DEL NORTE
CARLSBAD CA 9201 1

BACHMAN KIRK & LYNN REVOCABLE
LIVING 2004 TRUST
7321 GABBIANO LN
CARLSBAD CA 920 I I
, I
I I
I

ENGSTROM FAMILY TRUST
6576 CONEFLOWER DR
CARLSBAD CA 9201 1

PAUL & TARA ROZZ I
UNITE
916 CAMINITO ESTRADA
CARLSBAD CA 920 JI

JEFFREY COURTNEY
UNIT A
916 CAMINITO ESTRADA
CARLSBAD CA 920 11

GOLDSTEIN FAMILY TRUST
UNIT A
915 CAMINITO ESTRADA
CARLSBAD CA 920 11

BESTERCI RUTHANNE REVOCABLE

LIVING TRUST
UNITD
915 CAMINITO ESTRADA
CARLSBAD CA 920 I 1

WEST GUY M TRUST
280 SHERIDAN A VE
SATELLITE BCH FL 32937

BROWN ANNETTE FAMILY TRUST
UNIT A
6701 PASEO DEL NORTE
CARLSBAD CA 9201 1

PAUL SNYDER
UNITD
6701 PASEO DEL NORTE
CARLSBAD CA 920 11

VOYTKO FAMILY TRUST
2537 N PARISH PL
BURBANK CA 91504

OHMAN LTVING TRUST
2098 SEA VILLAGE CIR
CARDIFF CA 92007
(

FREDERICK C & DIANE T BRANDT
90 I SAN PABLO DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92078

RAJ C & A REVOCABLE TRUST
2591 WELLSPRING ST
, CARLSBAD CA 92010
I
I
I I I
i I
\
I I
I
I I I
I
l
r
I

WALWORTH RICHARD R& A VERONICA

REVOCABLE TRUST
34815 VALLEY CENTER RD
VALLEY CENTER CA 92082
HARRINGTON FAMILY 1998 TRUST
1334 W ALNUTVIEW DR
ENCINITAS CA 92024

JUAN SANTANA
UNITE
915 CAMINITO ESTRADA
CARLSBAD CA 92011

TOMMY A & VIDAL GLORIA E

RUEDAFLORES
6923 STATE ST
HUNTINGTON PK CA 90255

DELAVEGA MARY H TRUST
102 VISTA DR
LA SELVA BEACH CA 95076

NOTRE VIE LIVING TRUST
1574 BELLA VISTA DR
ENCINITAS CA 92024

LARRY W FRANKLIN
UNITC
6703 PASEO DEL NORTE
CARLSBAD CA 92011

KENNY FAMILY TRUST
UNITF
6703 PASEO DEL NORTE
CARLSBAD CA 92011
' RIGGINS JANICE A REVOCABLE TRUST
6705 HYACINTH CJR
'
I
\__
\__
CARLSBAD CA 9201 1

THOMAS C HAGEMAN
715 1 SURFBIRD CIR
CARLSBAD CA 920 11

CLAUDIAN UTMAN
6717 HYACINTH CIR
CARLSBAD CA 920 11

ROTH FAMILY TRUST
6709 CLOVER CT
CARLSBAD CA 9201 1

AARON & ALENNA GATTI
6715 CLOVER CT
CARLSBAD CA 9201 1

SA WA FAMILY LIVING TRUST
13247 MISSION TIERRA WAY
GRANADA HILLS CA 91344

RITZ ROBERT & KAREN FAMILY TRUST
6727 CLOVER CT •
CARLSBAD CA 920 I I

CARLO AUDIA
6733 CLOVER CT
CARLSBAD CA 920 11

ANDREW L & CHRISTINE R SHOOKHOFF
67 12 CLOVER CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011
BEEBY BARBARA J.LIVING TRUST
6706 CLOVER CT
CARLSBAD CA 9201 1

ELISE K JACKSON
I 6707 HYACINTH CIR
CARLSBAD CA 920 11

ERIC W GORDON
6713 HYACINTH CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92011

BOSSE BARBARA L LIVING TRUST
6705 CLOVER CT
CARLSBAD CA 920 11

AMIN & F ADIA ATTIA
4419 CABOT DR
CORONA CA 92883
I
, I
' (
I I
I I

BOOTH THOMAS C III & LOIS D FAMILY
1 TRUST
6717 CLOVER CT
CARLSBAD CA 920 11
I I

I VELMA A SAUNDERS
I 6723 CLOVER CT
, I CARLSBAD CA 9201 1
I l
I
I
(
KLOSE TRUST ! 132 VIA TRIESTE
NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663
I I
' I

