Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council
March 2, 2026

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Contact: 831.620.2000 www.ci.carmel.ca.us
Mayor Dale Byrne
Councilmembers Jeff Baron, Hans Buder, Bob Delves, and
Alissandra Dramov
All meetings are held in the City Council Chambers
East Side of Monte Verde Street
Between Ocean and 7th Avenues
Special Meeting
Monday, March 2, 2026
3:00 PM

HYBRID MEETING ATTENDANCE OPTIONS
This meeting will be held in person and via teleconference ("hybrid"). The public is welcome to attend the meeting in person or remotely via Zoom, however, the meeting will proceed as normal even if there are technical difficulties accessing Zoom. The City will do its best to resolve any technical issues as quickly as possible. To view or listen to the meeting from home, you may also watch the live stream on the City's YouTube page at: https://www.youtube.com/@CityofCarmelbytheSea/streams. To participate in the meeting via Zoom, copy and paste the link below into your browser. https://ci-carmel-ca-us.zoom.us/j/88134597723
Webinar ID: 881 3459 7723
Passcode: 954379
Dial-in: (253) 215-8782

HOW TO OFFER PUBLIC COMMENT
The public may give public comment at this meeting in person, or use the Zoom teleconference module, provided that there is access to Zoom during the meeting. Zoom comments will be taken after the inperson comments. The public can also email comments to [email protected]. Comments must be received at least 2 hours before the meeting in order to be provided to the legislative body. Comments received after that time and up to the beginning of the meeting will be made part of the record.

PUBLIC COMMENT GUIDELINES FOR SPECIAL MEETINGS
During Special City Council Meetings, public comments are permitted on items listed on the agenda. After each item on the agenda is introduced, the Mayor will invite public comment on that item. Each speaker has 3 minutes to speak unless otherwise adjusted by the Mayor. While stating your name is optional, it helps to identify speakers in the meeting minutes. Remote or in-person participants who do not comply with the requirements of the Brown Act will be muted.

CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
TOUR OF INSPECTION – 3:00 PM
The City Council will conduct an on-site tour of inspection of the property listed on the agenda (below) and the public is invited to attend the tour. After the tour is complete, the Council will begin the meeting in the City Council Chambers no earlier than 3:30 p.m.

A. Tour Location - PG&E Utility Pole in front of Carmelo 4 southeast of 10th Avenue; Coordinates: 36.549328, -121.926906 (APP 26046 - Verizon Sequoia Deployment)

CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL - CHAMBERS 3:30 PM

PUBLIC HEARINGS
1) Resolution 2026-014 – Consideration of an Appeal (APP 26046, Verizon Sequoia Deployment) appealing the Planning Commission’s decision to deny a Use Permit, Design Review, and Coastal Development Permit for the construction of a Small Wireless Facility on a replacement PG&E pole in the public right of way in front of Carmelo Street 4 southeast of 10th Avenue in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) District.

RECESS
The City Council will take a 30-minute break around 6:30 p.m. if needed.

ADJOURNMENT
This agenda was posted at City Hall, Monte Verde Street between Ocean Avenue and 7th Avenue, Harrison Memorial Library, located on the NE corner of Ocean Avenue and Lincoln Street, the Carmel-bythe-Sea Post Office, 5th Avenue between Dolores Street and San Carlos Street, and the City's webpage (http://www.ci.carmel.ca.us) in accordance with applicable legal requirements.

CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED AFTER THE POSTING OF THE AGENDA Any correspondence or supplemental materials related to items on this agenda that are received after the agenda has been posted will be distributed to the City Council and made available for public review at City Hall (Monte Verde Street between Ocean and Seventh Avenues) during regular business hours. Written comments emailed to the City Clerk will not be read aloud, but will be posted online with the related agenda at: https://carmelbytheseaca.portal.civicclerk.com/.

SPECIAL NOTICES TO PUBLIC
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 831-620-2000 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to ensure that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting (28CFR

35.102-35.104 ADA Title II).

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
City Council
Staff Report
March 2, 2026

PUBLIC HEARINGS
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY: Jacob Olander, Associate Planner
APPROVED BY: Brandon Swanson, Acting City Administrator SUBJECT: Resolution 2026-014 – Consideration of an Appeal (APP 26046, Verizon Sequoia Deployment) appealing the Planning
Commission’s decision to deny a Use Permit, Design Review, and Coastal Development Permit for the construction of a Small Wireless Facility on a replacement PG&E pole in the public right of way in front of Carmelo Street 4 southeast of 10th Avenue in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) District.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council adopt a Resolution (Attachment 1):

1. Finding the project Statutorily Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15270(a) of the CEQA Guidelines (Projects Which Are Disapproved) which states that CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves;

2. Denying an Appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny a Use Permit, Design Review, and Coastal Development Permit for the construction of a Small Wireless Facility on a replacement PG&E utility pole in the public right-of-way in front of Carmelo Street 4 southeast of 10th Avenue in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) District; and

3. Denying a Use Permit, Design Review, and Coastal Development Permit for the construction of a Small Wireless Facility on a replacement PG&E utility pole in the public right-of-way in front of Carmelo Street 4 Southeast of 10th Avenue.

BACKGROUND / SUMMARY:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On February 10, 2026, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2026-002-PC denying a Use Permit, Design Review, and Coastal Development Permit to allow the construction of a Small Wireless Facility on a replacement PG&E utility pole located within the Carmelo Street right-of-way. On February 13, 2026, the appellant (Sequoia Deployment Services Inc., on behalf of Verizon Wireless aka Sequoia Development/Verizon) filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the requested entitlements. As discussed in detail within the “Staff Analysis” section below, the appellant contends that the denial violated the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, Federal Communications Commission regulations, and California Public Utilities Code Section 7901. The appellant further asserts that the denial was not supported by the Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code, General Plan, or Administrative Detailed Wireless Facility Design Guidelines.

BACKGROUND AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council adopted the current wireless ordinance in 2023 to address changes in state and federal law and it was certified by the Coastal Commission in June 2025. This item before the Council is the first Type III wireless application that the City has received since the 2025 ordinance went into effect.

The DR 25313 & UP 25314 (Sequoia Development/Verizon) applications were submitted October 15, 2025, for the construction of a Small Wireless Facility on a replacement PG&E utility pole in the public right-of-way in front of Carmelo Street 4 southeast of 10th Avenue. Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code (CMC) Section

17.46.050.A.1.a requires a “Type III” Conditional Use Permit application for proposed Small Wireless Facilities on replacement poles, which includes Design Review and a Coastal Development permit, if applicable. The application included requests for two special exceptions because the facility was proposed to be located within the right of way in the R1 zone and within 5 feet of a residential window.

Actions Prior to Public Hearings
The application materials were posted on the city website on October 15, 2025. City staff posted the notice of filing for the wireless facility application on site and hand delivered notices January 6, 2026, inadvertently exceeding the requirement contained in CMC Section 17.46.070.A.1, which requires noticing within 5 days of application filing. However, the initial website posting and outreach, meeting and corresponding with residents and providing information about the application received achieved the intent of this CMC section.

Subsequent to posting of the Sequoia Deployment/Verizon, application materials on the city website and other outreach, the city has received correspondence from concerned residents. City staff met with these residents to discuss the application and understand their concerns. In summary, the residents did not think that the project met the CMC (placement of the wireless facility in a residentially zoned district and within 5 feet of a residential window), the facility, as proposed, was not aesthetically pleasing nor aligned

with Carmel-by-the-Sea’s character, there was lack of demonstration of a significant coverage gap, and the loss to property values. Additionally, residents raised concerns about how approval of the project would result in the proliferation of similar facilities.

The residents also raised concerns about the technology being proposed. They pointed out that broadband or data services do not have the same protection as telecommunication services and asked if the city would be able to require wireless companies to propose facilities that would only be used for telecommunications services and not broadband/data services as well. City staff confirmed with the residents that the application is for wireless telecommunication services facilities.

Subsequently, City staff confirmed with the city’s special counsel that “47 USC Section 332(c)(7)” applies to personal wireless facilities used to provide commingled wireless services (both telephone and broadband/data). As recently as 2018, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), in its Restoring Internet Freedom order, reaffirmed that Section 332(c)(7), which establishes certain procedural and substantive limits on local wireless facility siting, applies to facilities that are used for commingled services. Section 332(c)(7). For example, no local government may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the FCC’s regulations concerning such emissions. Additionally, this federal law does not allow local regulation of personal wireless service facilities to prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. The City’s special counsel confirmed that the city cannot require wireless providers to only use their facilities to provide telecommunications services and not commingled services.

In accordance with CMC Section 17.46.060.B, the City enlisted technical assistance from a professional consultant, CTC Telecommunications Network Consulting (CTC), to conduct an independent analysis of the existing coverage and performance of Verizon’s network in the area of proposed service, the proposed wireless facility components, drive test data and performed an independent Radio Frequency (RF) emissions exposure analysis. (See report titled “Review of the Application of Verizon Wireless to Install a New Small Wireless Facility”, prepared by CTC Telecommunications Network Consulting, dated January 2026). With the information available at that time, CTC’s report concluded that a coverage gap exists, installation of the proposed facility would reduce low-band traffic resulting in fewer dropped calls, provide mid-band coverage, provide current generation of 5G transmission, would provide only mid-band Verizon wireless service and would fully comply with FCC regulations for RF emissions exposure levels.

Planning Commission Hearings
The project was scheduled for hearing at the January 21, 2026, Planning Commission meeting. Prior to commencement of the hearing, a large volume of correspondence, technical information, and legal arguments were received. As recommended by staff, the Planning Commission took testimony from staff, the applicant and the public, and continued the hearing on the project to a date certain of February 4, 2026 to allow

additional time for staff and the Commission to consider the additional information.

On January 30, 2026, the day the staff report was scheduled to be published, staff received additional technical reports from the applicant as well as additional correspondence from the public. Therefore, staff recommended the Commission grant an additional continuance to allow staff, CTC and the Commission sufficient time to analyze and consider the new information. The Commission continued the February 4, 2026, hearing to February 10, 2026.

At the February 10, 2026, Planning Commission meeting, the Commission adopted Resolution No. 2026-002-PC and denied the application as recommended by city staff.

Testimony was received from the applicants, residents, and associated technical and legal representation. The Planning Commission determined that the applicant did not meet its burden to be granted the special exceptions for effective prohibition under federal law. Under the significant gap/least intrusive means test, the proposed small wireless facility on a replacement PG&E utility pole was not the least intrusive means to address Verizon’s alleged coverage gap. The Commission also found the applicant did not meet the materially inhibits standard for federal effective prohibition, and denial would not violate the applicant’s state law franchise. Additionally, because the site did not meet the findings for special exceptions, they found that the project did not conform with the municipal code, general plan, and design guidelines. The decision notice was sent to the applicant, posted on site, and hand delivered to neighbors within 100 feet of the project site on February 11, 2026.

Filing of Appeal
On February 13, 2026, the applicant filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision on the Sequoia Development/Verizon application to the City Council (see Attachment 2) which outlines reasons they believe a denial of their application violates state and federal laws. The applicant summarizes, “denial violated federal and state telecommunications law, including the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, Federal Communications Commission regulations, and California Public Utilities Code Section 7901. Further, the denial was not supported by the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code, General Plan, or Administrative Detailed Wireless Facility Design Guidelines.” This was supplemented by a letter dated February 24, 2026 from the applicant’s attorney outlining additional reasons for the appeal. The applicant also submitted new evidence in the form of more technical reports and a third response to comments and issues. Staff obtained two additional reports for CTC to evaluate Verizon’s new evidence. Below, staff provides an analysis of each of the claims by the applicant in their appeal.

In summary, there is an argument, supported by facts, that the Golden Bough Theater could be a technically viable and less intrusive location for a wireless facility to address Verizon’s alleged coverage gap. Due to this potential, and the lack of supporting data from the applicant clearly demonstrating that the Golden Bough site is not viable, as well as staff’s analysis of the merits of Verizon’s other appeal claims and new evidence, and CTC’s evaluation of it, it is staff’s recommendation that the City Council deny the

appeal (see draft Resolution in Attachment 1).

1. Claim: The Denial of the Project is in Violation of Federal Law Because the Decision is Not Supported by Substantial Evidence.

U.S Code Title 47, Chapter 5, subchapter III, Part I, section 332.c.7.B.iii, states that any decision by a State or local government or instrumentality thereof to deny a request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record.

In making this claim, Verizon observed that the Planning Commission’s denial focused on the Golden Bough alternative being technically feasible and available. Verizon argues that they have met their burden for granting the requested special exceptions by providing ample evidence that the Golden Bough Theater is not a feasible alternative to fill their coverage gap in service and the City has not provided substantial evidence to rebut Verizon’s evidence and testimony. The applicant separately made a claim that denial would be an effective prohibition (below Claim 3) and also provided new evidence regarding Golden Bough after filing its appeal. Further discussion of the Golden Bough alternative is below in Claim 3. Further discussion of the other Planning Commission findings that Verizon disputes is below in Claim 5.

Staff Analysis:

See Staff Analysis under Claim 3.

2. Claim: The Denial of the Project is in Violation of Federal Law Contained in U.S. Code section 332, - Dictation of Technology.

Verizon’s attorney presented an argument that because the Golden Bough Theater Macro Design would require a different technology than the proposed small wireless facility, the denial of their small wireless facility would violate federal telecommunication law by dictating the technology Verizon would use to provide service. Verizon relies on a single case (New York SMSA Ltd. Partnership v. Town of Clarkstown, 612 F.3d 97, 105-107 (2nd Circuit 2010)) to suggest that the city cannot require Verizon to consider a macro facility alternative on Golden Bough.

Staff Analysis:

Verizon chose to provide a report by PierCon that showed the macro design for the Golden Bough Theater that showed it would be a technically feasible way to address the alleged coverage gap. The case Verizon relies on is not applicable to Verizon’s obligation to provide a comprehensive alternatives analysis to support its effective prohibition claim. The Clarkstown case involved a claim that a wireless ordinance was facially preempted by federal law because it legislated a preference for certain technologies. That case recognized that local governments can reject an application on the grounds of least intrusive means that involved other technologies or sites. More recent cases also support the view that least intrusive means alternatives analysis need not be limited only to technologies and locations of the applicant’s choosing. To the contrary, the court cases provide that the alternatives analysis must be comprehensive.

Additionally, Verizon has included alternative technologies and a variety of locations in

the right of way and on parcels and buildings in other analyses. Two recent examples are: GTE Mobilnet of California Ltd. P'ship d/b/a Verizon Wireless v. City of Berkeley, No. 20-CV-05460-DMR, 2023 WL 2648197, at *26 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2023) (Verizon’s alternatives analysis evaluated ten alternative sites for the proposed facility: a microcell network, three façade-and roof-mounted facilities, and six freestanding tower facilities.); and Cellco Partnership, d/b/a Verizon Wireless v. White Deer Township Zoning Hearing Board, 74 F.4th 96 at 101 (2023 3rd Circuit) (Verizon considered several alternatives to the proposed site on a privately owned parcel within the service gap, including using other wireless facilities, building a tower in a distant agricultural district, erecting a smaller tower, using a Distributed Antenna System instead of a monopole and using a Pennsylvania Department of Transportation facility). And as noted, Verizon also did so here with its discussion of small cell and macro options on private property at Golden Bough.

Staff does not recommend approving Verizon’s appeal on the basis of this claim.

3. Claim: The Denial of the Project is in Violation of Federal Law Contained in U.S. Code section 332, – Prohibition of Service and Materially Inhibit Verizon.

U.S Code Title 47, Chapter 5, subchapter III, Part I, section 332.c.7, states nothing in Chapter 5 shall limit or affect the authority of local governments except decisions cannot prohibit or effectively prohibit the provision of personal wireless service. There are two tests for effective prohibition in the Ninth Circuit: (1) significant gap/least intrusive means and (2) materially inhibits standard applicable to small cells. Verizon claims that denial of the application would constitute a prohibition of service under the first test because they have a significant gap in service and their proposed site is the least intrusive means to fill their coverage gap. They further state that denial would materially inhibit their ability to, “introduce new 5G services, improve existing service, and densify the network.”
Staff Analysis:

Effective Prohibition Claim.

The significant gap/least intrusive means test requires the applicant to show that (1) a “significant gap” in the applicant’s service coverage exists; and (2) the proposed facility was the “least intrusive means” to mitigate the significant gap, having considered alternatives.[1] The Ninth Circuit defines the “least intrusive means” as the technically feasible and potentially available alternative site that most closely conforms to the local values that would be upheld by a denial.[2] The materially inhibits standard provides that “a state or local legal requirement constitutes an effective prohibition if it materially limits or inhibits the ability of any competitor or potential competitor to compete in a fair and balanced legal and regulatory environment.”[3] This test also applies “not only when filling a coverage gap but also when densifying a wireless network, introducing new services or otherwise improving service capabilities.”[4] The applicant relies on the PierCon reports (including drive test data) to demonstrate that there are significant gaps in reliable network coverage (due to a combination of service coverage gaps in some bands and poor signal quality in available service) and

capacity in the area, and the facility is needed to address the gaps, improve existing services and add 5G service. The applicant relies on the Alternatives Analysis to demonstrate that the applicant’s preferred location is the least intrusive means to address the identified service deficiencies. The Alternatives Analysis explains why there were no viable options in the City’s preferred zones, for collocation, or for placement of a facility on private property that could address the identified service deficiencies. The PierCon report examined 40 utility poles in the service gap area for viable poles and found the majority were not feasible, would not meet code requirements or presented other technical issues. The Alternatives Analysis reviewed 28 utility poles in the right-of-way (including the pole proposed for use) and explained why most poles were technically infeasible primarily because placement is not allowed by PG&E standards (alternatives 2-16). While the applicants Alternatives Analysis shows there are other poles that are technically feasible and available (including some that would comply with Sec. 17.46.040.E.2.a), each of these poles is more intrusive than the applicant’s preferred pole because they were less compliant with the City’s wireless standards overall (alternatives 17-28). CTC’s first report confirmed the applicant’s technical claims about service quality issues, service gaps and the lack of collocation alternatives. Staff confirmed the preferred pole was the most Codecompliant available option among the 28 alternatives in the public right-of-way. Thus, the applicant had demonstrated that it meets these exceptions finding under the Ninth Circuit’s significant gap/least intrusive means standard for effective prohibition.

Based on the information received in the PierCon Supplemental Report #2 after the January 21, 2026, Planning Commission meeting, their Supplemental Report #3 received on February 10, 2026, and their Supplemental Report #4 dated February 23, 2026, the City Council must determine if the Applicant has met its burden to demonstrate that a macro site at the Golden Bough is not a technically feasible and available alternative to the proposed small wireless facility.

City contracted engineering firm CTC performed modeling for the macro design on the Golden Bough Theater. Based on their modeling, the Golden Bough would be able to address the alleged coverage gap. The report identifies that the tree trunk and branches would not have a significant impact on mid-band frequency antennas; however, could potentially cause issues for high frequency bands. Additionally, on February 20, 2026, city staff provided a letter to Sequoia Deployment Service, Inc., stating that the city would be able to work with the owners of the Golden Bough Theater to trim the branches that would cause signal attenuation. The Planning Commission found that Verizon has not provided sufficient evidence to show that the Golden Bough Theater is not a technically viable location to address the alleged coverage gap.

CTC reviewed PierCon’s Supplemental Report #4 and found the report did not provide sufficient evidence to support the need for the proposed small wireless facility to address their alleged coverage gap. First, the area of the alleged coverage gap is different in this report than in previous reports provided. Further, the architecture of Verizon’s proposed network is not a factor in the city’s consideration of their application.

The Golden Bough Theater has been shown in CTC’s modeling to be a technically

feasible location for addressing Verizon’s alleged service gap.

CTC provided modeling of the macro design at the Golden Bough Theater and determined that it would be a technically feasible site for addressing Verizon’s alleged coverage gap, although they did not have access to the data from Verizon to preform uplink modeling. However, their downlink modeling showed that midband coverage provided by a macro design at the Golden Bough Theater would be able to sufficiently address inbuilding coverage concerns. CTC noted that Verizon provided uplink analysis in this report instead of the downlink analysis provided in previous reports.

CTC states that downlink modeling is the common tool for network analysis, as opposed to uplink modeling. They also questioned why Verizon did not provide analysis for any downtiltdown-tilt between 2 and 8 degrees.

If the City Council determines that concerns raised about network geometry, near-field vegetation obstruction, extended propagation causing inter-cell interference, and uncertainty regarding availability of the Golden Bought Theater making the theater location technically infeasible then the applicant has presented appropriate information to make a finding that Golden Bough is technical infeasibility.

If the City Council determines that the Applicant has not demonstrated adequately that the Golden Bough Theater is technically infeasible, then this finding cannot be made because the Theater would require less special exceptions to the CMC, making it the least intrusive means of addressing the coverage gap. CTC has confirmed that the modeling shows that the configuration shown in the PierCon Supplemental Report #2 shows that the Golden Bough Theater is technically viable.