KOH LIVING TRUST
I
2378 1 BRANT LN
LAGUNA NIGUEL CA 92677 i
I
I

MARIA A ROWE '
6710 CLOVER CT
I
I I
I CARLSBAD CA 920 11 I
I
I
l \
ALTAMIRA UNIT NO 4 HOMEOWNERS ' r
ASSOCIATION CORP I I PO BOX 1068
I I OCEANSIDE CA 92051 I I

LARSON BEVERLY REVOCABLE TRUST
1559 N PETERS LN
STRATFORD CT 6614

PEI & ZHANG HUI WANG
6715 HY ACINEN CIR
CARLSBAD CA 9201 1

DAVID L & CATHY A ALLEN
PO BOX 10106
ZEPHYR COVE NV 89448

JAMES & MARY DUFFEY
40449 CHAUNCEYWAY
TEMECULA CA 9259 1

FRED P SPECTOR
23034 RUNNYMEDE ST
WEST HILLS CA 91307

SKARV ADA LAURA REVOCABLE

LIVING TRUST
909 PRESIDIO WAY
VISTA CA 92081

BOLES LIVING TRUST
8649 S WILLOW DR
TEMPE AZ 85284

GEORGE LETSOS
6714 CLOVER CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011

ROGER ROTH
6708 CLOVER CT
CARLSBAD CA 920 I I

BEWLEY LINDA G LIVING TRUST
723 I SAN LUIS ST
CARLSBAD CA 92011
I

HEATHER M HULTGREN
6737 HEATH CT
CARLSBAD CA 9201 1
SARRAFFE/fRAN FAMILY TRUST
6743 HEATH CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011

JALOTA-KAUR TRUST
6717 WHlTESAIL ST
CARLSBAD CA 92011

FRITZ KEVIN & ELLEN LIFE TRUST
1002 BEACON BAY DR
CARLSBAD CA 9201 1

GARTLAND MICHAEL & KATHRYN A

FAMILY TRUST
I 020 BEACON BAY DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011

HJALMARSON ERIC & REGAN P TRUST
PO BOX 1307
CARLSBAD CA 92018

JAMES G & JUDY A RAINES
1056 BEACON BAY DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011

KATHY R MARONE
1074 BEACON BAY DR
CARLSBAD CA 920 11

SHOWPROPREDLANDSLLC
UNIT 201
2275 W 190TH ST
TORRANC.E CA 90504

WEHMUELLER FAMILY TRUST
1065 BEACON BAY DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011

TOOR FAMILY TRUST
2626 OLD SPANISH TRL
ESCONDIDO CA 92025

KEVIN BURKE
6745 HEATH CT
i CARLSBAD CA 920 11

RITCHIE DEBF-A L LIVING TRUST
6686 LEMON LEAF DR
CARLSBAD CA 920 11

RICHIE FAMILY TRUST
1008 BEACON BAY DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011
I

ROBERT J & ANNE M HAMPTON
1026 BEACON BAY DR
I I CARLSBAD CA 920 11
I I

I JEFFREY A & CATHERINE V BREKKE
l
1044 BEACON BAY DR
CARLSBAD CA 920 11
(
1 FISHER FAMILY TRUST
' I 1062 BEACON BAY DR
CARLSBAD CA 9201 1
l
'
'

RICHARD E NUMRICH
1080 BEACON BAY DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011
I

I I STEVEN J & ANDREA C HAMIL TON
1077 BEACON BAY DR
I CARLSBAD CA 92011
I I

JEFFREY E & DEBORAH L

VONROSENBERG
1059 BEACON BAY DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011
,,

TOBIAS R & LEAH J BECK
6741 HEATH CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011

PALMER FAMILY TRUST
672 1 WHlTESAIL ST
CARLSBAD CA 92011

PAUL D & A YREN M PFEIFER
6705 WHlTESAIL ST
CARLSBAD CA 92011

NICOLE DORE
1014 BEACON BAY DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011

I GEORGE TRUST
I
UNIT207
5927 BALFOUR CT
I CARLSBAD CA 92008

VILAS N & SEEMA V KOINKAR
1050 BEACON BAY RD
CARLSBAD CA 92011
ZHU HELEN IRREVOCABLE 2012 TRUST
UNIT8L
9710 62ND DR
REGO PARK NY 11374

KIMBERLY DESMARAIS
I 089 BEACON BAY DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011

I MICHAEL J & SUSAN A REZIN
1071 BEACON BAY DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011

SAMBA V ARAM FAMILY TRUST
6457 TOPMAST DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011

WOJCIECHOWSK I FAMILY TRUST
1047 BEACONBAYDR
' CARLSBAD CA 92011
GlANLORENZO & MAIELLO GABRIELLA
MASINI
1029 BEACON BAY RD
CARLSBAD CA 9201 1