As further bases for rejecting the Golden Bough as the least intrusive alternative, in its February 24, 2026 third volume of responses, the applicant questioned whether Golden Bough owner would even lease its property to Verizon, claimed the cost would be higher than its preferred alternative, and that a facility at Golden Bough would have greater historical resource impacts. These arguments are also not convincing. The evidence in the record shows that as recent as February 25, 2026, the Golden Bough representative confirmed to the city by email that it remains willing to negotiate a lease.

Verizon has chosen to incur the cost to place macro facilities on roof-tops within Carmel. Further, the Golden Bough would only require one special exception, for height, and therefore is more compatible with CMC Chapter 17.46. The need for historic review does not make the Golden Bough location more intrusive; there is no evidence that a properly designed installation could not meet the city’s historic review requirements.

As the governing body, the City Council must determine, ultimately, if they are able to make this finding based on the evidence and analysis presented. As previously stated, it is recommended that the Council deny Verizon’s appeal because staff’s opinion, based on analysis of the data, is that the Golden Bough is available, technically feasible and the least intrusive alternative.

Materially Inhibits Standard.

This test for effective prohibition has only recently been applied to wireless facilities and there is less guidance available from the courts. According to the FCC, the materially inhibits standard provides that “a state or local legal requirement constitutes an effective prohibition if it materially limits or inhibits the ability of any competitor or potential competitor to compete in a fair and balanced legal and regulatory environment.”[5] The FCC states this test applies “not only when filling a coverage gap but also when densifying a wireless network, introducing new services or otherwise improving service capabilities.”[6] Some courts have found that the “materially inhibits” standard requires the “totality of the circumstances” to be considered.[7] One court stated the relevant criteria are a demonstration of “insufficiency of coverage, a lack of alternatives available to a proposed site; unreasonable costs imposed on, or asked of, the carrier; and unreasonable delay in making the decision.”[8] The court went on to say: “No one element is likely decisive, and a combination of these factors could ‘add up’ to material inhibition, but a carrier’s need for a tower and the availability of other sites may well be particularly significant.”[9] Finally, the same court emphasized “even the FCC’s new, lenient standard requires a showing of material – not de minimis – inhibition; in other words, the effective-prohibition test is not toothless.”[10] That court determined the evidence showed another location was technologically and economically feasible and thus the denial did not materially inhibit the carrier’s ability to provide wireless services.[11]
To meet this standard, the applicant must show that the denial of its application would materially inhibit the applicant’s ability to compete in a fair and balanced legal and regulatory environment considering the totality of the circumstances such as insufficiency of coverage, a lack of available alternatives, unreasonable costs imposed on the applicant and unreasonable delay in making the decision. The applicant has not met this standard for the following reasons. As discussed above, there is an available alternative at Golden Bough. The applicant’s attorney argues in the letter dated February 24, 2026 that it would have to spend many times more if it had to “relocate” to Golden Bough than to be on its preferred location on a utility pole in the right of way.

However, the argument creates a false comparison because it assumes Verizon has the unfettered right to place facilities in the right of way, and that is not correct. As the California Supreme Court has held, the telephone franchise allowing the applicant rentfree use of the right of way under Pub. Util. Code 7901 “is not absolute” but rather it is a “limited right to use the highways ... only to the extent necessary for the furnishing of services to the public.” T-Mobile W. LLC v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 6 Cal. 5th 1107, 1121 (2019). Where there is a viable option to furnish services from sites outside of the right of way, right of way use is not necessary. Additionally, it is common knowledge that the applicant has placed facilities on parcels that require payment of rent and incur other costs elsewhere in Carmel and beyond. Doing so in this instance would be nothing unusual or extraordinary. The applicant’s argument regarding delay is also unconvincing. Verizon claims to have spent the time since the city adopted the new wireless ordinance studying the complex requirements before submitting its application. However, another plausible explanation for Verizon’s delay in submitting its application is that it was waiting for the opportunity to try to convince the California

Coastal Commission that provisions of the ordinance it did not like should be changed.

Only once that attempt failed, did Verizon submit an application. Further, all applications for wireless facilities are subject to FCC shot clocks. An application for a facility on Golden Bough would be a colocation with a 90 day shot clock for action, the same time period as the small cell on a replacement pole the applicant did request.

If the City Council finds that given the totality of the circumstances, the Applicant has met its burden under this standard, the special exceptions should be granted. Staff’s recommendation is that the applicant did not meet the burden for a special exception to be granted under the materially inhibits standard.

Also see analysis in Special Exceptions Findings section of the attached draft Resolution (Attachment 1).

4. Claim: The Denial of the Project is in Violation of Verizon’s Statewide Franchise Right (California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Section 7901).

Verizon claims that the denial of the application violates California Public Utilities Code Section 7901, “which grants telephone corporations a statewide franchise right to place their equipment along any public right-of-way.” The Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code’s location preferences listing R-1 zoned portions of the public right-of-way as highly incompatible and the Planning Commission’s denial of the proposed site due to the Golden Bough Theater being a less intrusive location deprives Verizon Wireless of its rights under CPUC Section 7901.

Staff Analysis:

The applicant need only demonstrate one basis for this exception finding but has offered a second with regard to CMC Section 17.46.040.E.1.a’s restriction of facilities in the R-1 zone right-of-way. The applicant makes brief legal arguments that denial of the application would violate its statutory franchise to use the public rights-of-way (Pub.

Util. Code Section 7901) because that law preempts CMC Section 17.46.040.E.1.a’s restriction on facilities in the R-1 zone right-of way. Verizon Wireless made a similar facial preemption claim during the City’s wireless ordinance adoption process and before the California Coastal Commission. The City has repeatedly disagreed that this ordinance provision is facially preempted by state law. Rather than conflicting with Section 7901, specifying areas for heightened review due to particular attributes of the area is consistent with the City’s authority under Section 7901 to ensure placements do not “incommode” the public use. Further, as the California Supreme Court has held, the telephone franchise allowing the applicant rent-free use of the right of way under Pub. Util. Code 7901 “is not absolute” but rather it is a “limited right to use the highways ... only to the extent necessary for the furnishing of services to the public.” T-Mobile W.

LLC v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 6 Cal. 5th 1107, 1121 (2019). Where there is a viable option to furnish services from sites outside of the right of way, right of way use is not necessary. Therefore, the applicant has not provided adequate justification for this exception finding simply by repeating its assertion that the restriction itself violates state law.

See analysis in Special Exceptions Findings section of the attached draft Resolution (Attachment 1) and below in the staff report.

5. Claim: The Proposed Project is Consistent with the Required Findings for Approval
Verizon disagrees with the Planning Commission's findings that the proposal conflicts with the city's General Plan (see Mackenzie and Albritton Letter Received February 24, 2026, Attachment 8). They maintain that the General Plan is largely silent on wireless facilities but does explicitly recognize the community benefit of improved communications infrastructure. Verizon notes that the only General Plan policy requiring an alternatives analysis applies exclusively to changes to historic resources, which Verizon claims is irrelevant to its project. Consequently, Verizon argues there is no evidence of non-compliance with the General Plan.

Verizon disagrees with the Planning Commission's finding that the facility would set a precedent for future applications as improper and speculative. Verizon argues that speculative fears regarding future applications do not constitute substantial evidence for denial, noting that any subsequent application would face its own exhaustive review.

They contend that denying a facility in the Single Family Residential (R-1) zone based on these fears would effectively serve as an unlawful prohibition of service, given that the majority of the city is zoned R-1.

Verizon refutes the Planning Commission's findings on public safety and welfare concerning a potential "fall zone" hazard for the nearby residence. Verizon points out that the Commission provided no evidence that the replacement pole would fall.

Verizon’s structural engineering report shows that the proposed PG&E replacement utility pole and small wireless facility would meet all safety standards. Additionally, Verizon notes that both PG&E and the City would inspect the installation to confirm it is structurally sound.

Verizon states that the proposed small cell will not harm the nearby tree. A PG&E arborist confirmed that replacing the utility pole will not adversely affect the tree's root structure because the new pole will be inserted into the exact same hole as the existing 70-year-old pole. Verizon mentions that the city code regulations on placing poles in drip lines of tree only applies to newly installed poles, not replacement poles.

Verizon argues the proposed small cell will have no impact on historic homes. While the Commission noted the pole's proximity to a private property designated on the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources, Verizon emphasizes that the proposed small wireless facility will be situated on a standard utility pole in the public right-of-way.

Verizon insists the project does not require review by the Historic Resources Board or compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for historic properties because the utility pole itself is not a historic resource.

Finally, Verizon characterizes the Commission's concerns about adverse visual impacts and scenic disruption as vague and lacking substantial evidence. Verizon states the

photo simulations of the small wireless facility show that it will have minimal visual impact, as the pole-top antenna will be viewed against the sky without obstructing highly scenic coastal views. Verizon asserts the equipment shroud will be placed low on the pole and screened by an existing tree, arguing the installation will seamlessly blend with the existing utility infrastructure that already lines the street.

Staff Analysis:

Consistency with General Plan.

The proposed small wireless facility is not consistent with Administrative Detailed Wireless Design Guidelines because the proposed accessory equipment exceeds the maximum of 17 cubic feet of allowable volume, and it therefore is not consistent with the General Plan. The Administrative Detailed Wireless Design Guidelines are a California Coastal Commission certified element of the Carmel-by-the-Sea Local Coastal Program, which is an element of the Carmel-by-the-Sea General Plan.

Future Application Speculation.

The proposed use does not comply with General Use Permit Findings 1, 2, and 3. As demonstrated in the above section and in the attached draft Resolution (Attachment 1), the project does not comply with the Administrative Detailed Wireless Design Guidelines, and therefore General Use Permit Findings 1 and 3 cannot be made. The proposed use does not meet the required findings for special exceptions because the applicant has failed to prove that the denial of the application would violate their rights under Federal or State Law, and because the deviations are not minor deviations that would make the site achieve design objectives as well, or better than, would be achieved through strict adherence to CMC Section 17.46. Further analysis of the required Findings for Use Permits Findings 1, 2, and 3 can be found in the attached draft Resolution (Attachment 1).

Fall Zone.

While the Planning Commission included Fall Zone concerns in their evidence for not being able to make Use Permit Finding 5, the Fall Zone requirements outlined in the CMC Section 17.46 are only applicable to proposed wireless facilities on Towers on private parcels. Use Permit Finding 5 can be made as the site will not be injurious to public health, safety, and welfare.

See analysis in Special Exceptions Findings section of the attached draft Resolution (Attachment 1) and below in the staff report.

Tree Impact.

While the Planning Commission included impact on nearby tree concerns in their evidence for not being able to make Use Permit Finding 7, CMC Section

17.46.040.F.1.f applies to proposed new structures in the dripline of trees, or that would disrupt existing landscaping or hardscape. The applicant has proposed to replace a PG&E utility pole that is already in the dripline of a tree and is not in hardscape or landscaping. Use Permit Finding 7 can be made as the site will not have adverse impacts on public health, safety, and welfare.

Historic Resources.

While the Planning Commission included impacts to the adjacent historic property in their evidence for not being able to make Use Permit Finding 6, the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Historic Preservation do not have any standards related to small wireless facilities in the public right-of-way. The only references to structures in the public right-of-way are in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings regarding bollards, fencing, and stanchions in a neighborhood adjacent to historic properties. The applicant proposes to replace a PG&E utility pole that is in front of the adjacent historic property. It is not uncommon for PG&E to replace utility poles and add equipment of similar volume to utility poles in front of historic homes. The proposed small wireless facility will not have an adverse impact on the adjacent historic property.

No Visual Impact/Intrusion
Required Finding 1 for Type I to IV Applications states, “The proposed wireless facility will not result in adverse visual impacts or have an adverse impact on property values because it complies with all applicable development standards in CMC Section

17.46.040 and the Administrative Detailed Wireless Facility Design Guidelines”. In other words, the City must be able to find that the project will not have adverse visual or property value impacts. As outlined in this staff report and the attached draft Resolution (Attachment 1), the findings for special exceptions cannot be made. This means the city cannot find that the project will have no adverse visual or property value impacts and therefore should deny the appeal.

Required Findings
As demonstrated in the draft resolution (Attachment 1), findings for approval of the project cannot be made in this case. The discussion below provides a summary. As such, refer to Attachment 1 for additional detail.

Use Permit.

Based on the evidence contained in the record, approval of the project would conflict with the General Plan, not comply with zoning standards, not compatible with surrounding land uses. The project does not meet the design guidelines and approval of the special exceptions cannot be supported resulting in conflict with the requirements of a wireless facility.

Design Review.

Based on the evidence contained in the record, approval of the project would conflict with the General Plan, Local Coastal Program, CMC, design guidelines and neighborhood character, and exceptions to zoning standards. The project does not meet the design guidelines and approval of the special exceptions cannot be supported resulting in conflict with the requirements of a wireless facility.

Coastal Development Permit.

Based on the evidence contained in the record, approval of the project would conflict with the General Plan, not comply with the Local Coastal Program. The project does not meet the design guidelines and approval of the special exceptions cannot be supported resulting in conflict with the requirements of a wireless facility.

Wireless Type I-IV.

Based on the evidence contained in the record, approval of the project would conflict with the General Plan, not comply with zoning standards and findings for approval of a Use Permit, Design Review, and Coastal Development Permit cannot be made in this case. The project does not meet the design guidelines and approval of the special exceptions cannot be supported resulting in conflict with the requirements of a wireless facility.

Special Exception Findings.

The applicant has requested two special exceptions as its proposed facility does not comply with two location standards set forth in CMC Section 17.46.050.E; specifically CMC Section 17.46.040.E.1.a - placement within the single-family residential zoning district which is designated as a highly incompatible location in the public right-of-way, and CMC Section 17.46.040.E.2.a – placement in the public right of way directly in front of the areas which are five feet in either direction from the centerline of each entry door or window in the front façade of any occupied residential building.

To support approval of the requested exceptions, the denial of the application must result in an effective prohibition under Federal law, or a finding that the denial will violate State law. For the reasons discussed above and in the proposed resolution, staff recommends denial. The City Council must determine if the applicant has met the burden on this exception finding for these two placement restrictions for this proposed facility regarding the effective prohibition claim and the state law claim.

Environmental Review – Denial of the Project:

If the City Council finds that the project cannot be approved, as proposed and conditioned, staff recommends that pursuant to CEQA regulations, the Application is found statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15270(a) of the CEQA Guidelines (Projects Which Are Disapproved) which states that CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves.
[1] See MetroPCS, Inc. v. City and Cnty. of San Francisco, 400 F.3d 715, 732-34 (9th Cir. 2005)
[2] Am. Tower Corp. v. City of San Diego, 763 F.3d 1035, 1056 (9th Cir. 2014). [3] Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, 33 FCC Rcd 9088 (2018) (“Small Cell Order”) at 9103, ¶ 35 (internal quotations omitted); City of Portland v. US, 969 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2020). [4] Small Cell Order at 9104-9105, ¶ 37 n.85.

[5] Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, 33 FCC Rcd 9088 (2018) (“Small Cell Order”) at 9103, ¶ 35 (internal quotations omitted); City of Portland v. US, 969 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2020). [6] Small Cell Order at 9104-9105, ¶ 37 n.85.
[7] Cellco P’ship v. White Deer Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 74 F.4th 96, 100-106 (3d Cir. 2023).
[8] TowerNorth Development, LLC v. City of Geneva, 2024 WL 621616, *24-25 (N.D. Ill.

Feb. 14, 2024).
[9] Id.
[10] Id.
[11] TowerNorth Development, LLC v. City of Geneva, 2025 WL 975753, (N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 2025); mot. for recon. den’d TowerNorth Dev., LLC v. City of Geneva, 2025 WL 3764865, at *9 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 30, 2025).

FISCAL IMPACT:

N/A
PRIOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION:

N/A
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Attachment 1- Resolution 2026-014 deny_Final

2. Attachment 2 - Appeal Form_Verizon Sequoia Deployment

3. Attachment 3 - Project Plans

4. Attachment 4 - PierCon RF Supplement #4

5. Attachment 5 - CTC Golden Bough Analysis

6. Attachment 6 - CTC Review of PierCon Sup Report 4

7. Attachment 7 - Resolution 2026-002-PC

8. Attachment 8 - Verizon Wireless Letter

9. Attachment 9 - Verizon Wireless Responses to Comments Volume 3

10. Attachment 10 - Previous Reports, Attachments, & Reference Materials

11. Attachment 11 - Confirmation of Interest Golden Bough Playhouse

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-014
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA FINDING (1) THE

ACTION ON THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION STATUTORILY EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15270(a); (2)

DENYING THE APPEAL BY SEQUOIA DEPLOYMENT SERVICES, ON BEHALF OF VERIZON, OF THE FEBRUARY 10, 2026, PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION (RESOLUTION NO. 2026-002-PC)

TO DENY THE SEQUOIA DEVELOPMENT/VERIZON USE PERMIT, DESIGN REVIEW, AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT; AND (3) DENYING A USE PERMIT, DESIGN REVIEW, AND

COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SMALL WIRELESS

FACILITY ON A REPLACEMENT PG&E UTILITY POLE LOCATED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY IN FRONT OF CARMELO STREET 4 SOUTHEAST OF 10TH AVENUE IN THE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) DISTRICT
WHEREAS, on October 15, 2025, Sequoia Deployment Services, Inc., on behalf of Verizon Wireless (“Applicant”), submitted an application requesting approval of a Use Permit, Design Review, and Coastal Development Permit application (“DR 25313 & UP 25314 [Verizon Sequoia Deployment]”), as described herein and including all materials, documents and reports on file with the Community Planning and Building Department (“Application”); and
WHEREAS, the Applicant proposes to construct a Small Wireless Facility on a replacement PG&E utility pole in the public right-of-way in front of Carmelo Street 4 Southeast of 10th Avenue in the SingleFamily Residential (R-1) District (“Project”); and WHEREAS, the installation of Small Wireless Facilities on replacement poles requires approval of a Type III Conditional Use Permit, Design Review, and Coastal Development Permit by the Planning Commission (Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code [CMC] Section 17.46.050.A.1.c); and WHEREAS, on January 9, 2026, a notice of public hearing was published in the Carmel Pine Cone for the January 21, 2026, Planning Commission meeting in compliance with State law (California Government Code 65091) and mailed to owners of real property within a 500-foot radius of the project indicating the date and time of the public hearing; and WHEREAS, on or before January 11, 2026, the Applicant posted the public notice on the project site and hand-delivered a copy of the public notice to each property within a 100-foot radius of the project site indicating the date and time of the public hearing; and WHEREAS, on or before January 16, 2026, the meeting agenda was posted in three locations in compliance with State law, indicating the date and time of the public hearing; and WHEREAS, on January 21, 2026, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive public testimony regarding the Application, including without limitation, information provided to the Planning Commission by City staff and through public testimony on the project; and ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution 2026-014

WHEREAS, on January 21, 2026, the Planning Commission continued the hearing on the project to a date certain to February 4, 2026, due to the volume of correspondence that the city received within 24 hours of the meeting; and
WHEREAS, on or before January 25, 2026, the Applicant posted the public notice on the project site and hand-delivered a copy of the public notice to each property within a 100-foot radius of the project site indicating the date and time of the public hearing; and WHEREAS, on or before January 30, 2026, the meeting agenda was posted in three locations in compliance with State law, indicating the date and time of the public hearing; and WHEREAS, on February 4, 2026, the Planning Commission continued the hearing on the project to a date certain to February 10, 2026, due to staff’s need for additional time to review continued correspondence from the public and the applicant; and
WHEREAS, on or before February 6, 2026, the meeting agenda was posted in three locations in compliance with State law, indicating the date and time of the public hearing; and WHEREAS, on February 10, 2026, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive public testimony regarding the Application, including without limitation, information provided to the Planning Commission by City staff and through public testimony on the project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2026-002-PC, denying the Sequoia Development/Verizon Use Permit, Design Review, and Coastal Development Permit, without prejudice, and is incorporated by reference; and
WHEREAS, on February 13, 2026, a timely appeal was filed with the City Clerk (APP 26046) by the Applicant, requesting reconsideration by the City Council of the Planning Commission’s denial of the Application; and
WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing was published on February 20, 2026, in the Carmel Pine Cone in compliance with State law (California Government Code 65091), and mailed to owners of real property within a 300-foot radius of the project indicating the date and time of the public hearing WHEREAS, on or before February 20, 2026, the Applicant posted the public notice on the project site and hand-delivered a copy of the public notice to each property within a 100-foot radius of the project site indicating the date and time of the public hearing; and WHEREAS, on March 2, 2026, the City Council held a de novo hearing to consider the appeal and Application; and
WHEREAS, on March 2, 2026, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to receive public testimony regarding the appeal, including without limitation, information provided to the City Council by City staff and through public testimony on the project; and WHEREAS, this Resolution and its findings are made based upon the evidence presented to the City Council at the hearing date, including, without limitation, the staff report and attachments submitted by the Community Planning and Building Department; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations, and testimony herein above set forth and used their independent judgment to evaluate the project.

ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution 2026-014

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Carmel-By-The-Sea does hereby make the following findings and determinations:

1. The facts set forth in the recitals above are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.

2. Denial of the appeal and denial of the Use Permit, Design Review, and Coastal Development Permit for the construction of a Small Wireless Facility on a replacement PG&E utility pole in the public right-of-way in front of Carmelo Street 4 Southeast of 10th Avenue in the SingleFamily Residential (R-1) District is statutorily Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15270(a) of the CEQA Guidelines – Project which are disapproved, which states that CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves.