JONES MARTIN & JULIA FAMILY TRUST
1028 SEAHORSE CT
1 CARLSBAD CA 920 i I

EV AN M & REILICH-MACKA Y
1 CHRISTINE MACKAY •
\
I 046 SEAHORSE CT
CARLSBAD CA 920 I 1

ABERIN CELSO C JR TRUST
I 064 SEAHORSE CT
CARLSBAD CA 920 11

BEYER DONNA MD TRUST
I 082 SEAHORSE CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011

MASON FAMILY TRUST
1073 SEAHORSE CT
CARLSBAD CA 920 11

FAMILY RODRIGUEZ LIVING TRUST
1055 SEAHORSE CT
CARLSBAD CA 920 11

BARRE ALYSHA TRUST
1037 SEAHORSE CT
CARLSBAD CA 920 11

PETERSCHMIDT KARL & GABRIELE
TRUST
6719 KETCH WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92011

DECKER TRUST
, I 1041 BEACON BAY DR
1 CARLSBAD CA 920 11

SCOTT A & VALERIE P RUBIN
I 023 BEACON BAY RD
CARLSBAD CA 920 11 .

GIROD FAMILY TRUST
1034 SEAHORSE CT
CARLSBAD CA 9201 1

DAVID P & JIN Y ELDON
1052 SEAHORSE CT
I CARLSBAD CA 9201 I
' I KREISBERG F AMIL y TRUST
I I 1070 SEAHORSE CT
' I CARLSBAD CA 920 I I
I l

SEAN & MIKELLE L LOOFBOURROW
l
1085 SEAHORSE CT
CARLSBAD CA 920 11

PHILLIPS BRYAN & LORIE TRUST
1035 BEACON BAY DR ·
1 CARLSBAD CA 9201 I

KANN FAMILY TRUST
1022 SEAHORSE CT
CARLSBAD CA 9201 1

RUSSELL F & CHRISTIANSEN LAURA M
AMES
1040 SEAHORSE CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011

DONALD S & TIFF ANY I MUEHLBACH
1058 SEAHORSE CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011

GRANT M & MURRAY-SMITH KIRSTEN
KSMITH
1076 SEAHORSE CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011

JAGO FAMILY TRUST
UNIT 10625
774 MAYS BLVD
INCLINE VLG NV 89451
BLUE STEVEN & AUDREY REVOCABLE ,, r
TRUST
I 067 SEAHORSE CT

ALELIA A GILLIN
1061 SEAHORSE CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011
CARLSBAD CA 920 11 ! l

ALLEN FAMILY TRUST
1049 SEAHORSE CT
CARLSBAD CA 920 11

MARTIN P & LYNDA M SCHUBERT
I 031 SEAHORSE CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011

AGRESTI FAMILY TRUST
6715 KETCH WAY
CARLSBAD CA 920 11
'
'
CARLSBAD CA 92011
I il AN1L & PIKE AMY C KHANNA 1043 SEAHORSE CT

I JESSICA MCLENNAN
1 1025 SEAHORSE CT
CARL,SBAD CA 92011
I !

CHANG SIL VIA A REVOCABLE TRUST
6711 KETCH WAY
CARLSBAD CA 920 I I

GOODMAN STANLEY R & JANICE H

FAMILY TRUST
6707 KETCH WAY
CARLSBAD CA 9201 1
PALGUTA TRUST 11-21-07
6706 WHITESAIL ST
' CARLSBAD CA 920 l l

GOUGH FAMILY TR UST
6716 WHITESAIL ST
CARLSBAD CA 920 11

BENJAMIN F & HEATHER MARTIN
67 I 3 WHITESAIL ST
CARLSBAD CA 9201 1

POINSETTIA COVE MAINT CORP
UNIT 115
495 E RINCON ST
CORONA CA 92879

SCHLUMPBERGER FAMILY TRUST
6703 KETCH WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92011

WILLIAM WHITESAJL LLC
6067 P ASEO EN CANT ADA
CAMARILLO CA 93012

THOMAS BLACK
3211 LAUREL CANYONBLVD
STUDIO CITY CA 91604
1 BRIAN D & MARIBEL CARSTENS
6729 WHITESAIL ST
CARLSBAD CA 9201 1

CHEN FAMILY TRUST
6728 WHITESAIL ST
CARLSBAD CA 92011

JOHNSON JOHN & JOANN LIVING TRUST , CHRISTOPHER B & P ANLILIO MARIA C CONKEY 1024 LIGHTHOUSE RD
CARLSBAD CA 920 11
RECHT FAMILY 2006 TRUST
P OBOX4356
CARLSBAD CA 92018