3. The appeal of the Planning Commission decision has been processed in accordance with CMC Section 17.46.070.E.

4. As explained in Sections 1-5 below, all required findings must be met in order to approve the project. Use Permit Finding Nos. 1, 2 and 6 cannot be made. Design Review Finding Nos. 1- 6 and 8 cannot be made. Coastal Development Permit Finding No. 1 cannot be made. Type I-IV Wireless Facility Finding Nos. 1-2 and 7-9 cannot be made. Special Exception Finding Nos. 1-3 cannot be made.

5. The City Council has considered the Sequoia Development/Verizon application and its appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial at a public hearing and finds based on the evidence in the record that the required findings for approval of the Use Permit, Design Review, and Coastal Development Permit cannot be made (see Sections 1-5 below).

Section 1: FINDINGS, EVIDENCE AND DETERMINATION REQUIRED FOR USE PERMIT (CMC Section 17.64.010.A). Pursuant to Carmel-by-the-Sea regulations, all findings below must be met in order to approve a Use Permit application.

1. Finding: The proposed use will not conflict with the City’s General Plan. a. Determination and Evidence: As demonstrated in the findings and supporting evidence contained in Sections 2, 3, 4, and 5, this finding cannot be made.

2. Finding: That the proposed use will not comply with all zoning standards applicable to the use and zoning district.
a. Determination and Evidence: As demonstrated in the findings and supporting evidence contained in Sections 2, 3, 4, and 5, this finding cannot be made.

3. Finding: That granting the use permit will not set a precedent for the approval of similar uses whose incremental effect will be detrimental to the City or will be in conflict with the General Plan.
a. Determination and Evidence: This resolution includes the denial of the Sequoia Development/Verizon Use Permit. Therefore, this finding does not apply.

4. Finding: That the proposed use will not make excessive demands on the provision of public services, including water supply, sewer capacity, energy supply, communication facilities, ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution 2026-014

police protection, and fire protection.
a. Determination and Evidence: The project includes installing a small wireless facility on a replacement PG&E pole within the right of way. The facility would be unmanned and therefore would not require water supply, wastewater conveyance, communication facilities or police or fire protection. Energy supply to operate the facility would be minimal.

This finding is met.

5. Finding: That the proposed use will not be injurious to public health, safety, or welfare. a. Determination and Evidence: The project includes installing a small wireless facility on a replacement PG&E pole within approximately the same location. Although the utility pole would increase in height, it would be well below Federal Aviation Administration safety thresholds. Installation of the replacement utility pole and the wireless facility components would be required to meet PG&E Greenbook standards. In addition, issuance of a building permit would be required to ensure public health and safety. This finding is met.

6. Finding: That the proposed use will be compatible with surrounding land uses and will not conflict with the purpose established for the district within which it will be located. a. Determination and Evidence: As demonstrated in the findings and supporting evidence contained in Sections 2, 3, 4, and 5, this finding cannot be made.

7. Finding: That the proposed use will not generate adverse impacts affecting the health, safety, or welfare of neighboring properties or uses.
a. Determination and Evidence: See Finding No. 5 and supporting evidence of this section.

This finding is met.

Section 2: FINDINGS EVIDENCE AND DETERMINATION REQUIRED FOR DESIGN REVIEW (CMC Section 17.58.060). Pursuant to Carmel-by-the-Sea regulations, all findings below must be met in order to approve a Design Review application.

1. Finding: The project conforms to the applicable policies of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program.
a. Determination and Evidence: As demonstrated in the findings and supporting evidence contained in Sections 1, 3, 4, and 5, the project does not conform to the Carmel-by-theSea General Plan and Local Coastal Program. This finding cannot be made.

2. Finding: The project complies with all applicable provisions of this code. a. Determination and Evidence: As demonstrated in the findings and supporting evidence contained in Sections 1, 3, 4, and 5, the project does not conform to the Carmel-by-theSea General Plan and Local Coastal Program. This finding cannot be made.

3. Finding: The project is consistent with applicable adopted design review guidelines. a. Determination and Evidence: Section II.C.2 of the administrative guidelines limits the cumulative size of accessory equipment (including shrouds, cabinets or other stealth or concealment devices to 17 cubic feet. The project plans illustrate that the total volume of the accessory equipment is 16.43 cubic feet. However, this measurement does not include ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution 2026-014

the brackets or gap between the pole and the equipment, which would result in an excess of 17 cubic feet. This finding cannot be made.

4. Finding: The project conforms with all zoning standards applicable to the site, or has received appropriate use permits, variances or exceptions consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. a. Determination and Evidence: As demonstrated in the findings and supporting evidence contained in Sections 1, 3, 4, and 5, the project does not conform to the applicable zoning standards for a wireless facility in the right-of-way. This finding cannot be made.

5. Finding: The project contributes to neighborhood character including the type of forest resources present, the character of the street, the response to local topography and the treatment of open space resources such as setbacks and landscaping.
a. Determination and Evidence: As demonstrated in Section 5, the project is located within an area identified as a Highly Incompatible Location for which approval of the required exceptions cannot be made. Therefore, this finding cannot be made.

6. Finding: The project is compatible with, and sensitive to, the natural features and built environment of the site and of the surrounding area. The project respects the constraints of the site and avoids excessive grading, cuts and fills. Construction on steep slopes is minimized to the extent feasible and abrupt changes in grade is minimized or mitigated. a. Determination and Evidence: As demonstrated in Section 5, the project is located within an area identified as a Highly Incompatible Location for which approval of the required exceptions cannot be made. Therefore, this finding cannot be made.

7. Finding: The project maintains the City's principles of modesty and simplicity and preserves the City's tradition of simple homes set amidst a forest landscape. The project uses simple building forms and simple roof forms without complexity that would attract undue attention to the site. a. Determination and Evidence: The proposed project is for a wireless facility located on a replacement PG&E pole and therefore this finding does not apply.

8. Finding: The project does not present excess visual mass or bulk to public view or to adjoining properties. The project relates to a human scale in form, elements and in the detailing of doors, windows, roofs and walkways.
a. Determination and Evidence: As demonstrated in Section 5, the project is located within an area identified as a Highly Incompatible Location for which approval of the required special exceptions cannot be made. Therefore, this finding cannot be made.

9. Finding: Project details and materials (e.g., windows, doors, chimneys, roofs, and stonework) are fully integrated and consistent throughout the design. Building materials are used in a manner that is visually consistent with the proposed architecture. All fenestration is appropriate in size and consistent with a human scale.
a. Determination and Evidence: The proposed project is for a wireless facility located on a replacement PG&E pole and therefore this finding does not apply.

ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution 2026-014

10. Finding: The project is consistent with the City's design objectives for protection and enhancement of the urbanized forest and open space resources. Open space is distributed around buildings to provide visual relief from structural bulk and a distinct separation from buildings on adjacent sites. a. Determination and Evidence: The proposed project is for a wireless facility located on a replacement PG&E pole and therefore this finding does not apply.

Section 3: FINDINGS EVIDENCE AND DETERMINATION REQUIRED FOR COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (CMC Section 17.64.010.B). Pursuant to Carmel-by-the-Sea regulations, all findings below must be met in order to approve a Coastal Development Permit application.

1. Finding: The project as described in the application and accompanying materials, as modified by any conditions of approval, conforms with the certified City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Local Coastal Program.
a. Determination and Evidence: As demonstrated in the findings and supporting evidence contained in Sections 1, 2, 4, and 5, the project does not conform to the Carmel-by-theSea Local Coastal Program. This finding cannot be made.

2. If the project is located between the first public road and the sea, that the project is in conformity with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act of 1976 (commencing with Sections 30200 of the Public Resources Code). a. Determination and Evidence: The subject property is located within the right-of-way of Carmelo Street which is not between the first public road and the sea. Therefore, this finding does not apply.

Section 4: FINDINGS EVIDENCE AND DETERMINATION REQUIRED FOR TYPE I-IV APPLICATIONS (CMC Section 17.46.080.A). Pursuant to Carmel-by-the-Sea regulations, all findings below must be met in order to approve a wireless facility application.

1. Finding: The proposed wireless facility will result in adverse visual impacts or have an adverse impact on property values because it does not fully comply with all applicable development standards in CMC § 17.46.040 and the Administrative Detailed Wireless Facility Design Guidelines.
a. Determination and Evidence: The proposed application requires two exceptions to meet all applicable design guidelines and standards. As demonstrated in the findings and supporting evidence contained in Section 5, the required findings for special exceptions are not supported. Therefore, this finding cannot be made.

2. Finding: If applicable, to the extent the proposed wireless facility does not comply with all applicable development standards in CMC § 17.46.040 and the Administrative Detailed Wireless Facility Design Guidelines, the applicant has requested a special exception and the findings for granting a special exception pursuant to subsection (C) of this section can be made.

ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution 2026-014

a. Determination and Evidence: The applicant applied for two special exceptions and the applicant did not meet its burden to be granted the two special exceptions, as demonstrated in the findings and supporting evidence contained in Section 5. This finding cannot be made.

3. Finding: The proposed wireless facility will comply with all applicable FCC regulations and guidelines for human exposure to RF emissions and will not, either individually or cumulatively with other transmitters in the vicinity, result in RF exposures that exceed the FCC's maximum permissible exposure level for the general population.
a. Determination and Evidence: The proposed wireless facility will comply with all applicable FCC regulations and guidelines for human exposure to RF emissions and will not, either individually or cumulatively with other transmitters in the vicinity, result in RF exposures that exceed the FCC's maximum permissible exposure level for the general population.

This finding is met.

4. Finding: The proposed wireless facility will comply with all applicable fire safety and public safety standards.
a. Determination and Evidence: The applicant meets all applicable City’s standards in CMC Chapter 17.46 and the administrative guidelines related to fire safety and public safety.

The project plans illustrate a disconnect switch for power integrated into the PG&E smart meter. The applicant provided a detail for the required RF warning signage below the antenna. The equipment would be grounded according to the project plans. The Building Division would review the construction plans to confirm that they comply with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) General Order (GO) 95. Also see Findings 5 and 7 and supporting evidence of Section 1 and Finding 3 and supporting evidence of this section, demonstrating that the project would meet all required fire and public safety standards. Therefore, this finding is met.

5. Finding: The proposed wireless facility will comply with fall zone requirements in the Administrative Detailed Wireless Facility Design Guidelines. a. Determination and Evidence: Fall protection is a guideline for towers on parcels only. The applicant is not proposing to install or attach its facility to a tower on a parcel and there are no fall zone requirements in the Administrative Wireless Facility Design Guidelines applicable to wireless facilities in the public right of way. Therefore this finding is not applicable.

6. Finding: All public notices required for the application have been given. a. Determination and Evidence: A notice of application submittal and notice of public hearing have been posted on site, hand delivered to neighbors within 100 feet, and mailed to all neighbors within 500 feet. Application materials have been posted on the City website since October 15, 2025. The applicant and the city have followed appropriate procedures for all noticing requirements ahead of the associated public hearings. Also see the recitals above demonstrating compliance with applicable noticing procedures. This finding is met.

7. Finding: All the findings required for a use permit pursuant to CMC § 17.64.010 can be made.

ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution 2026-014

a. Determination and Evidence: As demonstrated in the findings and supporting evidence contained in Section 1, all required use permit findings cannot be made. Therefore, this finding cannot be made.

8. Finding: All the findings for discretionary design review approval pursuant to CMC § 17.58.060 can be made.
a. Determination and Evidence: As demonstrated in the findings and supporting evidence contained in Section 2, the project does not meet all the findings for Design Review and therefore this finding cannot be made.

9. Finding: All the findings required for a Coastal Development Permit can be made. a. Determination and Evidence: As demonstrated in the findings and supporting evidence contained in Section 3, the project does not meet all the findings for a Coastal Development Permit and therefore this finding cannot be made.

Section 5: FINDINGS EVIDENCE AND DETERMINATION REQUIRED FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS

FOR FEDERAL OR STATE PREEMPTION OR MINOR DEVIATIONS IN DESIGN - TYPES I-IV ONLY (CMC Section 17.46.080.C).

1. Finding: The applicant has shown that denial of an application will result in an effective prohibition or otherwise violate Federal law; or the applicant has shown that denial of an application will violate State law; or the applicant has shown that it is a minor deviation that achieves all of the applicable design objectives of this chapter, as well as, or better than, would be achieved by adherence to the adopted design guidelines. a. Determination and Evidence: The applicant proposed a Small Wireless Facility to be located on a replacement utility pole within a right of way in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District and within 5 feet from the centerline of a front façade window of the residence located at Carmelo Street 4 Southeast of 10th Avenue.

Pursuant to CMC Section 17.46.040.E, approval of the project requires granting two special exceptions. The proposed wireless facility location requires a special exception due to its Highly Incompatible Location pursuant to CMC Section 17.46.040.E.1.a (public right-of-way within the single-family residential zoning district). The proposed wireless facility location requires a special exception due to its Highly Incompatible Location pursuant to CMC Section 17.46.040.E.2.a (existing structures directly in front of areas five feet in either direction from the centerline of a front façade window of any occupied residential building). In its application, the applicant claimed that denial of the application will result in an effective prohibition in violation of Federal law and it will violate State law. For the reasons discussed further below, the applicant has not met its burden on either its federal law claim or its state law claim. Therefore, the special exceptions cannot be granted.
b. Determination and Evidence: Effective Prohibition or Otherwise Violate Federal Law.

For the reasons discussed below, the applicant has not demonstrated that the denial of the application will result in an effective prohibition or violate Federal law and therefore this finding cannot be made on this basis. To support its effective prohibition claim, the applicant submitted evidence and made arguments that it meets both legal standards for demonstrating an effective prohibition in the Ninth Circuit, the significant ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution 2026-014

gap/least intrusive means standard and the materially inhibits standard. i. Significant Gap/Least Intrusive Means. To meet this standard, the applicant must show that there is a significant gap in its personal wireless service and that considering technically feasible and available alternatives, it has proposed the least intrusive means of filling the gap, meaning the facility that is least intrusive to the values in the city’s regulations. The applicant has not met this standard.

1. Concerning the gap, in its application, the applicant provided technical reports and drive test data to show that there is a gap in quality wireless service affecting a significant portion of the city. The city-contracted engineering consultant, CTC Telecommunication Network Consulting, provided a report titled “Review of the Application of Verizon Wireless to Install a New Small Wireless Facility.” The report concluded that there is credible evidence of a coverage gap due to high traffic in the 700/850 MHz bands and signal interference and that the site will comply with radio frequency emission standards. Based on the technical evidence, there is a significant gap in the applicant’s personal wireless service.

2. Concerning the least intrusive means, the applicant provided technical reports, alternatives analysis and other evidence that it claimed demonstrated that its proposed small wireless facility on the replacement utility pole on Carmelo is the least intrusive means to address Verizon’s alleged coverage gap. The applicant’s alternatives analysis only considered various utility poles in the public rights of way.

It did not fully evaluate the alternative of placing a facility on the roof at the Golden Bough because its initial technical analysis determined a small wireless facility was not technically feasible at that location. In response to comments made by the public and Planning
Commissioners and evidence that the Golden Bough management was interested negotiating a lease for a roof-top wireless facility, the applicant provided additional technical analysis. This was a report titled “Radio Frequency Supplemental Report #2”, prepared by PierCon Solutions, LLC, dated January 30, 2026, which included the following statement: “Additional best-server modeling was performed to assess whether the site [Golden Bough Theater] could be made viable under more aggressive and constrained design parameters.” The report concludes that the only configuration that produced marginally acceptable modeled results required antenna heights at roughly 37’ (antenna centerline of 34’), azimuths of 220 and 330, and narrow beamwidth antenna. Although the report found that further analysis (field test data) is required to identify whether or not the existing trees in proximity would impact the viability of the facility, it did identify a potential technical solution that would work at Golden Bough. On February 6, 2026, the city-contracted engineering consultant, CTC Telecommunication Network Consulting, provided a report titled Review of Supplemental Report which analyzed the PierCon Supplemental Report #2 and responded to feedback received from residents. The CTC report explained that their previous report reviewed Verizon’s proposed small wireless facility design for the ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution 2026-014

Golden Bough Theater, agreeing with Verizon that a small wireless facility on the Golden Bough Theater would not sufficiently address Verizon’s coverage deficiencies. The report then analyzed the macro design for the Golden Bough Theater that was shown the PierCon Supplemental Report #2, concluding that the macro design would address Verizon’s coverage gap. On February 10, 2026, the Applicant submitted “Radio Frequency Supplemental Report #3”, prepared by PierCon Solutions, LLC, dated February 9, 2026, which offered additional reasons why Golden Bough would not work. The report stated that the Golden Bough Theater does not fit into the small wireless facility deployment architecture that Verizon intended for serving the alleged coverage gap, and that the macro design would have near field vegetation obstructing the southwest antenna and the northwest antenna would have extended line-of-sight propagation causing unintended inter-cell interference. On February 23, 2026, the applicant submitted “Radio Frequency Supplemental Report #4”, prepared by PierCon Solutions, LLC, dated February 23, 2026. The report provides further evidence that the Golden Bough Theater is not a technically viable alternative location, stating, “the Golden Bough location does not maintain continuous positive uplink margin across the documented service gap area. Low-downtilt configurations result in extended projection beyond the intended residential area while failing to remediate the central deficiency zone. Increased downtilt reduces projection but constrains uplink margin within the service gap area and leaves portions of the southern service area below threshold.” The report further concludes, “modeling further reflects configuration sensitivity and geometric limitations inherent to the rooftop’s position outside the service gap area. These constraints are not attributable to tunable parameters but to spatial separation and physical site conditions, including near-field vegetation.” The report concludes that the Golden Bough Theater is not a technically feasible alternative macro site. Additionally, on February 24, 2026, the applicant submitted a third volume of responses to questions and issues raised in public comments and prior hearings. In the responses, the applicant admitted the wireless facility may be “technically constructable at Golden Bough” but said “it would not meet [] Verizon Wireless’s needs.” Two further reports from city-contracted technical consultant CTC challenged the applicant’s new arguments and technical conclusions. One CTC report titled “Feasibility Review for Alternate Location Verizon Wireless Facility at the Golden Bough Playhouse” provided an overview of the Golden Bough Theater and a potential macro design for the site. The report includes modelling of 2150 and 3700 MHz band coverage with the macro design that shows a macro facility at Golden Bough would potentially cover almost the entire gap area with reliable in-building coverage. The report recognizes that “it will still be necessary to determine the true impact of the nearby trees and foliage on the west side of the Playhouse to the mid-band signal propagation from the proposed antenna location.” CTC concludes the report saying a temporary antenna on the Golden Bough Theater could simulate the macro site to see how the foliage will effect signal propagation and notes that the city is willing to work with the Golden Bough to trim trees.

The report also evaluates RF emissions and concludes the site would ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution 2026-014

be compliant with FCC RF emissions exposure guidelines. CTC also provided a report titled Response to PierCon Solutions – Radio Frequency Supplemental Report # 4. The report observes that there unexplained shift in the area of the alleged coverage gap area presented by PierCon on behalf of Verizon between their first report and Supplemental Report #4. CTC observes the applicant’s gap based on actual field measurements included the area surrounding Golden Bough, but in the latest PierCon report, Golden Bough is no longer in the gap area. The report also notes that the initial PierCon information showed that Verizon employs minimum beam tilt for its antennas at existing sites in the Carmel area to provide greater coverage rather than using beam tilt to suppress coverage to minimize interference. The report also observes that only in this most recent report did PierCon introduce uplink data as a technical measure. The field test data and prior reports, as well as CTC’s analysis dealt with download measurements only, which is the most common measurements used for network design. The report concludes that CTC could model the uplink signal power at a 5 degree downtilt if Verizon provides a printout of their model of uplink signal power at a 5 degree downtilt. Based on the above, in conclusion, we find that while some evidence provided suggests that the Golden Bough Theater is not a technically feasible location, there appears to be alternative antenna configurations, downtilt, and tree remediation to make the site technically feasible. As further bases for rejecting the Golden Bough as the least intrusive alternative, in its February 24, 2026 third volume of responses, the applicant questioned whether Golden Bough owner would even lease its property to Verizon, claimed the cost would be higher than its preferred alternative, and that a facility at Golden Bough would have greater historical resource impacts. These arguments are also not convincing. The evidence in the record shows that as recent as February 25, 2026, the Golden Bough representative confirmed to the city by email that it remains willing to negotiate a lease. Verizon has chosen to incur the cost to place macro facilities on roof-tops within Carmel. Further, according to staff’s analysis the Golden Bough would only require one special exception, for height, and therefore is more compatible with CMC Chapter 17.46. The need for historic review does not make the Golden Bough location more intrusive; there is no evidence that a properly designed installation could not meet the city’s historic review requirements. For all of these reasons, we find the applicant has not met its burden to demonstrate that its proposed facility will be the least intrusive means for addressing the coverage gap because the Golden Bough is a technically feasible, less intrusive, and available alternative.
ii. Materially Inhibits Standard. To meet this standard, the applicant must show that the denial of its application would materially inhibit the applicant’s ability to compete in a fair and balanced legal and regulatory environment considering the totality of the circumstances such as insufficiency of coverage, a lack of available alternatives, unreasonable costs imposed on the applicant and unreasonable delay in making the decision. The applicant has not met this standard for the following reasons. As discussed above, there is an available alternative at Golden Bough. The applicant’s attorney argues in the letter dated ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution 2026-014

February 24, 2026 that it would have to spend many times more if it had to “relocate” to Golden Bough than to be on its preferred location on a utility pole in the right of way. However, the argument creates a false comparison because it assumes Verizon has the unfettered right to place facilities in the right of way, and that is not correct. As the California Supreme Court has held, the telephone franchise allowing the applicant rent-free use of the right of way under Pub.