CHRISTOPHER R & ERIKA ADAMS
1060 LIGHTHOUSE RD
CARLSBAD CA 92011
r JEFFREY & JENNIFER KLIEWER
I
1078 LIGHTHOUSE RD
CARLSBAD CA 9201 1
I
I

I ROBERTS GARY & ULY FAMILY TRUST
6591 ROBINEA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011
I '1
I , I 030 LIGHTHOUSE RD
1 I CARLSBAD CA 920 11
r
I
/ '
' I

CAMPBELL SCQTT & CHRISTINE TRUST
1048 LIGHTHOUSE RD
CARLSBAD CA 9201 1

TRACIE M FOSSUM
1066 LIGHTHOUSE RD
CARLSBAD CA 92011

POINSETTIA COVE MAINTENANCE
CORP
UNIT 115
495 E RINCON ST
CORONA CA 92879

ROBERT M FOSTER
6587 ROBINEA DR
CARLSBAD CA 920 11

MARK & SHERRI CHRISTY
, 6702 WHITESAIL ST
CARLSBAD CA 92011

SHAFFER WILLIAM P & KATHLEEN J

FAMILY TRUST
6712 WHITESAIL ST
CARLSBAD CA 9201 1

POINSETTIA COVE MAINT CORP
UNIT 115
495 E RINCON ST
CORONA CA 92879

STRAHL FAMILY TRUST
1723 EUCALYPTUS A VE
ENCINITAS CA 92024

HARRY & NGUYEN DUYEN TRAN
6732 WHITESAIL ST
CARLSBAD CA 9201 l

DENIS OVCHINNIKOV
1036 LIGHTHOUSE RD
CARLSBAD CA 92011
I
I r JAMESON & JOCELYNE MARTIN
18 FOXHALL CT
I ! DANVILLE CA 94526
I
' I
I

BRANDON C & ALEXANDRA MCGAHA
I 072 LIGHTHOUSE RD
CARLSBAD CA 92011

BATTIN FAMILY TRUST
1213 BELLEFLOWER RD
CARLSBAD CA 92011
' 1 ROBERT J & SUZANNE WEAST
6583 ROBINEA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011
I '
'
\..

I
\
l

MONET NATALIE F INDENTURE TRUST
6579 ROBINEA DR •
CARLSBAD CA 92011

CALLAGHAN FAMILY TRUST
6567 ROBINEA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011

RICHARD A & OLWEN Y WATERS
6555 ROBINEA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011

LOGAN H & KATHLEEN J CASEY
6558 ROBINEA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011

ROBINSON FAMILY TRUST
1220 ABELIA AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92011

SADIRHIEDO
1590 S MELROSE DR
VISTA CA 92081

JEONG MIN & CHOI SU JIN KIM
1184 ABELIA A VE
CARLSBAD CA 920 11

BACKUS MICHELLE D TRUST
6709 TEA TREE ST·
CARLSBAD CA 92011

BRADFORD T & VALERIE T

HOLLINGSWORTH
672 1 TEA TREE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92011

PYPER JOSETTE S TRUST
6712 TEA TREE ST
CARLSBAD CA 920 11

I I ' I
\
'
, I

AARON & BRITT ANY SIMKIN
6575 ROBINEA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011

BEAUCHAMP FAMILY TRUST
6563 ROBINEA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011

BING FENG & GENG SHUO HAN
6550 ROBJNEA DR
CARLSBAD CA 9201 1

HOLLIE M CHAMBERLAIN
6562 ROBINEA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011

BLACK FAMILY TRUST
1210 PLUM TREE RD
CARLSBAD CA 92011

LESLIE J MOLNAR
1192 ABELIA A VE
CARLSBAD CA 920 11

ROBERT & CATHY DEVICH
670 1 TEA TREE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92011

WANTZ JAMES F & LAURA L AB LIVING
TRUST 09-30-09
6713 TEA TREE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92011

V ANDERLTNDEN DAVID W
7220 DAFFODIL PL
CARLSBAD CA 920 11

DENNIS S LEES
6708 TEA TREE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92011
' '
I /
I (
I
I I
l

GRIMM LIVING TRUST
6571 ROBINEA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011

JAMES J & TATJANA HAYWARD
6559 ROBINEA DR
CARLSBAD CA 9201 I

JOANNE MONS JOHNSON
6554 ROBINEA DR
CARLSBAD CA 920 11
BR.KOVIC MILIVOJE & NATASHA TRUST
1202 PLUM TREE RD
CARLSBAD CA 92011

KINDERCARE REAL ESTA TE LL C
UNIT 1400
650 NE HOLLADAY ST
PORTLAND OR 97232

HECK FAMILY TRUST
PO BOX 16
RCHO SANTA FE CA 92067

DECUBA FAMILY LIVING TRUST
6705 TEA TREE ST
CARLSBAD CA 920 11

FP CS TRUST
6717 TEA TREE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92011