Util. Code 7901 “is not absolute” but rather it is a “limited right to use the highways ... only to the extent necessary for the furnishing of services to the public.” T-Mobile W. LLC v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 6 Cal. 5th 1107, 1121 (2019). Where there is a viable option to furnish services from sites outside of the right of way, right of way use is not necessary. Additionally, it is common knowledge that the applicant has placed facilities on parcels that require payment of rent and incur other costs elsewhere in Carmel and beyond.

Doing so in this instance would be nothing unusual or extraordinary. The applicant’s argument regarding delay is also unconvincing. Verizon claims to have spent the time since the city adopted the new wireless ordinance studying the complex requirements before submitting its application. However, another plausible explanation for Verizon’s delay in submitting its application is that it was waiting for the opportunity to try to convince the California Coastal Commission that provisions of the ordinance it did not like should be changed.

Only once that attempt failed, did Verizon submit an application. Further, all applications for wireless facilities are subject to FCC shot clocks. An application for a facility on Golden Bough would be a colocation with a 90 day shot clock for action, the same time period as the small cell on a replacement pole the applicant did request.
c. Determination and Evidence: Denial as Violation of State law. For the reasons discussed below, the applicant has not demonstrated that the denial of the application would violate state law. The applicant claims denial would violate its franchise to use the public rights of way granted by Pub. Util. Code Section 7901. However, as noted above, the California Supreme Court has held that telephone corporations’ right to construct telephone lines in public rights-of-way “is not absolute” but rather it is a “limited right to use the highways ... only to the extent necessary for the furnishing of services to the public.” The decision also recognizes that cities retain broad authority to consider aesthetics under Section 7901. Carmel’s rationale for the city’s preference for placements outside public rights-of-way, particularly in residential areas is grounded in valid right-of-way management concerns, particularly tied to the city’s unique character and resources, which include narrow, tree-lined streets and extraordinary coastal vistas. Specifying areas for heightened review due to particular attributes of the area does not, on its face, conflict with Section 7901, as it is consistent with the City’s authority under Section 7901 to ensure placements do not “incommode” the public use.

2. Finding: The special exception requested by the applicant does not compromise or excuse compliance with any fire safety or other public health and safety requirements. a. Determination and Evidence: See Finding 5 and supporting evidence contained Section 1. This finding is met.

3. Finding: The special exception is narrowly tailored such that any deviation from the requirements of this chapter is only to extent necessary for compliance with Federal or State law or to achieve all of the applicable design objectives of this chapter, as well as, or better ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution 2026-014

than, would be achieved by adherence to the adopted design guidelines. a. Determination and Evidence: See Finding 1 and supporting evidence above and the findings and supporting evidence contained in Sections 1-4. This finding cannot be made.

Section 6: Tolling of Statute of Limitations.

1. The City Administrator (or Acting City Administrator) is authorized to enter into an agreement with the Applicant to toll the statute of limitations for the Applicant to file a court action to challenge this Resolution in order to provide the Applicant an opportunity to submit and process with the City an application to install cell equipment at the Golden Bough.

Section 7: Decision
All findings required to approve the project cannot be made in this case and the City Council of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea decides as follows:
1) Finding the action on the appeal of the Planning Commission and denial of the Sequoia Development/Verizon application is statutorily exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15270(a); and
2) Denying the appeal by Sequoia Development/Verizon of the February 10, 2026, Planning Commission decision (resolution no. 2026-002-pc) to deny the Sequoia Development/Verizon Use Permit, Design Review, and Coastal Development Permit; and 3) Denies a Use Permit, Design Review, and Coastal Development Permit for the construction of a new small wireless facility on a replacement PG&E utility pole located in the public right-of-way in front of Carmelo Street 4 Southeast of 10th Avenue in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) district.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this 2nd day of March 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED: ATTEST:
_______________________________ __________________________________ Dale Bryne, Mayor Nova Romero, MMC, City Clerk
ATTACHMENT 1

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA APPEAL FORM
Appeals to a Board or Commission must be made by completing and submitting an Appeal Form with the City Clerk. Appeals shall be filed within 10 calendar days following the date of action and paying the required filing fee as established by City Council resolution.

Appeals to the City Council must be made by completing and submitting an Appeal Form with the City Clerk.

Appeals shall be filed within 10 working days following the date of action and paying the required filing fee as established by City Council resolution.

Verizon Wireless
Name of Appellant
Mailing Address of Appellant
Phone Number Email address
Send correspondence to the following party (if different than Appellant):

Sequoia Deployment Services, Inc., Pete Shubin
Ii! • II -
Mailing Address
Phone Number Email address
Planning Commission
Commission, Board, Official or Department whose action is being appealed Physical location of property involved (street location or address): IFO Carmelo St 4 SE of 10th Ave.

N/A - Public ROW N/A - Public ROW
Lot Block
Date of decision being appealed: February 10, 2026
N/A - Public ROW
APN
Specific action or decision being appealed: Denial of applications:

DR 25313 & UP 25314 (Verizon Sequoia Deployment)
Grounds for appeal (attach additional pages if necessary): ________________ _ Please see the attached "Verizon Wireless Grounds for Appeal".

Pete Shubin
Signature of Appellant
Reference Chapter 17.54 of the Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code "Appeals" revised 1/2020 ATTACHMENT 2

Verizon Wireless Grounds for Appeal
Planning Commission Denial of Applications DR 25313 and UP 25314 for Use Permit, Design Review, and Coastal Development Permit for Small Wireless Facility, Carmelo Street, City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Verizon Wireless appeals the Planning Commission’s decision on February 10, 2026, to deny these applications on the grounds that the denial violated federal and state telecommunications law, including the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, Federal Communications Commission regulations, and California Public Utilities Code Section 7901. Further, the denial was not supported by the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code, General Plan, or Administrative Detailed Wireless Facility Design Guidelines.

Specifically, the decision was not supported by substantial evidence, in violation of 47 U.S.C.

Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iii). The Associate Planner’s Notice of Decision dated February 11, 2026, and amended on February 13, 2026, generally recited Municipal Code findings or standards, but provided little or no explanation of why the proposed facility would not comply. The Notice of Decision focused on the City’s desired alternative location on private property, the Golden Bough Playhouse, without providing substantial evidence to rebut Verizon Wireless’s evidence and expert testimony that the playhouse is not a feasible alternative to fill a significant gap in service. In contrast, Verizon Wireless provided ample evidence to confirm that the proposed facility complies with all City regulations, including the findings to grant special exceptions.

Because a facility at the Golden Bough Playhouse would require a different design than the proposed small wireless facility, denial based on a preference for the playhouse would violate federal telecommunications law by dictating the technology Verizon Wireless would use to provide service.

According to the federal Telecommunications Act and Federal Communications Commission regulations, denial of the application would constitute a prohibition of service in violation of 47 U.S.C. Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II), because the proposed facility is the least intrusive means to fill a significant gap in Verizon Wireless service. It would also materially inhibit Verizon Wireless’s ability to introduce new 5G services, improve existing service, and densify the network.

Denial of the application would also violate California Public Utilities Code Section 7901, which grants telephone corporations a statewide franchise right to place their equipment along any public right-of-way. The Municipal Code’s designation of R-1 residential zone rights-of-way as a highly incompatible location and the Planning Commission’s denial due to its preference for a facility on private property deprive Verizon Wireless of its rights under Section 7901.

Verizon Wireless requests that the City Council reverse the Planning Commission’s denial and approve the applications. Verizon Wireless reserves the right to supplement these grounds for its appeal to the City Council and in any legal challenge it may file in federal or state court.

ATTACHMENT 2

City of Carmel-by-the-Sea

COMMUNITY PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
POST OFFICE DRAWER CC CARMEL-BYTHE-SEA, CA 93921
(831) 620-2010 OFFICE
February 11, 2026
Pete Shubin, Sequoia Deployment Services,Inc.

Via Email: [email protected]
Via Mail: 1 Spectrum Pointe Dr, Suite 130,
Lake Forest, CA 92630
Subject: Notice of Decision
Applications: DR 25313 & UP 25314 (Verizon Sequoia Deployment) Subject Site: Public right-of-way in front of Carmelo Street 4 southeast of 10th Avenue The Planning Commission denied with prejudiceDesign Review and Use Permit DR 25313 & UP 25314 (Verizon Sequoia Deployment) on February 11, 2026. Staff has enclosed a copy of the final resolution here and sent via DocuSign for the applicant to sign and return for the City’s records.

The Planning Commission’s denial is subject to a 10-calendar day appeal period ending at 5:00 PM on February 23, 2026. Per Carmel Municipal Code (CMC) Section 17.54.040.C and Section

17.46.070.E.1, Appeals must be filed within 10 calendar day after the Director issues the decision notices pursuant to subsection (D)(1) or (3) of this section. Any interested person may file a written appeal for cause in accordance with the provisions in CMC Section 17.54.040.C.

The reason for denial can be found on the City Website on the current planning page (link below):
https://ci.carmel.ca.us/post/current-planning-applications If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I can be reached directly at (831) 620-2027 or [email protected]
Best,
Jacob Olander
Associate Planner
Encl: Resolution 2026-002-PC
ATTACHMENT 2

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2026-002-PC

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA FINDING THAT

THE DENIAL OF THE PROJECT STATUTORIALLY EXEMPT FROM CEQA PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15270(a); AND DENYING A USE PERMIT, DESIGN REVIEW, AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT

PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SMALL WIRELESS FACILITY ON A REPLACEMENT PG&E UTILITY POLE. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY IN FRONT OF CARMELO STREET 4 SOUTHEAST OF 10TH AVENUE IN THE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) DISTRICT.

WHEREAS, Sequoia Deployment Services, Inc., on behalf of Verizon Wireless (“Applicant”), submitted an application requesting approval of a Use Permit, Design Review, and Coastal Development Permit application (“DR 25313 & UP 25314 [Verizon Sequoia Deployment]”) described herein (“Application”); and
WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing to construct a Small Wireless Facility on a replacement PG&E utility pole in the public right-of-way in front of Carmelo Street 4 southeast of 10th Avenue in the SingleFamily Residential (R-1) District; and WHEREAS, installation of Small Wireless Facilities on replacement poles requires approval of a Type III Conditional Use Permit application, including Design Review, and a Coastal Development permit by the Planning Commission (Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code [CMC] Section 17.46.050.A.1.c); and, WHEREAS, on January 9, 2026, a notice of public hearing was published in the Carmel Pine Cone for the January 21, 2026, Planning Commission meeting in compliance with State law (California Government Code 65091) and mailed to owners of real property within a 500-foot radius of the project indicating the date and time of the public hearing; and WHEREAS, on or before January 11, 2026, the Applicant posted the public notice on the project site and hand-delivered a copy of the public notice to each property within a 100-foot radius of the project site indicating the date and time of the public hearing; and WHEREAS, on or before January 16, 2026, the meeting agenda was posted in three locations in compliance with State law, indicating the date and time of the public hearing; and WHEREAS, on January 21, 2026, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive public testimony regarding the Application, including without limitation, information provided to the Planning Commission by City staff and through public testimony on the project; and WHEREAS, on January 21, 2026, the Planning Commission continued the hearing on the project to a date certain to February 4, 2026, due to the volume of correspondence that the city received within 24 hours of the meeting; and
WHEREAS, on or before January 25, 2026, the Applicant posted the public notice on the project site and hand-delivered a copy of the public notice to each property within a 100-foot radius of the project site indicating the date and time of the public hearing; and ATTACHMENT 2

Amended 2/13/2026
WHEREAS, on or before January 30, 2026, the meeting agenda was posted in three locations in compliance with State law, indicating the date and time of the public hearing; and WHEREAS, on February 4, 2026, the Planning Commission continued the hearing on the project to a date certain to February 10, 2026, due to staff’s need for additional time to review continued correspondence from the public and the applicant; and
WHEREAS, on January 30, PierCon submitted Supplemental Report #2 which included the following language: “Additional best-server modeling was performed to assess whether the site [Golden Bough Theater] could be made viable under more aggressive and constrained design parameters. The only configuration that produced marginally acceptable modeled results required” antenna heights at roughly 37’ (antenna centerline of 34’), azimuths of 220 and 330, and narrow beamwidth antenna. Although the report concludes that further analysis (field test data) is required to identify whether or not the existing trees in proximity would impact the viability of the facility, the fact that there is an identified potential alternative site, there is a rebuttal presumption that there is a viable alternative location; and WHEREAS, on or before February 6, 2026, the meeting agenda was posted in three locations in compliance with State law, indicating the date and time of the public hearing; and WHEREAS, on February 10, 2026, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive public testimony regarding the Application, including without limitation, information provided to the Planning Commission by City staff and through public testimony on the project; and WHEREAS, this Resolution and its findings are made based upon the evidence presented to the Commission at the hearing date, including, without limitation, the staff report and attachments submitted by the Community Planning and Building Department; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations, and testimony herein above set forth and used their independent judgment to evaluate the project; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., “CEQA”), together with State Guidelines (14 California Code Regulations §§ 15000, et seq., the “CEQA Guidelines”) and City Environmental Regulations (CMC Chapter 17.60) require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that pursuant to CEQA regulations, the Application is Statutorily Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15270(a) of the CEQA Guidelines (Projects Which Are Disapproved) which states that CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves; and
WHEREAS, the facts set forth in the recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Carmel-By-TheSea does hereby make the following findings and determinations:

Section 1: FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR USE PERMIT DENIAL (CMC Chapter 17.64), DESIGN REVIEW AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. For each of the required findings listed below, staff has indicated ATTACHMENT 2

Amended 2/13/2026
whether the submitted plans support the adoption of the findings. For all findings checked "no" the staff report discusses the issues to facilitate the Planning Commission's decision-making. Findings checked "yes" may or may not be discussed in the report depending on the issues.

Municipal Code Findings – CMC Section 17.64.010 General Findings Required for All Use Permits
YES NO

1. The proposed use will not conflict with the City's General Plan. ✔ General Plan conflict: When alternatives exist, the GP prioritizes community character over infrastructures.

2. That the proposed use will comply with all zoning standards applicable to the use and zoning district.
✔
Zoning non-compliance: requires two special exceptions that cannot be granted.

3. That granting the use permit will not set a precedent for the approval of similar uses whose incremental effect will be detrimental to the City or will be in conflict with the General Plan.
✔
Set precedent: approving sites in the highly incompatible R-1 locations invites similar future applications.

4. That the proposed use will not make excessive demands on the provision of public services, including water supply, sewer capacity, energy supply, communication facilities, police protection, and fire protection
✔

5. That the proposed use will not be injurious to public health, safety, or welfare. ✔ Injurious to safety: Fall zone concern – 50-foot structure only 25 feet from occupied residence, tree root disturbance.

6. That the proposed use will be compatible with surrounding land uses and will not conflict with the purpose established for the district within which it will be located. ✔
Incompatible land use: R-1 zone designated highly incompatible; directly fronts historic resource.

7. That the proposed use will not generate adverse impacts affecting the health, safety, or welfare of neighboring properties or uses.
✔
Adverse neighboring impacts: structural proximity, trench encroachment on drip lines, visual intrusion.

Municipal Code Findings – CMC Section 17.46.080.A Findings Required for Type 1 to IV Applications

1. The proposed wireless facility will not result in adverse visual impacts or have an adverse impact on property values because it complies with all applicable development standards in CMC § 17.46.040 and the Administrative Detailed Wireless Facility Design Guidelines.
✔
Adverse visual impacts: non-compliant with development standards, special exceptions not justified.

2. If applicable, to the extent the proposed wireless facility does not comply with all applicable development standards in CMC § 17.46.040 and the Administrative Detailed Wireless Facility Design Guidelines, the applicant has requested a special exception and the findings for granting a special exception pursuant to subsection (C) of this section can be made.
✔
Special exceptions fail: Golden Bough Theater is viable less-intrusive alternative.

3. The proposed wireless facility will comply with all applicable FCC regulations and guidelines for human exposure to RF emissions and will not, either individually or cumulatively with other transmitters in the vicinity, result in RF exposures that exceed the FCC's maximum permissible exposure level for the general population. ✔
ATTACHMENT 2

Amended 2/13/2026

4. The proposed wireless facility will comply with all applicable fire safety and public safety standards.
✔

5. The proposed wireless facility will comply with fall zone requirements in the Administrative Detailed Wireless Facility Design Guidelines. ✔

6. All public notices required for the application have been given. ✔

7. All the findings required for a use permit pursuant to CMC § 17.64.010. ✔ Use permit findings cannot be made (as indicated in the 17.64.010 failures noted in previous findings).

8. All the findings for discretionary design review approval pursuant to CMC § 17.58.060 ✔ • Conform to the applicable policies of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program
✔
• Comply with all applicable provisions of this code ✔
• Are consistent with applicable adopted design review guidelines ✔ Design review fails: non-conformance with General Plan, LCP, and design guidelines.

9. If applicable, all the findings required for a coastal development permit. ✔ • The project, as described in the application and accompanying materials, as modified by any conditions of approval, conforms with the certified City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Local Coastal Program.
✔
• If the project is located between the first public road and the sea, the project conforms with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act of 1976 (commencing with Sections 30200 of the Public Resources Code).

N/A N/A
Coastal development permit fails: inconsistent with highly scenic area designation.

Municipal Code Findings – CMC Section 17.46.080.C Special Exceptions for Federal or State Preemption or Minor Deviations in Design (Types I to IV Only)

1. The applicant has shown that denial of an application will result in an effective prohibition or otherwise violate Federal law; or the applicant has shown that denial of an application will violate State law; or the applicant has shown that it is a minor deviation that achieves all of the applicable design objectives of this chapter, as well as, or better than, would be achieved by adherence to the adopted design guidelines. ✔
No effective prohibition: the applicant failed to eliminate Golden Bough as least-intrusive alternative.

2. The special exception requested by the applicant does not compromise or excuse compliance with any fire safety or other public health and safety requirements. ✔

3. The special exception is narrowly tailored such that any deviation from the requirements of this chapter is only to extent necessary for compliance with Federal or State law or to achieve all of the applicable design objectives of this chapter, as well as, or better than, would be achieved by adherence to the adopted design guidelines. ✔
Not narrowly tailored: two exceptions exceed what's necessary given viable alternative exists.

Section 2: REASONS FOR DENIAL. THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND THAT:

The Applicant has failed to meet its burden for granting the special exceptions requested. The Applicant has failed to show that denial of the Application would result in an effective prohibition of service under the significant gap/least intrusive means test because the Applicant failed to show that that the proposed site may be the least intrusive means because a less intrusive option may be technically feasible and potentially available. The Golden Bough Theater may address the coverage gap and may not require any Code exceptions.

ATTACHMENT 2

Amended 2/13/2026
The Applicant has failed under the materially inhibits standard because in considering the totality of the circumstances, including the Code’s sitting preferences and requirements, another location (such as the Golden Bough Theater) may be technologically, economically feasible, and potentially available.

Therefore, the denial will not materially inhibit the carrier’s ability to provide personal wireless services.

Further, the Applicant has not shown that denial would violate state law because they have failed to show that the heightened review in the Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code for facilities in the R-1 zone right-of-way violates the applicant’s statutory franchise in Public Utility Code 7901 to use of the rightof-way.

Section 3: CEQA FINDINGS. The Planning Commission of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea does hereby FIND the project is Statutorily Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15270(a) of the CEQA Guidelines (Projects Which Are Disapproved) which states that CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves. ______________________________ ___________________________ __________ Applicant Signature Printed Name Date
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this 10th day of February 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES: Allen, Ahlborn, Locke, Karapetkob, LePage
ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED: ATTEST:
_________________________ _________________________
Michael LePage Shelby Gorman
Chair Planning Commission Secretary
ATTACHMENT 2

SITE ID: SC001 CARMELO STONEWALL (OPT.2)
verizonJ

POLYGON NAME
MDG NUMBER:

ADJACENT APN:

SITE ADDRESS:

COUNTY:

SITE TYPE:

CC SOUTH CARMEL
5000081318
010-275-012-000

ROW ADJACENT TO
IFO CARMELO ST, 4 SOUTH EAST OF 10TH AVE,
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, CA 93921

MONTEREY

WOOD UTILITY POLE

PG&E/ AT&T

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
THIS 15 AN UNMANNED TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY FOR THE VERIZON HIRELESS NETHORK CONSISTING; OF THE INSTALLATION AND OPERATION OF AN ANTENNA AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT IN THE PUBLIC RIGiHT-OF-HAY ON A REPLACEMENT HOOD UTILITY POLE, REPLACED BY PGi<E.