MICHAEL A & JULIA EV ARGAS
6716 TEA TREE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92011

MARINERS POINT COMMUNITY ASSN
UNIT200
24800 CHRISANT A DR
MISSION VIEJO CA 92691

CARLSBAD PARKSIDE HOMEOWNERS
ASSN
9990 MESA RIM RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92121

MCABEE ADAM & DANIELLE FAMILY
TRUST
1137 SCRUB JAY CT
CARLSBAD CA 9201 1
, MAUREEN FULLERTON
6387 HUNTINGTON DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009

RAMESH & SANITVINI SUBRAMANI
6814 ZINNIA CT
CARLSBAD CA 920 11

DANIEL & VIRGINIA MERCEDE
6580 RED KNOT ST
CARLSBAD CA 92011

JING BO & YAO YAN CAI
6592 RED KNOT ST.
• CARLSBAD CA 92011
I,
r PATRICK N HILLERY
I 532 CRESCENT PL
SAN MARCOS CA 92078
\.
r IV AN PAK NGUYEN-CUU

I IOI SCRUB JAY CT
CARLSBAD CA 920 i 1
'>
STOLPE FAMILY LI:VING TRUST
1113 SCRUBJAYCT
CARLSBAD CA 920 I 1

SHAWN RBERRY
I 1125 SCRUB JAY CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011
CARLSBAD PARK.SIDE HOMEOWNERS

ASSOCIATION
• UNIT200
I
r
I
I I
I
I
10721 TREENA ST
SAN DIEGO CA 92131

ALAN P & JESSICA D JANC
6587 RED KNOT ST
CARLSBAD CA 92011

JOHN R & SUZANNE CONGLETON
6560 RED KNOT ST
CARLSBAD CA 92011

THANH & SAW TINA LUU
6572 RED KNOT ST
CARLSBAD CA 92011

KINNEY TRUST
6584 RED KNOT ST
CARLSBAD CA 92011
VODV ARK.A TRUST
6596 RED KNOT ST
CARLSBAD CA 92011

TODD JACOBS
6589 SCAUP ST
CARLSBAD CA 920 11

KEVIN F & TIFF ANY K DUC
1105 SCRUB JAY CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011
MATTHEW & AZIZ! ASAL CALLAHAN
1117 SCRUB JAY CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011

ROBERT W ODONNELL
1129 SCRUB JAY CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011
'
I
I
, RANDALL J & CATI BRENDA K HOFFIUS
1133 SCRUB JAY CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011
' SUMIT & ANITEI IRINA

BHATTACHARYA
r
l
I
I
I
l
r
6552 RED KNOT ST
CARLSBAD CA 92011

PATEL FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST
6564 RED KNOT ST
CARLSBAD CA 92011

SAUERWINE REVOCABLE LIVING
TRUST
6576 RED KNOT ST
CARLSBAD CA 92011

SAIED & FATEMIAN ZOHREH MOEZZI
6588 RED KNOT ST
CARLSBAD CA 92011

KEVIN & VICTORIA B MUSBACH
6581 SCAUP ST
CARLSBAD CA 92011

HO FAMILY TRUST
6593 SCAUP ST
CARLSBAD CA 92011

SHAWN M & TARA A QUESNELL
1109 SCRUB JAY CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011

DAILEY ANITA J FAMILY TRUST
1121 SCRUB JAY CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011

PATRICK C & MELANIE P WESCOTT
1122 SCRUB JAY CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011
~

HA VEY FAMILY TRUST
1118 SCRUB JAY CT
CARLSBAD CA 920 11

F J MEHDIABADI TRUST
6586 SCAUP ST
CARLSBAD CA 9201 1
AVERY-WONG FAMILY 2008 LIVING
TRUST
2828 LIDO PL
CARLSBAD CA 92008

SHEILA CREAL
6561 SCAUP ST
CARLSBAD CA 92011

EDWARD & BARBEAU KATHERINE
SNOW
6573 SCAUP ST
CARLSBAD CA 9201 1

CHONG & SUN LI ZHAO
1243 MARIPOSA RD
CARLSBAD CA 920 i I

RICKY & LYNN TANG LO
6566 SCAUP ST
CARLSBAD CA 9201 1

GC MAPPING SERVICE INC PP
3055 W VALLEY CENTER BLVD
I ALHAMBRACA9 1803
I
' I
\
r
I
I
I '
I I
I

SCHULTZ FAMILY TRUST
6594 SCAUP ST
CARLSBAD CA 920 11

KRAMER FAMILY TRUST
1114 DOWITCHER CT
CARLSBAD CA 920 11

HAOBIN & LI XUEMEI LUO
1102 DOWITCHER CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011

JARED D & MEGAN J RICHARDS
6565 SCAUP ST
CARLSBAD CA 920 11

LIMSICO CHAD & WENDY REVOCABLE

LIVING TRUST
6577 SCAUP ST
CARLSBAD CA 920 11

PERERA RANJAN & ANNE REVOCABLE
2006 TRUST
5366 HORTON LN
ORLANDO FL 32814

I I MICHAEL A & MONIKA KRUPNAK
6562 SCAUP ST
CARLSBAD CA 920 11

WESLEY L & SANDY D TALICH
6590 SCAUP ST
' CARLSBAD CA 92011
I I

DENNIS D & GRETCHEN M ASHTON
1204 ABELIA A VE
CARLSBAD CA 92011

JAMES A & TRISHA L SCHULTE
6557 SCAUP ST
CARLSBAD CA 92011

SHAHAB & GOLMAKANI MARZIEH K
KARIMI
UNIT27
, 16755 COYOTE BUSH DR
I SANDIEGOCA92127
'

BRANDON COOLEY
6582 SCAUP ST
CARLSBAD CA 92011

ROGERS LIVING TRUST
UNIT 33
6570 SCAUP ST
I I CARLSBAD CA 92011
J I
(
i
I I
I I
I
I
I I
MD7LLC

TARA CARMICHAEL
SUITE 250
10590 W OCEAN AIR DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92130

PROCEDURES

1. Public Hearing opened

2. Staff Presentation

3. City Council questions on staff presentation

4. Appellant presentation (10 Min)

5. City Council opportunity to ask questions of
appellant

6. Applicant presentation (10 Min)

7. City Council opportunity to ask questions of
applicant

8. Input from public

9. Staff, Applicant, and Appellant response (if
necessary)

10. City Council discussion

11. City Council vote

12. Public hearing closed
( City of
Carlsbad
Poinsettia Park WCF (AT&T)
Cliff Jones, Principal Planner
Kyle Van Leeuwen, Associate Planner
Community Development Department
Curtis Jackson, Real Estate Manager
Community Services Department
April 16, 2024
CUP 2022-0023/CDP 2022-0070

2 ITEM 13
 Background of Wireless Communication Facility
Regulations
 Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996
 City Council Policy No. 64
 Project Overview
 Issues Cited in Appeal
3 TONIGHT’S PRESENTATION
( City of
Carlsbad
ITEM 13
Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 allows a city to regulate the placement, construction, and modification of wireless communication facilities (WCFs).

Restrictions:
 May not favor any carrier
 May not prevent completion of a network
 WCF applications processed in a reasonable time
4 BACKGROUND – FEDERAL LAW
( City of
Carlsbad
ITEM 13
Restrictions (cont’d.):
 Cannot deny WCF application because of perceived radio frequency health hazards
 Decision to deny WCF application must be supported by substantial evidence
5 BACKGROUND – FEDERAL LAW
( City of
Carlsbad
ITEM 13
Purpose:
 Developed to comply with Federal Law (est. 2001)
 Guide the public, applicants, boards and commissions, and staff in reviewing the placement, construction, and
modification of WCFs
6 BACKGROUND – POLICY 64
( City of
Carlsbad
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
If a WCF application complies, it is recommended for approval. 7 BACKGROUND – POLICY 64
ITEM 13
( City of
Carlsbad
8 ITEM 13:

City Council Policy 64
Location Guidelines fo r Placement of WCFs (excluding SWFs}

1. Preferred Locations - WCFs are encouraged to locate on exist ing bui ldings and struct ures.

In addit ion, WCFs should be located in the follo wing zones and areas, whic h are listed in order of descend ing preference:
a. Industrial zones.
b. Commercial zones.
c. Other non-res ident ial zones, except open space.
d. Public right-of-way of roads adjacent to industr ial and commercia l zones and identifie d on the map attached as Exhibit A .
e. Public property (e.g., city facilities) not in resident ial areas. f. Major power transmission towers in non-residential zones or areas. g. Public and private utility installations (not publicly accessible) in residentia l and open space zones (e.g., wat er tanks, reservoirs, or the existing communication towers near Maerkle Reservoir).
h. Parks and community facilit ies (e.g., places of worship, community centers) in resident ial zones or areas.
i. Public right-of -way of roads adjacent to resident ial zones and ident if ied on the map attache d as Exhibit A.