SCQPE Of WORK
INSTALL NEv,i TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT ON A REPLACEMENT ±55' CL-I HOOD UTILITY POLE, REPLACED BY PGi<E.
• EQUIPMENT CONSISTS OF (I) JMA CX200Ml23'> ANTENNA AT POLE TOP AND (I) DISCONNECT, (I) 1.\1.l'-3 RADIO, (I) 4890 RADIO, (I) '-301.\ POHER SUPPLY, (I) FIBER BOX, (I) DIPLEXER AND (I) GiROUND BAR, HITHIN (I) EQUIPMENT SHROUD HOUSING;.

RELOCATE EXISTING; AT<T AND COMCAST AERIAL CABLES TO NEH F-ARM ON

UTILITY POLE

SITE IMAGE & VICINITY MAP
9th Ave
10th Ave
"' n
a, ::, 3
::, <1>
s- 0
::, gz a·
SITE
11th Ave
"' 0 "' § ::,
�
n
a,
3 a3·
0 ,,..
!!l
M
5 POLE OWNER:

POLE ID: TBD
CROSS STREETS (CURB ID):

FUZE PROJECT ID:

E'LY SHOULDER OF CARMELO STREET (MID-BLOCK BTWN. 10TH AVE & 11TH AVE) 16908094

SYMBOLS/ABBREVIATIONS LEGEND
ADD'L
A.F.Gi.

ANT.

ASS'Y.

AHGi.

BLDGi.

BTCH.

CLR.

CONC.

CONN.

CONST.

CONT.

DBL.

D.F.

DIA.

DIM.

EA.

ELEV
EMT.
(E)
F.Gi.

FT.(')
GiA.

HT.

IN.(")
LB.(11)
L.F.

ADDITIONAL
ABOVE FINISHED GiRADE

ANTENNA

ASSEMBLY
AMERICAN HIRE GiAUGiE
BUILDING;

BARE TINNED COPPER HIRE
CLEAR

CONCRETE

CONNECTION(OR)

CONSTRUCTION

CONTINUOUS
DOUBLE
DOUGiLAS FIR

DIAMETER

DIMENSION
EACH

ELEVATION
ELECTRICAL METALLIC TUBING;
EXISTING;
FINISH GiRADE

FOOT (FEET)
GiAUGiE
HEIG;HT

INCH(ES)

POUND(S)

LINEAR FEET (FOOT)
L. LONG;(ITUDINAL)
MAX. MAXIMUM
MFR. MANUFACTURER

MIN, MINIMUM
(N) NEH

NTS NOT TO SCALE
O.C. ON CENTER
P.T. PRESSURE TREATED
RAD.(R) RADIUS

REQ'D REQUIRED
RG;S. RIGilD GiALVANIZED STEEL
SCH. SCHEDULE
SIM. SIMILAR
SQ. SQUARE

5.5. STAINLESS STEEL

STD, STANDARD
TEMP. TEMPORARY
THK. THICK(NESS)
TYP. TYPICAL
U.Gi. UNDER GiROUND
U.L, UNDERv,IRITERS LABORATORY
U.N.O. UNLESS NOTED OTHERHISE
V.I.F. VERIFY IN FIELD

H HIDE (HIDTH)
w/ HITH
HD. HOOD
H.P. HEATHERPROOF
l�-�=I CONCRETE (SURFACE) -- X CHAIN LINK FENCE
le_._' -�__J·I CONCRETE (CUT) -0-----0----0------0---- v,!OOD FENCE v,!ROUGHT IRON FENCE
--OH -- OVERHEAD v,IIRES
-- E -- POHER CONDUIT
G;ROUND CONDUCTOR
EXISTING; GiRASS PROPERTY LINE

ELEVATION DATUM CENTERLINE

PROJECT TEAM
APPUCANI1
VERIZON v,IIRELESS
2770 SHADELANDS DR,
BUILDING; II
v,iALNUT CREEK, CA 9459
POLE a.JNER1
PGi<E I AT<T

ZONING CONTACT,

SEQUOIA DEPLOYMENT

SERVICES, INC

I SPECTRUM POINTE DRIVE,
SUITE 130
LAKE FOREST, CA 92'-30

CONTACT, MICHAEL NAZAROFF
PHONE, (5'-2) 237 -'-380
EMAIL: michael.nazcrofftiseq.ioia-ds.com

BE ENGINEER,
VERIZON v,IIRELESS
2770 SHADELANDS DR. BLDG; II
HALNUT CREEK, CA 9459
CONTACT, DEv-JAYNE BONHAM
PHONE, (559) 974-7012
EMAIL: deu.o,ne.W'l�iunuirele!s.can

ME PROJECT MANAGER,
ZALZALI 4 ASSOCIATES INC.
dba ALL STATES ENG;INEERING;
< SURVEYING
23b75 BIRTCHER DRIVE
LAKE FOREST, CA 92630
PM, DEAN v,iALKER
PHONE, (714) 230-5714 CONStBVCTIQN
EMAIL: [email protected]

MANAGER,

SEQUOIA DEPLOYMENT

SERVICES, INC

I SPECTRUM POINTE DRIVE,
SUITE 130
LAKE FOREST, CA 92'-30

CONTACT, PETE SHUBIN
PHONE, (714) 478-3197
EMAIL: pete.shubin@se'l)oia-ds.com
LEASING CONTACT•

SEQUOIA DEPLOYMENT

SERVICES, INC

I SPECTRUM POINTE DRIVE,
SUITE 130
LAKE FOREST, CA 92'-30

CONTACT, CHELSEA MANUTO
PHONE, (760) 445-1985
EMAIL, chelsea,mmutotilseqioia-ds,ccm

SITE INFORMATION

LATITUDE,
36" 32' 57,5B' N (3o,54932B)
LONGilTUDE,
121" 55' 3b.Bb' v,i (-121.92690")

ELEVATION,
B0.22' AMSL
ZONING;,
R-1

LAND USE,
TBD

JURISDICTION,

CITY OF CARMEL BY THE SEA

ADJACENT APN,
010-275-012-000
PROPERTY LEGiAL DESCRIPTION,

N/A - PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY

ADA COMPLIANCE,
N/A

OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION,
NIA

CODE COMPLIANCE
SHEET NO:

T-1
C-I
A-0
A-1
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
D-1
D-2
D-3
E-1
TC-I
TC-2

CONSTRUCTION WORKS AND MATERIALS MUST COMPLY WITH ALL

APPLICABLE NATIONAL, STATE, AND LOCAL CODES AS ADOPTED BY LOCAL JURISDICTION, INCLUDING; BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGiULATIONS
2022 CALIFORNIA BUILDING; CODE
2022 CALIFORNIA ELECTRIC CODE
CALIFORNIA EXISTING; BUILDING; CODE,
CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL BUILDING; CODE,

CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE
CALIFORNIA GiREEN BUILDING; CODE
2022 EDITION OF TITLE 24 ENERGiY STANDARDS
ANY LOCAL BUILDING; CODE AMENDMENTS TO THE ABOVE

CITY I COUNTY ORDINANCES
GiO % I GiO 121.\

DRAWING INDEX

SHEET TITLE

TITLE SHEET
SITE_ SURVEY

SITE PLAN)&
( �ROP�ED/SITE PLAN
ENLARGiED SITE PLAN

ELEVATIONS

ELEVATIONS
POLE-MOUNTED EQUIPMENT LAYOUT $ ELEVATIONS

EQUIPMENT DETAILS

EQUIPMENT DETAILS

EQUIPMENT DETAILS
ELECTRICAL < GROUNDING DIAGRAMS, NOTES

TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN
TRAFFIC CONTROL NOTES t SIGiNS

DIRECTIONS QR CODE

SITE COMPLETION CHECKLIST
□ SIGiNAG;E, FCC MANDATED RF HARNINGi SIGiNAGiE SHALL FACE OUT TO STREET AND IN CLIMBING; SPACE PER vz..i REQUIREMENTS.

ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS
CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL PLANS < (E) DIMENSIONS <
CONDITIONS ON THE JOB SITE < SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY
THE ENGilNEER IN HRITINGi OF ANY DISCREPANCIES BEFORE
PROCEEDING; v,!ITH THE HORK OR BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SAME
IF USING; ll'X17" PLOT, DRAHING;S v-JILL BE HALF SCALE.

DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS

SUBCONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL PLANS,
EXISTING; DIMENSIONS $ FIELD CONDITIONS
ON Tf.lE JOB SITE $ SHALL IMMEDIATELY
NOTIFY THE ENG;INEER IN v,IRITINGi OF ANY
DISCREPANCIES BEFORE PROCEEDING; WITH

THE WORK OR BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SAME,
mtl���.��� �
h
Call before you dig.

California and Nevada
Call Two Working Days Before You Dig!
811 / 800-227-2600
verizon"
2770 SHADELANDS DR. BUILDING; 11
HALNUT CREEK, CA '145'1
3��ti
''l},,�y8!!,S�!6
I SPECTRUM POINTE DRIVE, SUITE 130
LAKE FOREST, CA 'l2'-30-2283
0 ((AlmAH�

ENGINEERING & SURVEYING
23'-75 BIRTCHER DRIVE
LAKE FOREST, CA 92'-30

PROJECT ID,

DRAHN BY,

CHECKED BY,
& 10/30/2025 IOOli CD (PCC-1)
4 11/12/2024 IOOli CD (NEW RFDS)
3 10/21/2024 IOOli CD'• (VIEv,iSHED)
2 07/01/2024 IOOI CD'• (ANTENNA CI-IG,)
I Ob/17/2024 IOOI CD's (RADIO UPDATE)
0 Ob/Ob/2023 IOOI CD'• FOR SUBMITTAL
A 04/27/2023 90I CD'• FOR REVIEW

REV DATE DESCRIPTION
TBD
MA
DH
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC

IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,
UNLESS TI-IE'I" ARE ACTING UNDER Tl-IE

DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
EN<.INEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT,
SC001 CARMELOSTONEWAl.l(OPT2)
�uH l'.I
IFOC'ARMELOST,4SOJTHEAST0:10lHAVE
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, CA 93921
M[X; NUMBER: 5CXXXJ81318

SHEET TITLE

TITLE SHEET
[

SI-IEET NUMBER
T-1
l
ATTACHMENT 3

0 ZQP Trail to Beach' .tth Ave
C,,sea Blush staging
n
i �o �
g
0 Carmel by the'-\�
sea parkmg Y "" Ocean Ave

2.5'
Carmel Green�
Lantern Inn T
Carmel Cottage Inn'
Carmel Beach'
La Playa Carmel'
')th Ave
10th Ave
1tthA\le
Sea View lnnf
12th Ave
12th Ave
LEGEND
5' 10'
.5
5th Ave
6thA'le
D U.G. UTILllY VAULT
® MANHOLE
-0- UTILllY POLE K""' :l, SPOT ELEVATION
® WATER VALVE
© FOUND MONUMENT
� GEODETIC MARKER
----0--x- CHAIN LINK FENCE

WOOD FENCE
-0/H- -----0- OVERHEAD LINE

METAL FENCE

GRADE BREAK

RIGHT OF WAY LINE

CENTER LINE

EASEMENT LINE

MASONRY WALL

WP WOOD POLE
UP UTILilY POLE

LP LIGHT POLE

LUM LUMINAIRE

NG NATURAL GRADE

TITLE REPORT

NOT APPLICABLE (RIGHT-OF-WAY)

LEGAL DESCRIPTION

NOT APPLICABLE (RIGHT-OF-WAY)
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.

NOT APPLICABLE (RIGHT-OF-WAY)
1,l
a
1l
"
5th Ave "
Stationirryf
6th Ave
Dametra Cafe'
I ¼!
� La Bicyclette �
7th Ave
Carmel Plaza 9
7th Ave
Treehouse Cate'
Dance Kids, Inc C,,
8th Ave
Sunset Center f
9th Ave
�
"
Bijou Deville f
121hAve
!
Q �
1,l
a
,,
i
aPacRep at the Forest�
Theater, Carmel T
Forest Theaterf
Linens & Such ft' i:,,
g � ; ;
.!!c
� �
"
,,., .,. 11th A��
Ridg�"
{<

VICINITY MAP
"
�
!
�

BLOG TOP OF BUILDING

MON MONUMENT

FL FLOW LINE

EOP EDGE OF PAVEMENT
R.O.W. RIGHT OF WAY

R/W RIGHT OF WAY
sco SEWER CLEAN-OUT

PS PARKING STRIPE

SW SIDEWALK
VLT U.G. UTILllY VAULT

OHE OVERHEAD ELECTRICAL

SVC SERVICE

AC ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

AP ASPHALT PAVING

CONC CONCRETE

PED PEDESTAL

OH OVERHEAD
PUE PUBLIC UTILllY EASEMENT

FC FACE OF CURB

BOL BOLLARD
TOP_ TOP OF ITEM
BOT_ BOTTOM OF ITEM
UTILITY NOTE:

SURVEYOR DOES NOT GUARANTEE THAT AIL
l/TILITIES ARE SHOWN OR THEIR LOCATIONS ARE
DEFINITE. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILJTY OF THE

CONTRACTOR AND DEVELOPER TO CONTACT BLUE

STAKE AND ANY OTHER INVOLVED AGENCIES TO
LOCATE ALL l/TILrTIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.

REMOVAL, RELOCATION AND/ OR REPLACEMENT
IS THE RESPONSIBILJTY OF THE CONTRACTOR.
• i � i
u
\
- 5th Ave � !q;!l
Token OaksC, 1>,\\'1\Pl
Q
._.,l).vt
o'' :c
"
oceanA'#e l1
"
�
/1 7tht,,.�
Ha1rooPq
ti
5o.o· PuJLic R.
(01-C&T-45-1
I

20.1' I

TRAVELLED
_f
ft
,,. ;tit ___ _
i!
±1 .2' TO
I • <t. R.o.w.',
i 1'1 I' I 'le ,)�
-�:s"J
'� /"

24.6'

TRAVELLED ROADWAY
\ E-, I
lfJ I
" �a: �I z ,J= oc5
..,z
u 8� < "'a.
�I T
I I
,, I , r
RIGHT OF WAY NOTE:

ROAD CENTERLINES SHOWN ON

THIS SURVEY HAVE BEEN PLACED
BY SPLIT OF IMPROVEMENTS.
�p�- -Pr-THE-rE�
,,:_; I '~
·T •F --
1-<T I Hr
i'...;I

DETIC COORDINATES
57 .58" NORTH (NAD83)
55' 36.86" WEST (NAD83)
N: 80.22' AMSL (NAVD88)
_::n • 4
,1-1�' 1-
µJ - IT,�
. I
A.P.N.:
rn
Pc_
JF BL:), I<,
Br THE 'SEµ
1-C''--45-
010-27:3-01_
rJF B . I<
Br THE SE
1 45
jl 1, 111 I- I �OVERHEAD l/TILllY LINES, lYP.
r --1
I

CD POLE LOCATION
1 inch = 10fl
NOTES:
0 5'
I
I
10' 20'

1. THIS IS NOT A BOUNDARY SURVEY. 11-US IS A SPECIALIZED RIGHT OF WAY MAP. THE PROPERTY LINES AND rASEMEITTS SHOWN HEREON ARE FROM RECORD INFORMATION AS N01ED HEREON. ALL STATES ENGINEERING & SURVEYING/ZALZAU & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSLA1ED THE TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY TO RECORD INFORMATION USING MONUMENT(S)/LANDMARK(S) SHOWN HEREON. NO TITLE RESEARCH WAS PERFORMED BY ALL STATES ENGINEERING & SURVEYING/ZALZAIJ & ASSOCIATES, INC.

2. NfY CHANGES MADE TO THE INFORMATION ON THIS PLAN, WrTHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF ALL STATES ENGINEERING &: SURVEYING / ZALZAU & ASSOCIATES, INC. RELIEVES ALL STATES ENGINEERING &:

SURVEYING/ ZALZALI & ASSOCIATES, INC. OF ANY AND ALL LIABILITY.

3. THESE DRAWINGS & SPECIACATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY & COPYRIGHT OF AU. STATES ENGINEERING & SURVEYING / ZALZAI.J &: ASSOCIATES, INC. &: S1-W...L NOT BE USED ON A� OTHER WORK EXCEPT BY AGREEMENT WITH THE SURVEYOR. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PREFERENCE OVER SCALED & SHALL BE VERIFlED ON THE JOB SITE. Nff DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE SURVEYOR PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF IHf WORK.

4. THIS SITE IS PROPOSED TO BE DEVELOPED ON A WOOD UTIUlY POLE LOCATED ON SHOULDER OF A ROADWAY WITHIN THE 50-FOOT-WIDE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY (CARMELO STREET), IN THE cnv OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, COUNTY OF MONTEREY, STA1E OF CALIFORNIA.

SURVEY DATE
04/05/2023

BASIS OF BEARING
BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED UPON U.S.

STATE PLANE NAD83 COORDINATE SYSTEM

CALIFORNIA STATE PLANE COORDINATE ZONE FOUR,
DETERMINED BY GPS OBSERVATIONS.

BENCHMARK
RTCM-REF 3213
NORTHING: 2106278.840 f\US
EASTING: 5733722.350 f\US
+282.81' (A.M.S.L.)

REFERENCE MAPS
1-C&:T-45-1/2
J-MISC-250
[
verizon
v'
2785 MrTCHELL DRIVE, SUITE 9
WALN UT CREEK, CA 94598
}t�
'�l�p�y8Y,S�!6
SPECTRUM POINTE DRIVE, SUITE 130
LAKE FOREST, CA 92630
0 (IlmAH�

ENGINEERING & SURVEYING
23675 BIRTCHER DRIVE
LAKE FOREST, CA 92630
PROJECT NO: SOUTH CARMEL OPTION 2
DRAWN BY: NC
CHECKED BY: JRT/WZ/DW
0 04/19/2023 FINAL SURVEY (ROW) NC
A 04/07/20'CJ PRELIMINARY SURVEY NC
REV DA1E DESCRIPTON
··•••••••••••••••··
(
IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR NfY PERSON, UNLESS

HEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OF A LICENS
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.

SOUTH CARMEL OPTION 2
RIGHT-OF-WAY SITE:

CARMELO STREET
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, CA 93921

NEW BUILD-SMALL CELL

SHEET TITLE

SITE SURVEY

SHEET NUMBER
C-1
l
ATTACHMENT 3

t
I
�I - - -
3'
3'
:::,

SITE PLAN
rl
:::, I
-
- I
:::, I
I
:::, I
I
I
I
i\F;l•I: 01 C-275-013
i, '.,()!, I- f '', I
FAFI-F "-THF-':',�
IDIH
Cf';(J) I
/
--,- / / / / / / / / / / /

EXISTING DOORI--IAY / /
1--!INDOI--I #3
/ /
ISTING 1--!INDOI--I #I
/ / /
/ ---/ / 7 / /
/
-
-,-/--, ---r-::,
--
/ / / / / //
/
/' /
/ /
/ /
/
/
APN: 010-275-012-000
IFO CARMELO ST, 4 SOUTH
EAST OF 10TH AVE

CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, CA
93921
1--!INDOI--I VIEI--ISHED PER CARME

L-BY-THE-SEA
MUNICIPAL CODE cHAPTER 17A(,.040(E)(2)(A)
/// ·�----- EXISTING SHRUBBERY, TYP.

CA.kl!i-
-- -- --
/\1--\L '.)1U-2/'.J-C11
-- -- --
:<.1, :: ';cu H
- I c, - 1 :: I - D. v
1-�-,-- �, �11
-�--3----'---------EXISTING EDGE OF ASPHALT PAVING, TYP. :
- I
24"x3
fi
11 SCALE:
1/8" =
1 1
-
0 11
11 11x1711 SCA
L
E:

I/lb" =
1 1
-
0 11
s
B'
' 1
(z

EXISTING

PARKING
AREA
ver on"
2770 51-!ADELANDS DR. BUILDING II
1--!ALNUT CREEK, CA '1469
ti�i
.,]},p�y8Y,S�!6
I SPECTRUM POINTE DRIVE, SUITE 130
LAKE FOREST, CA 'l2'-30-22B3
0 ((Al ln AH�

ENGINEERING & SURVEYING
23(,75 BIRTCHER DRIVE
LAKE FOREST, CA 'l2(,30

PROJECT ID,

DRAI--IN BY,

CHECKED BY,
& 10/30/2025 IOOli CD (PCC-1)
4 11/12/2024 IOOli CD (NEI--I RFDS)
3 10/21/2024 IOOli CD's (VIE!,,151-lED)
2 07/01/2024 IOOI CD's (ANTENNA CI-IG.)
I 06/17/2024 IOOI CD's (RADIO UPDATE)
0 06/06/2023 IOOI CD'• FOR SUBMITTAL
A 04/27/2023 90I CD'• FOR REVIEl,,I

REV DATE DESCRIPTION
TBD
MA
DI-I
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAI,,! FOR ANY PERSON,
UNLESS TI-IEY ARE ACTING UNDER Tl-IE

DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
EN<.INEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.