2. Discouraged Locations - WCFs should not locat e in any of the follo win g zones or areas unless the applicant demonst rates that alternat ives in more-preferred locat ions are not techn ica lly feasible or potent ially availab le as requ ired by Appl ication and Review Guideline E.3.
a. Open space zones and lots (except as noted in Location Guideline A.1.). b. Resident ial zones or areas (except as noted in Location Guideline A.1). c. Major powe r transm ission towers in corr idors located in/or next to a resident ial zone or area.
d. Environm entally sensitive habitat.
e. Public right -of-way of roads not ident ified on the map attached as Exh ibit A . f. On vacant land.
{ City of
Carlsbad
ITEM 13: APPEAL
9 9
• This appeal is de novo, meaning that the matter is being heard “anew” The City Council shall consider only the evidence presented to the Planning Commission prior to the decision
• The burden of proof is on the appellant to establish substantial evidence
Appeal Information
{ City of
Carlsbad
ITEM 13: APPEAL
10 10
• Grounds are limited to if there was an error or abuse of discretion or that the decision was not supported by the facts
• City Council may uphold, uphold in part, or reverse the decision that is subject of the appeal.

Appeal Information(cont’d.)
{ City of
Carlsbad
ITEM 13: APPEAL
11 11
• (…) grounds for appeal shall be limited to the following: that there was an error or abuse of discretion on the part of the planning commission in that the decision was not supported by the facts presented to the planning commission prior to the decision being appealed; or that there was not a fair and impartial hearing. (…)
CMC 21.54.150
{ City of
Carlsbad
12 ITEM 13: PROJECT LOCATION
DEV 2022-0206
8 0 90 180 360 540
{ City of
Carlsbad
ITEM 13: Proposed Project
CUP/CDP: Wireless Communication Facility
(WCF)
• New 78’ tall light pole
• 6 panel antennas
• Equipment screened by 4’ radius radome
• Equipment Enclosure
{ city of
Carlsbad
14 ITEM 13: Proposed Project
(P) AT&T ANT£NNAS & RRUS
ON (P) 78'-0"TAU. UClHT POL£.

SEE PLAN ON SHEET 2'
(E) GROUND ELEVATION AT TiiE (P}
POLE LOCATION = AMSL (151.
(P} ABER/DC POWER TRENCH
(APPROX. 45•
~mo"'\..
~ POLE.

H
R
s
TYP.
tJO· HIGH TREr
fl f! i! l ! .. I 1-• I I.
f!
ljen
1,
Ji
•
(E) CATE
(E) tJ5" HIGH TREr ACCESS~
() CONaITTE
SWALE r,,\.
·NCLOSURE
L.K;l{T POI.£.

TYP.
(P) AT&T CMU WAU.

ENCLOSURE, SEE EOUIPMENT
PLAN ON SHEET Z3
I
I
0 0
\E) PARKING ~
◊
PROVIDE (2) BOLLARDS IN
l I STRFE.-TY'P. fflONTOFMETERPEOESTAL
" FOR PROTECTION
~ ,.__ •--•-~----1-4 - j- •-•-•- •-•-· _ ._,__ ,.._....._~ ----- ,__.,_ ....._.,_,_ .,___ _______ _ L.K;KT POLE,,
TYP. \
9LEACt€R,
TYP.
....

Carlsbad
15 ITEM 13: Proposed Project
€ 1a:
m';! 1rd ;!
IL
e :I! Q
'::i
~
~
:!~ ~~
;! &l ii:l =-~·~ ; -~ :::ci t w i !2. i~
::ii: 0::: .:Ii ' a:
ie

IIE IIE
~
0(tl
I o a::o ~ I.,! ffi r; ;;: ~~ ::m::u :;z: II.I :zw lj~ ':c Q~ ~ (ti ~ (ti ~ ~z ~ffi ~ ffi •~ IE
tiw ...,
~~
-~ IQ. -~ IQ. 11:L
·--~~ -~~
I!!:. I~~ 111. ~
ITEM 13: POLICY 64 COMPLIANCE

Review Guidelines
• Preferred Location
• “Stealth” Design – Consistent with Past Approvals
• Ground Equipment Properly Screened
• Compliant with Height and Setback Requirements
{ city of
Carlsbad
• January 17, 2024: Planning Commission
approves Conditional Use Permit and
Coastal Development Permit
• January 24, 2024: Appeal filed by Carlsbad
Residents Against Cell Towers in Parks
ITEM 13: APPEAL TIMELINE
17 ( City of
Carlsbad
Appeal Position:
• Viable Alternative Sites (More Preferred)
• Incomplete Site Study/Omitted Information
ITEM 13: APPEAL DETAILS
18 Staff Response:
• Requirement: A description of the site selection
process (…). Technical service objectives and the
reasons for selecting the proposed site and rejecting
other sites should be provided.
• 17 Alternative Sites Analyzed
• Appeal provides no other specific sites to evaluate
• Target area is primary Residential and Open Space
( City of
Carlsbad
Appeal Position:
• Cursory Attempt at Co-Location
• Small Cell (ROW) Option Not Explored
• Policy 64 Misinterpreted by Staff
ITEM 13: APPEAL DETAILS
19 Staff Response:
• Collocation: Limited opportunities in areas – No other sites identified
• ROW Option:
• Last on list of preferred locations
• Multiple sites required – Inconsistent with Policy
• -
( City of
Carlsbad
20 ITEM 13: APPEAL DETAILS