SC001 CARMELOSTONEWAl.l(OPT2) �ul-- .LL.LC-\ I
IFOC'ARMELOST,4SOJTHEASTOF10lHAVE
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, CA 93921
MJG NUMBER: 5CXXXJ81318

SHEET TITLE

SITE PLAN
5I-IEE:f . NUJ1SER
,A-0
.&
ATTACHMENT 3

&
�·
I. ANY CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE CITY PUBLIC ROAD RIGHT-OF-I-IAY SHALL HAVE AN

APPROVED PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION IN THE PUBLIC STREET PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THIS WORK.

2. 1-!0Rl<S THE CONTRACTOR MAY BE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A LOGISTICS PLAN TO THE PUBLIC

DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO COMMENCING WORK THAT ADDRESSES ALL IMPACTS

TO THE CITY AND/OR COUNTY RIGHT-OF-I-IAY, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,

PEDESTRIAN CONTROL, TRAFFIC CONTROL, TRUCK ROUTES, MATERIAL DELIVERIES,

CONTRACTORS PARKING, CONCRETE POURS, CRANE LIFTS, WORK HOURS, NOISE

CONTROL, DUST CONTROL, STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION, CONTRACTORS 1-!0RK.

CONTACT, NOTICING OF AFFECTED SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND SCHEDULE OF

THE REQUIREMENT TO SUBMIT A LOGISTICS PLAN WILL BE DEPENDENT ON THE

NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING RECEIVES WITHIN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO HELP MITIGATE AND CONTROL THE IMPACT TO THE PUBLIC-RIGI-IT-OF-HAY.

IF NECESSARY, PUBLIC � MAY REQUIRE A LOGISTICS PLAN DURING CONSTRUCTION.

S. PRESENTED FOR CONSIDERATION IS A POLE-ONLY EQUIPMENT CONFIGURATION WITH NO GROUND EQUIPMENT PROPOSED AS A PART OF THE BUILD.
•PRC>POSED!SITE PLAN
j
I �

I I - - -
�
�
IL
�
rl
� I
f-, -- I-
� I
�
:j
1 I I
I;
i� l
W
I
\ �
.
.
l
t4
,
1 • t(-
uJ'
I

I EXISTING UNDERGROUND
tS'l·I: 01:: 77"', 01 , �1, "�"'::::- �'"T'� ,m, =c,R .m ,, ;,i'( o,
,�- ?, c;o1.-1- FAST c=- 10TH
CAR IEL E'' THE ·-·-"', CA 'Fe� I
� �I / / /
/ / /

EXISTING DOORI--IAY

PROPOSED CLIMBING SPACE
/ / /
-- -- --
�-------EXISTING SHRUBBERY, TYP.
.6.P\I
r_'.AliivL_O SI "
APN: 010-275-012-000
IFO CARMELO ST, 4 SOUTH
EAST OF 10TH AVE

CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, CA
93921
-- -- --
:I0-275-CI 1
SCU 11 I
,---�-;-�
1 -
1 ---e,--------- EXISTING EDGE OF ASPHALT PAVING, T'l'P. �eel
24"x3fi11 SCALE: 1/8" = 1
1-011
1111x17
11 SCALE: I/lb" = 1
1-011
(z

EXISTING

PARKING
AREA
ver on"
2770 SHADELANDS DR. BUILDING II
1--!ALNUT CREEK, CA '14S9
ti�i
'']},p�y8Y,S�!6
I SPECTRUM POINTE DRIVE, SUITE 130
LAKE FOREST, CA 'l2'-30-22B3
0 ((Al ln AH�

ENGINEERING & SURVEYING
2S'-7S BIRTCHER DRIVE
LAKE FOREST, CA 92'-SO

PROJECT ID,
ORAi-iN BY,

CHECKED BY,
& 10/30/2025 IOOli CD (PCC-1)
4 11/12/2024 IOOli CD (NE!--1 RFDS)
3 10/21/2024 IOOli CD
1 s (Vlfl,,ISI-IED)
2 07/01/2024 IOOI CD1
s (ANTENNA CHG.)
I 06/17/2024 IOOI CD1
s (RADIO UPDATE)
0 06/06/202:I IOOI CD
1 • FOR SUBMITTAL
A 04/27/2023 90I CD
1 • FOR REVIEl,,I

REV DATE DESCRIPTION
TBD
MA
OW
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAI,,! FOR ANY PERSON,
UNLESS TI-IEY ARE ACTING UNDER Tl-IE

DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
EN<.INEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.

SC001 CARMELOSTONEWAl.l(OPT2)
�uH ,tJ:.6C- \ I
IFOC'ARMELOST,4SOJTHEAST0:10lHAVE
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, CA 93921
MJG NUMBER: 5CXXXJ81318

SHEET TITLE
ATTACHMENT 3

�·
I. ANY CONSTRUCTION l,IITHIN THE CITY PUBLIC ROAD
RIGI-IT-OF-1,!AY SHALL HAVE AN APPROVED PERMIT FOR
CONSTRUCTION IN Tl-IE PUBLIC STREET PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THIS WORK.

2. THE CONTRACTOR MAY BE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A LOGISTICS PLAN TO THE PUBLIC 1,!0RKS DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO COMMENCING

WORK THAT ADDRESSES ALL IMPACTS TO THE CITY AND/OR

COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,

PEDESTRIAN CONTROL, TRAFFIC CONTROL, TRUCK ROUTES,

MATERIAL DELIVERIES, CONTRACTORS PARKING, CONCRETE

POURS, CRANE LIFTS, WORK HOURS, NOISE CONTROL, DUST

CONTROL, STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION, CONTRACTORS

CONTACT, NOTICING OF AFFECTED SURROUNDING PROPERTIES,
AND SCHEDULE OF WORK. THE REQUIREMENT TO SUBMIT A

LOGISTICS PLAN WILL BE DEPENDENT ON THE NUMBER OF
APPLICATIONS PUBLIC 1,!0RKS ENGINEERING RECEIVES l,IITHIN ,.
3:
3:
:::,
--,
:::,
:::,

EXISTING OVERHEAD

EXISTING

UNDERGROUND
�LECTRICA_L LINE
>­
<(
Li. _t 0
t
-
-,-- 1, □
--l
1 I
I
I

UNIMPACTED EXISTING
WINDOW lt2 VIEWSI-IED
I
____,

CLOSE PROXIMITY TO HELP MITIGATE AND CONTROL THE IMPACT TO THE PUBLIC-RIGIIT--<JF-I-IAY. IF NECESSARY, PUBLIC WCIRl<S MAY REGll.llRE IU.3 UTILITY LINES. TYP. -++-------- tLL ,_; W I
I
-"' �ISJlg; ':'I.I',� 1?U8It-lG �!:>TRU(:;TICJl,I,
, 3. TREE TO BE TRIMMED BACK I FOOT FROM Tl-IE POLE ON ALL SIDES, WITH LIMB REMOVAL TO KEEP BRANCHING OUT OF REGll.llRED EQUIPMENT CLEARANCES.

I.

I
0 o::i �:::,
Lt')
:::,
:::,
:::,
±22'-I" TRAVELED ROADWAY
:::,
I
I
I
I
3::

I
3:: 0 � 'i
� 3:
3:: � I 0( :::, UJ 3:: I �� I ! ! 0 I
I
EXISTING EDGE I EXISTING ) :::, � OF ASPHALT
UNDERGROUND 3: r � l PAVING, TYP ---.,__
I W-W- WATER LINE� � EXISTING �
3 W -W � I UNDERGROUND
I
w
3'
w -w , .. p:::; I WATER LINE
•�---,'----
I�--.

ENLARGED SITE PLAN
• .,,,4 =vmo _L i l
:::,
3:
3:

EXISTING �/ UNDERGROUND
UNKNOWN LINE 3::

I :::,
I
3:
±24'-3" TRAVELED ROADWAY
3::
3::
:::, I 3::
:::,
±24'-S' TRAVELED ROADWAY
0 I
Lt')
l
EXISTIN�MS--;:;;:;;S, TO B�- -�-- I - RELOCATED TO ROADWAY SIDE I @ OF PG♦E REPLACEMENT POLE
I I I 1-2 - - - - - ___ i -� _ ::r A-4 @ r ,------ ! I .f1 ' 2 w 3 TO TRAVELED ROADWAY
±
"1-4
11 CLEAR
,�-
I

EXISTING

RELOCATED

COMMS LINES, TO BE
TO ROADWAY SIDE - I OF �E REPLACEMENT POL� ----
1 • T
I I
ii
I
T I
:r
-I
TO R.O.W, LINE
,:

I
I
l
I
>-
<(
:i:

I
I
Li.
0 f-
�.
� I
�----------- 7--'---"'

EXISTING WINDOW VIEWSHED PER

CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA MUNICIPAL
WDE CHAPTER I7.4".040(E)(2)( a)
I --,c---NEW VERIZON ANTENNA AND EQUIPMENT MOUNTED
ON REPLACEMENT 55' CL-I WOOD UTILITY POLE
I
!'-+---PROPOSED VERIZON VIEWSI-IED 'l,IINGS' W 4' BEL TING GAP • �+---PROPOSED VERIZON GROUNDING WELL W GROUND ROD
•--+----PROPOSED CLIMBING SPACE
I/
z
i5
_J
5 IO
z
24"x3G
11 SCALE: 3/811 = 1
1-011
II11x17
1 1 SCALE: 3/IG
11 = 1
1-011 2
1 1
1 O"
verizon"
2770 SI-IADELANDS DR. BUILDING II
WALNUT CREEK, CA '145'1
UOIA
I SPECTRUM POINTE DRIVE, SUITE 130
LAKE FOREST, CA 'l2�30-22&3
0 ((Ahn AHi ENGINEERING & SURVEYING
23'-75 BIRTCHER DRIVE
LAKE FOREST, CA 'l2'-30

PROJECT ID,

DRAWN BY,

CHECKED BY,
& 10/30/2025 IOOS CD (PCC-I)
4 11/12/2024 IOOS CD (NEW RFDS)
3 10/21/2024 IOOS CD's (YIE"'15HED)
2 (T//0I/2024 IOOI CD's (ANTENNA CI-IG.)
I Ob/I7/2024 IOOI CD's (RADIO UPDATE)
0 Ob/Ob/2023 IOOI CD'• FOR SUBMITTAL
A 04mt2023 90I CD'• FOR REVIEW

REV DATE DESCRIPTION
TBD
MA
DW
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR AN'r' PERSON,
UNLESS TI-IEY' ARE ACTING UNDER Tl-IE

DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.

SC001 CARMELOSTONEWAl.l(OPT2)
'UH ,!\J :.J,( ;- \ I
IFOGI\RMELOST,4SOIJTHEASTOF10lHA\/E
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, CA 93921
MJG NUMBER: 5CXXXJ81318

SHEET TITLE
ATTACHMENT 3

J.. EXISTING SECONDARY POWER LINE
'f' ±31 -4 A.G.L.
_,....._C) T.,_
0,e
PS;--'Oei
Fr---SE"c
X'-'IS'-' 'f' ±291-11" A.G.L.

IT�IN-G�C-O~N=D-U~IT ____ ,,,----
� EXISTING COMM. LINE
±25'-7'' A.G.L.
� EXISTING COMM. LINE
±231-911 A.G.L.

J.. FINISHED GRADE
'r ±0'-0 A.G.L.
"' I
...

Iz UJ
UJ!:
...!Cl �ill
l: UJ
��/ EXISTING CROSS ARM,

TO BE RELOCATED
a=
'

EXISTING SECONDARY RISER,

TO BE RELOCATED

EXISTING SECONDARY POWER LINES,

TO BE RELOCATED
. ,. • � ��SJt�t�Ti�Y,
+--------- EXISTING WOOD UTILITY POLE,

TO BE REMOVED
0--t--------- EXISTING RISER,

TO BE RELOCATED
I
I
;
l
'�
EXISTING NORTHWEST ELEVATION 24"x3"11 SCALE: 1/4
11 = 1
1-0"
1111x1711 SCALE= 1/8M = 1
1-0
11 4' , 12
�
I. TREE AND BUSHES NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY.

2. ALL LANDSCAPING TO BE RESTORED TO ORIGINAL CONDITIONS.

3. RESTORE ASPI-IALT t ALL DISTURBED SURFACES BY NEW CABLE ROUTE PER CITY STANDARDS.

4. ANTENNA CABLE CONDUIT SHALL PROJECT <o' MINIMUM ABOVE I-IIGI-IEST CONDUCTOR ON POLE. � TOP OF PROPOSED ANTENNA
J.. EXISTING SECONDARY POWER LINE
23 -9 A.G.L.
� TOP OF PROPOSED EQUIPMENT SHROUD
±171-011 A.G.L.
� BOTTOM OF PROPOSED EQUIPMENT SHROUD
±ll'-011 A.G.L.
� TOP OF PROPOSED METER/DISCONNECT
±61-1011 A.G.L.
�--- PROPOSED VERIZON ANTENNA
rRELOCATED SECONDARY POI-IER LINES RE-ATTACI-IED
ONTO ROADI-IAY SIDE OF NEI-I 1o' CROSSARM
.,._.,.._.,._
.,,.. - �""-.... _.,._ .... - ...
• 1--.,.._..,�-� RELOCATED SPAN GUY
\__ ,,,,,,-PROPOSED 4'-61 CROSSARM (I-IOOD F-ARM) AT
/ COMMS LEVEL (BROOK USW-F ARM OR APYD. EQ.)
.,...-c_.,...,=;;;;;�:;:,,D-....._�......._
,,,_..-
.,.
--.,..,-,,-/ � '-.� COMM. LINES RELOCATED TO ROADI-IAY SIDE OF POLE• =---·� ........ : g.,'k����JJ& m� �rDE
- �ijl
=f :' tj PROPOSED CONDUITS (BEYOND),
'°.., � :'. • (I) 2
11 CONDUIT FOR POWER (PG4E RISER TO GRADE)
"'J:
oi I ...l
NU
� • (I) 4
11 CONDUIT FOR COl><I. (ANT. TO SI-IROUD) SEE NOTE 4
! � • (I) 1
1 CONDUIT FOR GROUNDING (ANT. TO SI-IROUD)
±2'-I' • (I) 2
11 CONDUIT FOR FIBER (COMMS LEVEL TO SI-IROUD)
Tl--'it-ttt---cc�---- PROPOSED VERIZON EQUIPMENT SI-IROUD, u � • (I) 48'l0 RADIO (TOP) r • (I) QUAD-PACI< DIPLEXER (BENEATI-I 444"1)
,··· • (I) 881o3 RADIO (BENEATI-I DIPLEXER) l .. ' • (I) PSU lo306 RRU POWER SUPPLY (BOT.-RT.) iT.·
• (I) MAIN GROUND BUSS BAR (BOTTOM-LEFT SIDE)
! l, ·· -- (2) BACl<SIDE 'HINGS' FOR VIEWSI-IED SCREENING i-t-t+------- PROPOSED VERIZa,j STANDOFF BRACKET
EcHt+------- PROPOSED PG4E/VERIZON METER/DlsCONNECT
_,C)-W1--P"" 1 'I' M'+-'O:'f,-,.P�R=OPOS�=E=P�M=E�T=ER/=D=ISCO=�N�N=EC=I�------'11" MIN. ±7 -0 A.G.L. i �--

BELTING GAP
J.. FINISI-IED GRADE
'r ±0'-0 A.G.L.
,,._ _______ REPLACEMENT 55' CL-I WOOD UTILITY POLE
11--------- RELOCATED RISER
,,_ _______ PROPOSED CONDUITS,
• (I) 2
11 PG4E RISER, SEE ABOVE)
• (I) 1
1 CONDUIT FOR GROUNDING (TO GND WELL, BYD.)
• (I) 2
11 CONDUIT FOR FIBER (U.G.TO Si-lROUD, BEYOND)
��-----PROPOSED VERIZON GROUNDING
I,
I

I-IELL W GROUND ROD, BEYOND
'----7 _J
PROPOSED NORTHWEST ELEVATION 24"x3fi11 SCALE: 1/4
11 = 1
1-0
11 11
1 1x1711 SCALE= 1/811 = 1
1-0
11 4'
, 11
verizon"
2770 SI-IADELANDS DR. BUILDING 11
WALNUT CREEi<, CA q45q
!!J DEPLOYMENT SERVICES, ]NC.
1 SPECTRUM POINTE DRIVE, SUITE 130
LAKE FOREST, CA 92'-30-22B3
0 ((AlmAHI

ENGINEERING & SURVEYING
23'-75 BIRTCI-IER DRIVE
LAl<E FOREST, CA 921o30

PROJECT ID,
DRA"'1N BY,
CI-IECl<ED BY•
& 10/30/2025 IOOli CD (PCC-1)
4 11/12/2024 IOOli CD (NEW RFDS)
3 10/21/2024 JOOS CD's (VIEHSI-IED)
2 07/01/2024 IOOI CD'• (ANTENNA CI-IG.)
I 06/17/2024 IOOI CD's (RADIO UPDATE)
0 06/06/20Z3 IOOI CD'• FOR SUBMITTAL
A 04nl/20Z3 'IOI CD'• FOR REVIEW

REV DATE DESCRIPTION
TBD
MA
DW
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC

IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,
UNLESS TI-IE'I" ARE ACTING UNDER Tl-IE

DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
EN<.INEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.

SC001 CARMELOSTONEWAl.l(OPT2)
�uH l'.I
IF0C'ARMEL0ST,4SOJTHE.AST0:10lHAVE
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, CA 93921
M[X; NUMBER: 5CXXXJ81318

SHEET TITLE

ELEVATIONS
[
51-lEET NUMBER
A-3
l
ATTACHMENT 3

EXISTING PRIMARY POHER LINE
±391-2 A.G.L.

TOP OF EXISTING UTILITY POLE
±381-11 A.G.L.

EXISTING SECONDARY POHER LINE
±31 -4 A.G.L.
_,C)....._T.,_0,e
PS;--'Oei
Fr---SE"c
X'-'
IS'-' 'f' ±291-11" A.G.L. IT�IN-G�C-O~N~D-U~IT ____ ,,,---- � EXISTING COMM. LINE
±25'-7'' A.G.L.
� EXISTING COMM. LINE
±231-911 A.G.L.

FINISI-IED GRADE
±0'-0 A.G.L.

EXISTING NORTHEAST ELEVATION
----- EXISTING (4) PRIMARY POHER LINES,

TO BE RELOCATED
---- EXISTING SECONDARY RISER,

TO BE RELOCATED

EXISTING SECONDARY POHER LINES,

TO BE RELOCATED

EXISTING SPAN GUY,

TO BE RELOCATED
+--------- EXISTING HOOD UTILITY POLE,

TO BE REMOVED
L.J
11---------- EXISTING RISER,

TO BE RELOCATED
24"x3"11 SCALE: 1/4
11 = 1
1-0"
1111x1711 SCALE= 1/8
M = 1
1-0
11 4' ' 2
�
I. TREE AND BUSI-IES NW 51-!0v,iN FOR CLARITY.

2. ALL LANDSCAPING TO BE RESTORED TO ORIGINAL CONDITIONS.

3. RESTORE ASPI-IALT t ALL DISTURBED SURFACES BY NEv,i CABLE ROUTE PER CITY STANDARDS.

4. ANTENNA CABLE CONDUIT SI-IALL PROJECT <o' MINIMUM ABOVE I-IIGI-IEST CONDUCTOR ON POLE. � TOP OF PROPOSED ANTENNA
±4"11-1011 A.G.L.
_!'lrC) C'e'
E',!
N!/,;r'-'E=li;ti"
L=/
1'-c <p" ±48 -7 A
NE
.G.L. !'-,'OF"'---'-P"'R"'O,_P_,.OS=:E.,D�A□N'-'-T-'-E"'N.,,N.,,Ac,._ ____ ___,r- TOP OF PROPOSED UTILITY POLE ±4"' -4 A.G.L. BOTTOM OF ANTENNA MOUNT BRACKET
±45 -8 A.G.L.
� EXISTING SECONDARY POv,IER LINE
±311-411 A.G.L.
_,C)....._T.,_
0,e
PS;--'Oei
Fr---SE"c
X'-'
IS'-' 'f' ±291-IIP A.G.L. IT�IN-G�C-O~N~D-U~IT ____ ,,,---- � REhbAfEMENT 4'-811 CROSS-ARM AT COMMS
±2<o -s A.G.L.
� EXISTING COMM LINE
±251-711 A.G.L.
� �
x11
Tl�G COMM. LINE
23 -9 A.G.L.
� TOP OF PROPOSED EQUIPMENT SI-IROUD
±171-011 A.G.L.
� BOTTOM OF PROPOSED EQUIPMENT SI-IROUD
±ll'-011 A.G.L.
\__
----PROPOSED VERIZON ANTENNA
PROFQ!:>ED .VERIZON CABLE SHRouo, CtJT SI-IRou·D 1
11 • &
• ASOVE" POLE "TOP PER PGtE POLE-TOP INSPECTION
i,;1EQU1�5;�T� (MAINT,..IN 1
1 _cLE:4-�Nc� :ro. ,:OP_ ()f !"?�Y
�-----PROPOSED VERIZON RF v,!ARNING

SIGN FACING CLIMB SPACE AT
3'-0' MIN. BELOW ANTENNA
� RELOCATED PRIMARY (4) POWER LINES

RELOCATED CROSS ARM
� RELOCATED SECONDARY POI-IER LINES
... -::-=--� ��ELOCATED SPAN GUY PROPOSED 4'-8' CROSSARM (I-IOOD F-ARM) AT COMMS LEVEL (BROOK USW-F ARM OR APVD. EQ,)
' '� -.C::::...__ • COMM. LINES RELOCATED TO ROADv,IAY SIDE OF POLE, ...__, • AT*T COMMS RELOCATED TO BOTTOM INSIDE • COMCAST COMMS RELOCATED TO TOP OUTSIDE
Ir-:=====°?...--- PROPOSED CONDUITS (BEYOND),
(I) 2
11 CONDUIT FOR POWER (PGtE RISER TO GRADE)
(I) 4
11 CONDUIT FOR COl><I. (ANT. TO SI-IROUD) SEE NOTE 4
(I) I' CONDUIT FOR GROUNDING (ANT. TO SI-IROUD)
,--7
I I
I I
L __ J
(I) 2
11 CONDUIT FOR FIBER (COMMS LEVEL TO SI-IROUD)
c:J ,._ ______ PROPOSED VERIZON EQUIPMENT SI-IROUD,
(I) 4890 RADIO (TOP)
(I) QUAD-PACK DIPLEXER (BENEATI-I 4449)
(I) 881o3 RADIO (BENEATI-I DIPLEXER)
(I) PSU 1&308 RRU POWER SUPPLY (BOT.-RT.)
(I) MAIN GROUND BUSS BAR (BOTTOM-LEFT SIDE)
,,.,..,__ ______ PROPOSED VERIZa,j STANDOFF BRACKET
� TOP OF PROPOSED METER/DISCONNECT
±81-1011 A.G.L. "'<---J1\liit.l--------PROPOSED PGtEIYERIZON METER/DlsCONNECT � w:1lflM Of PROPOSED METER/DISCONNECT
±7 -0 A.G.L.