Appeal Position:
• Cursory Attempt at Co-Location
• Small Cell (ROW) Option Not Explored
• Policy 64 Misinterpreted by Staff
ITEM 13: APPEAL DETAILS
21 Staff Response:
• Collocation: Limited opportunities in areas – No other sites identified
• ROW Option:
• Last on list of preferred locations
• Multiple sites required – Inconsistent with Policy
• Staff Interpretation: Consistent with past approvals
( City of
Carlsbad
22 ITEM 13: Past Planning Commission Approvals
Trailblazer Park WCF
Verizon Army & Navy Athletic
Facility WCF
Verizon Carlsbad High School
WCF
Appeal Position:
• Aesthetic Requirements Not Met
• Noise Assessment is Questionable
ITEM 13: APPEAL DETAILS
23 Staff Response:
• No specific aesthetic requirement is cited by appeal
• Project includes stealth design and equipment is screened • Noise assessment letter stated wrong limit (60 dB not 55 dB) • Noise level determined, 53.8 dB, is compliant with 55 dB limit ( City of
Carlsbad
ITEM 13
24 SUMMARY:
• PC approved: Consistent with Policy 64
• Staff has evaluated the appeal; recommends denial of
appeal, upholding the PC decision
• The burden of proof is on the appellant to establish
substantial evidence:
• No specific examples of alternative sites
• No evidence of superior option
• No specific inconsistency of guidelines
( City of
Carlsbad
RECOMMENDED ACTION #1
Adopt the City Council Resolution denying the appeal
and upholding a decision of the Planning Commission
to approve a Minor Conditional Use Permit and Coastal
Development Permit.

ITEM 13
25 ( City of
Carlsbad

POINSETTIA

NEIGHBORHOODS
REJECT

APPROVAL OF
AT&T’S CELLULAR

MONOPOLE CUP
AGENDA ITEM #13
POINSETTIA PARK WCF CUP 2022- 0023

NORA JIMENEZ GEORGE, MCP , KEVIN FRITZ, THE COVE HOA, FRANK

SUNG, MARINERS POINT HOA
APRIL 16, 2024

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.

1.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.
(Council Policy 64 12/14/2021)

ENCINA

WASTEWATER

AUTHORITY

7/11

ALTAMIRA RV LOT

Fire Station 4

Co-location ..

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.

1.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.
(Council Policy 64 12/14/2021)

VISIBILITY TO THE PUBLIC

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.
(page 6 of 24 Council Policy 64)
CAL01850
POINSETTIA PARI<
6<i00 "A" HIDDEN VALLEY RD.,
CARLSBAD , CA 92011

TELECOM

MAN AGE M E N T G R OUP
:,,,i:;r. .. ,z;,,.,..:r:y.,,,,:-
~ ;:=======:....:============----J::~::::::::~------;P";------, ,:L::,...lt.,;1111~<; l·L"UI.JW:'
·1(1ra=.r.f. 1.1,c:'.-1rn
,:1::·,=:i;·-u•:m;: 1 .:.1c:1T
1•,,1;,.·,11 ,;1· !\1-\"i•V .I>
.'~K)t\1..:1'1.,\U::D
PLEASE REVERSE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF
POINSETTIA PARK WCF CUP 2022-0023
* Parks and Residential Areas are on TOP of DISCOURAGED LIST * Flawed Alternative Site Analysis
* Small Wireless Facility Option Available

THANK YOU
- - - - -
AT&T New Site Build
CAL01850
6600 Hidden Valley Rd., Carlsbad, CA
92011
April 2024

2PROPERTY OF MD7
Southeast View Looking Northwest

3PROPERTY OF MD7
Photo Simulation: Southeast View Looking Northwest

4PROPERTY OF MD7
East View Looking West

5PROPERTY OF MD7
Photo Simulation: East View Looking West

Conclusion
April 2024
AT&T Wireless is working to upgrade the network to meet the growing wireless communication demands in the City of
Carlsbad. The Planning Commission approved our proposal on 01/17/2024.

AT&T’s design is fully consistent with the City of Carlsbad’s zoning regulations. The proposed facility is designed to be the least intrusive, while fulfilling a significant coverage need.

For these reasons, we respectfully request that the appeal is denied, and the Planning Commission’s approval of AT&T’s Minor Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit is upheld.