FINISI-IED GRADE
±0'-0 A.G.L.
7 PROPOSED NORTHEAST ELEVATION
t-------- REPLACEMENT SS' CL-I WOOD UTILITY POLE
1--------- RELOCATED RISER
I-_
-_-_-_-
_-�;=---- PROPOSED CONDUITS,
(I) 2
11 PGtE RISER (BEYOND)
(I) 1
1 CONDUIT FOR GROUNDING (TO GND WELL)
• (I) 2
11 CONDUIT FOR FIBER (U.G.TO Si-lROUD)

PROPOSED VERIZON GROUNDING

I-IELL W GROUND ROD, BEYOND
24"x3fi11 SCALE: 1/4
11 = 1
1-0
11 111
1x1711 SCALE= 1/8
11 = 1
1-011 ' 1 4'
verizon"
2770 SI-IADELANDS DR. BUILDING 11
v,IALNUT CREEK, CA '145'1
UOIA
1 SPECTRUM POINTE DRIVE, SUITE 130
LAKE FOREST, CA 'l2'-30-22B3
0 ((AlmAHI

ENGINEERING & SURVEYING
23<o75 BIRTCI-IER DRIVE
LAKE FOREST, CA '12<o30

PROJECT ID,
DRAv,iN BY,

CI-IECKED BY,
& 10/30/2025 IOOli CD (PCC-1)
4 11/12/2024 IOOli CD (NEW RFDS)
3 10/21/2024 lOOli CD's (VIEl,,ISI-IED)
2 07/01/2024 IOOI CD'• (ANTENNA CI-IG.)
I 06/17/2024 IOOI CD's (RADIO UPDATE)
0 06/06/2023 IOOI CD'• FOR SUBMITTAL
A 04/27/2023 'IOI CD'• FOR REVIEJ,,J

REV DATE DESCRIPTION
TBD
MA
Dv,i
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
IT IS A VIOLATION OF l,Al,,I FOR ANY PERSON,
UNLESS TI-IE'I" ARE ACTING UNDER Tl-IE

DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
EN<.INEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.

SC001 CARMELOSTONEWAl.l(OPT2)
�uH l'.I
IF0C'ARMEL0ST,4SOJTHEAST0:10lHAVE
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, CA 93921
M[X; NUMBER: 5CXXXJ81318

SHEET TITLE

ELEVATIONS
[
5I-IEET NUMBER
A-4
l
ATTACHMENT 3

tla!Ja:i.,
I. REQUIRED EQJIPMENT STANDOFF FROM POLE IS MINIMUM 41 PER CPIJC G0--'6. ACTUAL DISTANCE HILL VMl:f HITM SPECIFIC POLE CCffDITICNS AND CAN EXTEND AS MUCI-I AS 51 POSSIBLE • IN ALL CASES, EQJIPMENT HILL BE PLACED AS CLOSE TOGElHER AS AND AS FW51l TO POLE AS CCffDITICNS ALLOH.

2. INSTALL CLIMBING PEGS A5 REQUIRED PER G.0.<15
CClt>----H------ PROPOSED CONDUITS,
,-----------7
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
(I) 2
1 CONDUIT FOR POHER
(I) 4
1 CONDUIT FOR COAX
(I) 2
1 CONDUIT FOR FIBER
• (I) 1
1 CONDUIT FOR GROUNDING

PROPOSED EQUIPMENT SHROUD

MOUNTED ON STANDOFF BRACKET
(721H.x21.741H.xl5.'l"l1D. / 12.4 C.F.)
1 -+---+------PROPOSED 4eq() RADIO MOUNTED
: WIN EQUIPMENT SHROUD
I
L ___________ J
r-----7
: 1i---+---,�::C------PROPOSED CBCl"l23Q-43
L _____ _J QUAD-PACK DIPLEXER MOUNTED
r----------,
I I
I I
I I
I I

WIN EQUIPMENT SHROUD
I I @
I I
1 --+----- -PROPOSED 881&3 RADIO MOUNTED 5 i H/IN EQUIPMENT 51-4ROUD D-I I
�---------J
PROPOSED GROUND BUSS BAR �
t-----,t--t---/"�
MOUNTED WIN EQUIPMENT SHROUD�
I
I
I
I
I
PROPOSED FIBER DEMARC �
MOUNTED WIN EQUIPMENT SHROU�
1 >---+------- PROPOSED POHER-"306 48VDC
'k------�-r--rrc..----..-lr_
�
_
rj� :::;::�����T
U���NTED
(POHERS BOTH RADIO UNITS)
1,,--+--------- PROPOSED VERIZON I
/1
I STANDOFF BRACKET @D-3
,-1---------PROPOSED VERIZON 5MARTPOLE

METER DISCONNECT

COMBINATION UNIT
>------+--------PROPOSED CONDUITS,

G--IG-- G-- G
�
I
(I) 2
1 CONDUIT FOR FIBER
(1) 1
1 CONDUIT FOR

GROUNDING
-------------POLE EMBEDMENT
-------------�
PROPOSED ELEVATION 241
x3'.1 SCALE: 1
1:::1
1-01
ll1
xl71 SCALE: 1/21
=11
-o• 1' O' 2
in_I
:;; 518'♦ EQUIPMENT

ASSEMBLY TIIRU BOLT

WSQUARE HASHER AND
NUT, (SAE .J4:zq GR.2)---+-'�

EXISTING SECONDARY

RISER, REATTACHED

TO NEH POLE
PROP05ED SQUARE

HASHER(S), AS REQUIRED
"'
-H
TOI" OF E®ll"MENT e!«OUD

SECTION 'B'
i'­_I
:;; _I
:;;
'

PROPOSED EQUIPMENT SHROUD
PROPOSED CBCl"123Q-43

QUAD-PACK DIPLEXER MOUNTED

WITI-IIN ON CHANNEL
' PROPOSED UNISTRUT CUT TO LENGTH
5181

WSQUARE

ASSEMBLY
♦ EGIIJIPMENT
HASHER

TIIRU BOLT
�r�:t�
AND
•==7✓"i'F,F----✓...::•·'------=

NEOPRENE BEARING
=::

PAD =
NUT, (SAE .J4:zq GR.2)---t-,--,c:,...

EXISTING SECONDARY

RISER, REATTACHED

TO NEH POLE

PROPOSED

HASHER(S),
SQUARE

AS REQUIRED
TOI" Of' Pll"l-Exe,,t.

SECTION 'D'
PROPOSED EQUIPMENT SHROUD PROPOSPOW ED P5U-1o:!06 48VDC

ER SUPPLY UNIT

PROPOSED FIBER NID

PROPOSED MASTER
GROUND BU55 BAR
in_I
:;;

PROPOSED

UNISTRUT CUT

TO LENGTH

EXISTING SECONDARY

RISER, REATTACHED

TO NEH POLE

PROPOSED SQUARE

HASHER(S), AS REQUIRED
TOI" OF �PIO
SECTION 'CfE'
---------PROP05ED SMARTPOLE METER/DISCONNECT
5/81♦ EQUIPMENT

ASSEMBLY TIIRU BOLT

WSQUARE HASHER AND
�
µ::::i::r:J-----PROPOSED UNISTRUT CUT TO LENGTH
----PROP05ED STAND-OFF BRACKET
..,,-----PROP05ED FROM U.G. TO BOT. OF SHROUD,
• (I) 2
1 PVC FIBER CONDUIT
• (I) 1
1 PVC GROUND CONDUIT
NUT, (SAE .J4:zq GR.2)---/--C-�
PROP05ED EGIIJIPMENT MOUNT

NEOPRENE BEARING PAD

EXISTING SECONDARY

RISER, REATTACHED

TO NEH POLE
EXISTING 2-21 RISER CONDUITS, REATTACHED
PROP05ED

TO NEH POLE
SQUARE

HASHER(S), AS REWIRED
TOI" Of' SMAATl"QLE
ME'T'ER/121SCONNET
SEcTION 'A'
\_�,,.,. ru� �= \

PROPOSED EQUIPMENT LAYOUT PLAN
,,_,-30'x30' CLIMB SPACE
/ ABOVE SHROUD

PROPOSED EQUIPMENT SHROUD
PROPOSED (2) VERIZON RRUe
(REMOTE RADIO UNIT) MOUNTED

WITI-IIN ON CI-IANNEL
PROPOSED STAND-OFF BRACKET PROP05ED

EQUIPMENT MOUNT

EQUIPMENT MOUNT

PROPOSED

NEOPRENE BEARING PAD
2 1 PVC POWER CONDUIT FROM
SEC. WIRES TO 5MARTPOLE METER/DISC.
---PROPOSED 1
1 GROUND CONDUIT (leCNE)
�PROPOSED 4' COAX CONDUIT
( Af30/E UPPER RADIO)
\_30'x30' CLIMB SPACE _J
NOTE,
3011x30N CLIMB SPACE

ROTATES ABOVE

SHROUD LEVEL
!:,!QTf.,_

ALL VERIZON CABLES/CONDUITS

SHALL ROUTE INSIDE SHROUD

FROM TOP TO BOTTOM OF
51-!ROUD, OR FROM BOTTOM TO �
TOP

SI-IALL
OF
BE
SHROUD.

ROUTED
NO
ON

CONDUIT
Tl-IE • EXTERIOR OF Tl-IE SI-IROUD
2 411x3�11 SCALE: NTS
1111xl711 SCALE: NTS 1
verizon"
2770 SHADELANDS DR. BUILDING II
,-iALNUT CREEK, CA 9459
���'
�lSEQUOIA
,Q DEPLOYMENT SER.VICES, INC.

I SPECTRUM POINTE DRIVE, SUITE 130
LAl<E FOREST, CA 92b30-2283
0 (1hHAH�

ENGINEERING & SURVEYING
231o75 BIRTCHER DRIVE
LAKE FOREST, CA 92/o:!O

PROJECT ID,
DRA,-iN BY,

CHECKED BY,
& 10/30/2025 IOOI CD (PCC-1)
4 11/12/2024 IOOI CD (NEH RFD5)
3 10/21/2024 IOOI CD's (VIEHSHED)
2 07/01/2024 IOOI CD's (ANTENNA CHG.)
I CX./17/2024 IOOI CD's (RADIO UPDATE)
0 CX,/CX,/20'13 IOOI CD's FOR SUBMITTAL
A 04127/2<113 'lOli CD's FOR REVIEH

REV DATE DESCRIPTION
TBD
MA
DW
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
IT 15 A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,

UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE

DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.

SCCXl1 CARMELO STQ\JEWALl(OPT.2)
Pli=ll IC RO -JJ;\C�I\- TCJ:

IFO CARMELO ST, 4 SOUTI-l EAST OF 10TI-l AVE
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, CA 93921
MDG NUMBER: 5CXXXl81318
51-lEET TITLE

POLE-MOUNTED

EQUIPMENT ELEVATIONS
[
51-!EET NUMBER
A-5
l
ATTACHMENT 3

EQUIPMENT SHROUD
(OR APPROVED EQUAL)
21 74

19.56 OR APPROVED

EQUIVALENT
HHIII
IIIIHI !!!!!!!!!!!!• ····••i
IH!!IHI!
!!!!!!!
•••••••
!HHH 2.00 iiiiiil
HHIII
IIIIIH
HHHi •••••••
iiiiiii
1111111
CONSTRUCTION:
5000 SERIES ALUM.

W/ CARBON STEEL

BRACKET
PAINT:

POWDER COAT
{CUSTOMER SPEC.)
MOUNTING:

COMBINED {FLUSH,
BANDED, THRUBOL TED, 6� OFFSET)
VOLUME:

12.4 CU. FT.

WEIGHT:
401 LBS. W/

EQUIPMENT
COMBINED MOUN!. FLUSH

CONFIGURATION SHOWN IN

THIS VIEW

EQUIPMENT SHROUD

COMMSCOPE
DIPLEXER CBC1923Q-43
8 POSITION

GROUND BAR
ARIA TECH - PART No. NID-12 FI BER DEMARC
(OR APPROVED EQUAL)
DIMENSION (Hxl-lxD), 8.S4"xlO"x2.88'
SHIPPING 1-lEIGHT, < 10 LBS.

CAPACITY, 12 FIBERS
•(f>-PACK OF

DUPLEX SC OR
LC JUMPERS)•

SPECIAL FEATURES, AVAILABLE AS A
SINGLE OR DUALDOOR ENCLOSURE

EXPOSURE RATING,

ATTACHMENT,
COLOR,

UL LISTING,
OUTDOOR / NEMA-3R
+ FOREIGN MATTER

INTRUSION (FMI)

PROPTECTION

NON-METALLIC

ENCLOSURE

DIRECT-MOUNT,

BACKBOARD,

UNISTRUT OR

PIPE-MOUNT
GRAY
UL 497 OR

APPROVED

EQUIVALENT

FIBER DEMARCATION BOX

DOOR& HEAT

DEFLECTOR HIDDEN TO

SHOW EQUIPMENT
24"x3f>' SCALE, NTS
ll11xl7
11 SCALE: NTS
2411x36
11 SCALE: NTS
1I11xl711 SCALE, NTS
COMMSCOPE CB C1923O-34 DIPLEXER
(OR APPROVED EQUAL)
QUAD-PACK DIPLEXER, PC5/Ai-l5+HC5, DC BLOCK, 4.3-10

WLOR, GRAY
DIMENSIONS, 1--lxWxD, 212xllbx84MM (8.311x4.611x3.311)
1-lEIGHT, 3.7 KG (7.2 LBS) - •1--ll MOUNT HARDHARE
WNNECTOR INTERFACE, 4.3-10 DIN FEMALE (LONG-NECK)
OR

APPROVED

EQUIVALENT MOUNT AT

TOP AREA

OF CHANNEL
ELECTRICAL SPECIFICATIONS (SUB-MODULES lf2, BRANCH I)
LICENSE BAND, AHS 1700 I HCS 2300 I (3) TDD
OPERATING FREQUENCY BAND, 1'-95-1780 MHZ / 2110 - 23W MHZ INSERTION LOSS, MAXIMUM, 0.25 DB
OUTPUT PHR., MAX. COMP., 100 H
TOTAL GROUP DELAY, MAX., IS NS
ELECTRICAL SPECIFICATIONS (SUB-MODULES lt2, BRANCH 2)
LICENSE BAND, PCS 1900
OPERATING FREQUENCY BAND, 1850 - 1990 MHZ
INSERTION LOSS, MAXIMUM, 0.25 DB
OUTPUT PWR., MAX. COMP., 100 1-l
TOTAL GROUP DELAY, MAX., IS NS

MOUNTING

DIPLEXER
MOUNT ASS'�
·
• I I
MOUNT ASS:. -,
.
•.•
.
1 ·
:··
.
·•
.
•·
.
•
.
·
.
1 .. STAND-OFF • ••• •
.
i .\ ,· -"' l: '1
4-QUAD DIPLEXER SPECS 2411x3611 SCALE: NTS
1111x1711 SCALE: NTS
9 ERICSSON POWER-63O8
(OR APPROVED EQUAL)

ELECTRICAL SPECIFICATIONS,
MAX. INPUT POl-lER,
OPERATIONAL TEMP. RANGE,

NOMINAL INPUT VOLTAGE,
RATED OPER. VOLTAGE RANGE,

EXTERNAL INPUT FUSE,
EXTERNAL AC FEED BREAKER<
COLOR,
MAX -48VDC OUTPUT,
f>3A MAX. @ 240VAC
-40·c TO +ss·c
I20VAC t 240 VAC
8'--140 VAC t 172-2f>4 VAC
WA @ 120 OR 240 VAC
2P/..OA@ 240V
GRAY (NCS 5 1002-B)
f>.OKW
-48VDC POHER

OUTPUT POR
(7@SOA M
SIGNAL

INTERFACE
PORTS

WNNECTION
FOR (I) #'-AHG

DOUBLE-HOLE

GROUNDING LUG

POWER SUPPLY UNIT (PSU)

MOUNTING SHALL ALWAYS BE HANDLE-UP
I PER EQUIPMENT SHROUD MFR. SPECS.

DIMENSIONS Hxl-lxD - mm (IN ),
477x343xll0 (18.B x 13.S x 4.35)
� 14.0Kg 30.8'- LBS.

H
2411x3b11 SCALE: NTS
I1"x1711 SCALE: NTS
wY
6 ERICSSON RADIO 8863 (OR APPROVED EQUAL):

DIMENSION WxDxl-l (mm} 14.B'(37S), f>.3"(I�0), lf>.5"(420) 1-lEIGI-IT ( g), 57.4 lbs ( < 2f>)
8TX/8RX
SUPPORT SPLIT MODE (2 X 4T4R AS MULTI-SECTOR

SOLUTION)
T x POWER 8x40H
200 Ml-lz IBW TDD
2 x 25 Gbps CPRI (COMPATIBLE TO I0G) CPRI SFP28
-48 VDC, MAX � I3WW (00%TX-20%RX)
OR

APPROVED

EQUIVALENT
8 C-BAND RRU SPECIFICATIONS
7 MANUFACTURER: ERICSSON
MODEL: RADIO 4890HP 4882 48866 S
(OR APPROVED EQUA0
DIMENSIONS, 1-lxvslxD IN, 17.511 x 15.2 11 x 7.011
WEIGi-iT, '=>9.5 LBS
B RF PORTS, 4TBR PER BAND (5 FOR TX)

15.7"
c:::J c::==::J c:::J
u u u u I_____!"
� FRONT VIEl-l

RRU SPECIFICATION
24"x3b11 SCALE, NTS
1111xl711 SCALE: NTS
!.aiQ....llJlli

BOTJOM VIEW
24"x3f>" SCALE, NTS
1111xl711 SCALE: NTS 4
X 'Y: '°'•ndlil Conntcdon
W & Z: CT conn.cdon
z
w
Nk:kk ptated • White color
arnsptn
Y Nkkkplaled
WhlttCOIOr
Plunger Switch
co
0 C'0
B
Transformer Rated SmartPole Meter And 4-pin Socket
(OR APPROVED EQUAL)
SMARTPOLE METER - CODE : M241492(BY OTHERS) 3
TESCO CAT. 703

TRANSFORMER-RATED SMARTPOLE METER DISCONNECT BOX
(OR APPROVED EQUAL)

CURRENT UP TO '-OA
CAT. 703-240 FOR 240V 2-WIRE
51 NGLE PHASE APPLICATIONS
POl-lDER COATED G-90

GALVANIZED STEEL

MARINE-GRADE HIGI-I DENSITY

POL YETI-IYLENE (I-IDPE) HOLD
DOl-lN STRAP
4-PIN RECEPTACLE
TAMPER RESISTANT 114" SEAL

GROUND/BONDING LUG
NEMA 3R ENCLOSURE

OPTIONAL POLE MOUNTING
BRACKET (CAT. 703-PB)
OR

APPROVED

EQUIVALENT

7.36' IX CONCENTRIC KNOCKOUTS
FOR 1/2, 3/4, I, 1-1/4 CONDUIT
3X TANGENTIAL KNOCKOUTS
FOR 3/4, I, 1-1/4 CONDUIT

IX TANGENTIAL KNOCKOUTS
710 FOR I, 1-1/4, 1-1/2 CONDUIT
(/>.271 MTG i-lOLE
12 112•
2X¢.321

MTG HOLES
SMARTPOLE METER DISCONNECT BOX (M241692) 2
JMA CX200Ml236 'CANISTER' ANTENNA
20-PORT CYLINDER ANTENNA 1695-39BO MHZ
B PORTS 1695-2690 MHZ
4 PORTS 3400-3700 MHZ
B PORTS 3700-39B0 MHZ
SMALL CELL MUL Tl-PORT CYLINDER ANTENNA FOR
INCREASED COVERAGE t CAPACITY APPLICATIONS,
4x4 MIMO-CAPABLE 1695-2690 t 3400-3700 MHZ
BxB BEAMFORMING-CAPABLE FOR 3700-3980 MHZ
INCREASED 3.5 GHZ GAIN FOR IMPROVED COVERAGE

SYMMETRICAL PATTERN PERFORMANCE ACROSS
ALL 1695-2690 MHZ PORTS

EXCELLENT CROSS-POLAR DISCRIMINATION

FOR MIMO PERFORMANCE
-----

ANTENNA

B PORTS
3700-3980 MHZ

14.6'f
1 verizon"
2770 5HADELAND5 DR. BUILDING II
WALNUT CREEK, CA 9459
UOIA
chJ DEPLOYMENT SERVICES, ]NC.

I SPECTRUM POINTE DRIVE, SUITE 130
LAKE FOREST, CA 92�30-22B3
0 (1hHAHI

ENGINEERING & SURVEYING
2%75 BIRTCHER DRIVE
LAKE FOREST, CA 92630

PROJECT ID,
DRAl-lN BY,

CHECKED BY,
Lt,
10/30/2025 IOOS CD (PCC-1)
4 11/12/2024 IOOS CD (NEW RFDS)
3 10/21/2024 IOOS CD's (VIEWSHED)
2 07/01/2024 IOOI CD'• (ANTENNA CI-IG.)
I 06/17/2024 IOOI CD's (RADIO UPDATE)
0 06/06/2023 IOOI CD'• FOR SUBMITTAL
A 04/27/2023 'IOI CD'• FC4'1 REVIEW

REV DATE DESCRIPTION
TBD
MA
DW
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC

IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,
UNLESS TI-IEY ARE ACTING UNDER Tl-IE

DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.

SC001 CARMELOSTONEWAl.l(OPT2)
�UH LL.I:[- \I
IFOC'ARMELOST,4SOJTHEASTOF10THA\/E
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, CA 93921
MJG NUMBER: 5CXXXJ81318

SHEET TITLE

EQUIPMENT DETAILS
[
51-lEET NUMBER
D-1
l
ATTACHMENT 3

MECHANICAi. OIRl.llilE

APPROXIMATE WBGHT
()J>o o<!()
RIS POllS 'llS'lO 0)8-318"

22.nus
P0lE
IBY01HERSJ

ANTENNA MOUNT
"°""
RISPQ.B IDS'TO 011-3111"'
014/1,") > NOTE,

SHROUD INSTALLATION REQUIRED BY

CITY OF CARMEL-BY -THE-SEA FOR
CABLE CONNECTION CONCEALMENT.

SHROUD TRIM/REMOVAL REQUIRED BY PG♦E
FOR POLE-TOP INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS.

SIANlwmDU\MEIIR IS()IDSEPARAMOUNT
1EL'fJ
5H:110N,...

M!CHAIIC.IJ.OUILNI!

CUSTOMER ASSEMILT GUIDE
(Sa.st,IGl.EIIOLTADAl"IERRA:� .D Wl1H CANJENMA �"""'SlfEVfJ ----- SU'NOIEI OOID5B'ARATRY! • !
0 SECION ..

SCALE 1: I DEIMLC
.i,
SHROUD ARM. rsowwmt HARDWARE
CANJ9U�ASI..EEVE
lRIM. IKJTTOM OF BOIH SHROUD AROUHn on. OF POlf
HALVESJNlHEFB.DlORT

1. SIAN.SSS'l:B.KARDWMElOHAYEAMRIEIZE llESCRPl10N I.U8RICN(f APPi.iD IIEfOREASSEMBLY. • CABLE!SHROUD
(OR APPROVED EQUAL)
24"x3"" SCALE, NTS
1111x1711 SCALE: NT5 5
R1S POI.ES ¢STO �8-3/11'
1'1/ltl'SI..OlSR>R
1•W1DE�DSIRN'S (NOT�D}
POlf IBTODIIRSI

1. STAlltiSSSTEELHARDWARETOHA.VEANmBZEUBl!ICANT Af'f'I.ED BEFORE �f:MBLY.

CUSIOMEI AS.SEMILT GUIDE
(OR APPROVED EQUAL)
BAND-IT C204B9

STAINLESS STEEL BANDING
(OR APPROVED EQUAL)

INSTALL PER MANUFACTURER'S
SPECIFICATIONS.
i'<IDTH, 1/2 IN.

THICKNESS, 0.03 IN.
!'<EIGHT, S.S LBS/100' ROLL.

OR

APPROVED

EQUIVALENT
BUCKL�------11

BAND-IT
STEEL BANDING----+-�
2411x3G11 SCALE= NTS
ll-xl711 SCALE: NTS 6 STEEL BANDING 24'x3G" SCALE, NTS
11"x1711 SCALE: NTS
ANTENNA VOLUME: (1) 14.6"(1lx29.8"H. = (7.3" x 7.3" x 7t x 29.8"H.) = 4,988.98 CUBIC INCHES (4,988.98 CU. IN.+ 1,728 CU. IN/ CU. FT.)= 2.89 CUBIC FEET ANTENNA VOLUME CABLE SHROUD VOLUME: (1) 12.3"(1lx15"H. = (6.16" x 6.16" x 7t x 15"H.) = 1,785.97 CUBIC INCHES (1,785.97 CU. IN.+ 1,728 CU. IN/ CU. FT.)= 1.03 CUBIC FEET CABLE SHROUD VOLUME EQUIPMENT SHROUD VOLUME: (1) 72"H.x20"W.xl8"D. = 25,920 CUBIC INCHES {25,920 CU. IN.+ 1,728 CU. IN/ CU. FT.)= 15 CUBIC FEET EQUIPMENT SHROUD VOLUME DISCONNECT & METER VOLUME: (1) 18.5"H.x8.61"W.x4.22"D. + (1) 3.6"(1lx2.67"H. = 780.89 CUBIC INCHES (780.89 CU. IN.+ 1,728 CU. IN/ CU. FT.)= 0.45 CUBIC FEET DISCONNECT & METER VOLUME

FOB CURB VALVE BOX
e
11 1.0. x 12"
OR

APPROVED

EQUIVALENT
- ETCHED POLYPROPYLENE FACE
- FACE ANCHORED IN CONCRETE
- ULTRA-VIOLET INHIBITOR
EXCEEDS ASTM-Dl""l3 STANDARDS

FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STRESS
Curb Valve Box
No. FOB BOX
34lbs.
',TOTAL POLE-ADDITION VOLUME: 4,988.98 CU.IN. (ANTENNA)+ 1,785.97 CU.IN. (CABLE SHROUD)+/ CRACKING RESISTANCE FOSC
< 25,920 CU.IN. (EQUIPMENT SHROUD)= 780.89 CU.IN. (METER & DISC)= 33,475.84 CUBIC INCHES '•==�--------------------� (33,475.84 CU. IN.+ 1,728 CU. IN/ CU. FT.)= 19.37 CUBIC FEET TOTAL POLE-ADDITION VOLUME &

EQUIPMENT VOLUME TABLE

CONTRACTOR NOTE,
SITE ID !'<ILL BE SWITCH II, SITE II AND SITE NAME .
2411x36
N SCALE: NT5
1111�17
11 •
SCA�E: .. N.T� 5
OLDCASTLE APPROX.

ORDERING SHIPPING

CODE ITEM WEIGHT DESCRIPTION
FOBBOX BOX 34Ibs. FOB CURB VALVE BOX (8' I. D. x 12" HIGH)-4B PER PALLET FOBR LID Bibs. REINFORCED CONCRETE LID WITH PLASTIC RING FOBC LID Bibs. CAST IRON LID
FL08D LID 2Ibs. FIBREL YTE LID, NON-CONCRETE
V01-71C LID 12Ibs. CAST IRON GRATE AfJA COMPLIANT

GROUNDING WELL
CONTRACTOR NOTE:
2411x36
11 SCALE, NT5
ll'xl7" SCALE, NTS
'-,:::::==========::7 SITE ID WILL BE Si'<ITCH #, SITE # AND SITE NAME. 3 2
NODE NUMBER WILL BE MARKETII-NODE.BII-SMALL CELL NAME. NON.£MERGENCVNODE SITEPOWERSHUTDOWNPROCEDURES

1. FOR NON-EMERGENCT/SCHEDULEDPOWER SHlJTIXJWN:
�LVERIZON(!00)264-662024HOUR.5PRIORTO SCHEDULEDPOWERSHlJT NODE NUMBER !'<ILL BE MARKET#-NODE.B#-SMALL CELL NAME.

NQllz
I. INSTALL ONE SIGN 3'
BELO!'< ANTENNA.

Radio frequency fields beyond this point
may exceed the FCC general public
exposure limit. Obey •11 postad •Ion• and site guidelines tor wotldng In r9dlo frequency envlronmenta.

Site ID: __________ _
Contact 1-800-264-6620
.,. ___ c-.....- __ ..,_...,._...,_
Ocnlll)IJN
verizon'
GO95 RF SIGNAGE 24"x3G" SCALE, NTS
11 11xl7N SCALE: NT5
PROVl□ETHEFOLLOWINGINFORM ATION·
-SITE NUMBER:SOJ0081318/SC001CARMELOSTONEWALL(OPT.21
YDURNAMEAN□RE"50NFORPOWER SHlJT-OFF

OUTSIDE PANEL DOOR SHOHING

DISCONNECT SWITCH ID ON PLAQUE
ill
cri
PROVIDEDURATIONOF OllTAGE
Plll.L□ISCONNECTHANDI.EORBREAKER.sTO THE 'OFF'POSmoN
POWERSHUTOFF VERIFICATlONWITHYOURAPPROVEDCOMPANY

PROCEDURES
RESTORE POWER BY F>I.ACING POWER DISOONNECTHANDI.EOR BREAKERS IN THE'ON' POSITlON

REINSTALL LOCKONPOWERHMDLE ORBREAKERBOX

2. EMERGENCTPOWERSHUTOFF
CALLVERIZON(800)2&H620
PROVl□ETHE FOLLOWINGINFORM ATION·
:�:�:��:����!
1 :;R��E
�
A�
M
:r��:;oNEWAU.(OPT.2)

PROVIDE DURATION OF OUTAGE
Plll.LDISCONNECTHANDLEORBREAKER.sTO"OFF'POSITION
POWER SHUT OFF VERIFICATION WITH YOUR APPI\OVED COMPANY

PROCEDURES
RESTOUPOWEMBYF>I.ACINGPOWER DISCONNECTHAN□LEORBREAKERSIN

THE'ON' POSITION

REINSTALL LOCKONPOWERHANDLE ORBREAKERBOX
', 1. s• ¥--------------¥ I.

NEMA 3R RAIN COVER

DISCONNECT SWITCH
NE!'< PHENOLIC SIGN TO
BE ATTACHED TO PANEL.

PANEL DOOR WITH

LATCH-LOOP (LOCKABLE)
4 SHUTDOWN SIGN ON DISCONNECT 24"x3G" SCALE, NTS
ll'xl7' SCALE, NTS 1
verizon"
2770 SHADELANDS DR. BUILDING II
i'<ALNUT CREEK, CA "1459
UOIA
chJ DEPLOYMENT SERVICES, ]NC.

I SPECTRUM POINTE DRIVE, SUITE 130
LAKE FOREST, CA "12�30-22B3
0 (1hHAHI

ENGINEERING & SURVEYING
2%75 BIRTCHER DRIVE
LAKE FOREST, CA GJ2G30

PROJECT ID,
DRAl'<N BY,

CHECKED BY,
Lt,
10/30/2025 IOOS CD (PCC-1)
4 11/12/2024 IOOS CD (NEW RFDS)
3 10/21/2024 IOOS CD's (Vlfl,,l5HED)
2 07/01/2024 IOOI CD's (ANTENNA CI-IG.)
I 06/17/2024 IOOI CD's (RADIO UPDATE)
0 06/06/2023 IOOI CD'• FOR SUBMITTAL
A 04nl/2023 'IOI CD'• FC4'1 REVIEW

REV DATE DESCRIPTION
TBD
MA
DI'S
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC

IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,
UNLESS TI-IEY ARE ACTING UNDER Tl-IE

DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.

SC001 CARMELOSTONEWAl.l(OPT2)
�UH LL.I:[- \ I
IFOC'ARMELOST,4SOJTHEASTOF10THA\/E
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, CA 93921
MJG NUMBER: 5CXXXJ81318

SHEET TITLE

EQUIPMENT DETAILS
[
51-lEET NUMBER
l
D-2
ATTACHMENT 3

NOT USED 3

NOT USED

STANDOFF BRACKET SIDE ELEVATION

UNISTRUT EXTENSION ABOVE

AND BELOH STANDOFF BRACKET
(FOR APPL !CATIONS REQUIRING

II' STANDOF F BRACKET LENGTH)

FIELD DESI GNED AND INSTALLED

VIEHSHED

VISUAL IMP

CKEARANCE
'HINGS' TO MINIMIZE
ACT AND MAINTAIN 4"

FOR BEL TING GAP
: '
: I
-
�

HOOD UTIL ITY POLE (BY OTHERS)--
HORIZ. UNIS

EQUIPMENT/

TRUT CHANNEL FOR

SHROUD/HINGS MOUNTING
POLEHARE STL. C CHANNEL

BOLT W/
3 11
x
3 11
x1/411 314'4> THRU SQ. CURVED HA
TYP. OF 3

SHED ON BACK OF POLE,

NISTRUTS,

BOTH SIDES

VERTICAL U

HELDED TO

OF STANDO FF BRACKET

POLEHARE

BRACKET,

ADJUSTABLE
TYP. OF 3

XTENSION ABOVE AND

NDOFF BRACKET

UNISTRUT E

BELOH STA
(FOR APPL

STANDOFF
!CATIONS REQUIRING II'

BRACKET LENGTH)
___.c--'
J_
.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J_ . /: I
I
I
I
I �
'
c
f\.
�
"'
..J Cl
LW LW
z � z :::, -<:

I LW u �
u "=

Q '--' -
�

STANDOFF BRACKET FRONT ELEVATION

UNISTRUT EXTENSION ABOVE

AND BELOH STANDOFF BRACKET
(FOR APPLICATIONS REQUIRING -+---'k--.,.,
11' STANDOFF BRACKET LENGTH)
-----<.,.__,,
,
,

HOOD UTILITY POLE (BY OTHERS) --
POLEHARE STL. C CHANNEL-----��
3/4114> TI-IRU
BOLT
IAI/ 311
x
3 11
x1/411 SQ,

CURVED HASHED ON BACK OF POLE,
TYP. OF 3 ---------
--'------<IIHfc•rn

POLEHARE ADJUSTABLE
BRACKETS, TYP. OF 3

VERTICAL UNISTRUTS,

HELDED TO BOTH SIDES
OF STANDOFF BRACKET--------11

UNISTRUT EXTENSION ABOVE AND

BELOH STANDOFF BRACKET
(FOR APPLICATIONS REQUIRING II'
STANDOFF BRACKET LENGTH) ____ __,,
0 �
ci
u
Q
�HORIZ. UNISTRUT CHANNELS FOR EQUIPMENT

ATTACHMENT, USE BACKSIDE SLOTS FOR

VIEHSHED 'HINGS' ATTACHMENTS
NQll,_
I. STANDOFF BRACKET MODEL #PH-SOB-120L-ST-SP AS MFG.

BY POLEHARE, LLC, (475) 215-5119, OR APPROVED EQUAL.

2. LENGTH VARIES, CUSTOMER TO SPECIFY BRACKET LENGTH AT TIMNE OF ORDER.

3. ALL COMPONENTS TO BE SHOP PRIMED PAINTED.

4. UNISTRUT COMPONENTS TO BE MFG BY UNISTRUT CORPORATION, 1140 THORNDALE AVE., ITASCA IL, .,Ql43, (BOO) 4.,e-9510.

5. HORIZONTAL UNISTRUTS FOR EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION NOT INCLUDED. "'· NEOPRENE PADS AND ALL HARDHARE INCLUDED.

7. ALLOH 2-3 HEEKS FOR FABRICATION.
e. PATENT PENDING

STANDOFF BRACKET (OR APPROVED EQUAL)
OR

APPROVED

EQUIVALENT

VERTICAL UNISTRUT

CHANNELS, BOTH SIDES OF
STANDOFF BRACKET-----�
1-5/B" ACCESS HOLE,

ALIGNED

WITH THRU BOLTS

POLEHARE FIXED BRACKET,
TYP. OF 3 --------�

STANDOFF BRACKET PLAN
3"X3"Xl/4' 50. CURVED HASHER ON
BACK OF POLE, TYP. OF 3
----
3/4
P4> TI-IRU BOLT WI
3 11
x3"
x1/411 SQ.

CURVED HASHER ON BACK OF POLE,
TYP. OF 3 -----------+--��

HOOD UTILITY POLE (BY OTHERS)

POLEHARE ADJUSTABLE
BRACKET, TYP. OF 3 --------aL
POLEHARE STL. C CHANNEL

VERTICAL UNISTRUT

CHANNELS, BOTH SIDES

OF STANDOFF BRACKET
HORIZ. UNISTRUT CHANNELS

FOR EQUIPMENT ATTACHMENT,
BY OTHERS; CUT TO FIT
3/4'4> THRU BOLT, TYP. OF 3
2 verizon"
2770 SHADELANDS DR. BUILDING 11
HALNUT CREEK, CA '1469
UOIA
chJ DEPLOYMENT SERVICES, ]NC.

I SPECTRUM POINTE DRIVE, SUITE 130
LAKE FOREST, CA 'l2'-30-22B3
0 (1hHAHI ENGINEERING & SURVEYING
2%7S BIRTCHER DRIVE
LAKE FOREST, CA "12'-30

PROJECT ID,

DRAHN BY,

CHECKED BY,
Lt,
10/30/2025 IOOS CD (PCC-1)
4 11/12/2024 IOOS CD (NEW RFDS)
3 10/21/2024 IOOS CD's (Vlfi,,151-IED)
2 07/01/2024 1001 CD'• (ANTENNA CJ.IG.)
I 06/17/2024 IOOI CD's (RADIO UPDATE)
0 06/06/2023 IOOI CD'• FOR SUBMITTAL
A 04/27/2023 'IOI CD'• FC4'1 REVIEW

REV DATE DESCRIPTION
TBD
MA
DW
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAl,,I FOR ANY PERSON,
UNLESS TI-IEY ARE ACTING UNDER Tl-IE

DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.

SC001 CARMELOSTONEWAl.l(OPT2)
�UH LL.I:[- \ I
IFOC'ARMELOST,4SOJTHEASTOF10THA\/E
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, CA 93921
MJG NUMBER: 5CXXXJ81318

SHEET TITLE
EQUIPMENT DETAILS [

SI-IEET NUMBER
D3 l
ATTACHMENT 3

�
I::r'.E'E....fi I::r:EE...EE
� �

TYPE VB
�� IrEE..fil TYPE GL LUG
.I:r:EE.._fl;

TYPE PH
��

TYPICAL CADWELD TYPES
NOTES,
I. SERVICE SHALL BE
120/240V, 3-WIRE ( A+B+N)
WITHOUT GROUND WIRE.

2. PROVIDE NEUTRALGROUND LINK WITHIN

DISCONNECT TO PROVIDE

GROUND FOR INCOMING
SERVICE ISOLATION.

3. PROVIDE GREENINSULATED ll'2AWG MAIN

SITE GROUND LEAD FROM
MGB TO GROUND ROD.

4. BOND NEUTRAL-GROUND

LINK TO MAIN SITE GROUND

AT GROUND LUG HITH
#lf,AWG GROUND WIRE.

5. DISTRIBUTION SHALL BE
SPLIT-LUGGING OR DOUBLELUGGED CONNECTION FROM

THE LOAD SIDE OF THE
DISCONNECT.

G. ALL AC CIRCUIT LENGTHS
(POST-METER) ARE G'L.;
VOi TAGE DROP IS NEG!
120/240V PGtE
SVC. FROM
(E) 0/H POC
2411x3/o
11 SCALE= NTS
1111xl711 SCALE: NTS 8
NEH 2" PVC CONDUIT OR

U-GUARD ON POLE W/

CONDUCTORS INSTALLED,
t LEFT COILED AT POC

FOR CONNECTION BY
PG$E, PER PENDING

SERVICE PLAN
(NEW 3-�, NO GND WIRE;
240-VOL T / 3-WIRE SVC.)
NEH PGtE SMARTPOLE
METER/DISC. SH. COMBO
(TESCO PN, 703, OR APVD. EGI.)
HITH (2) GOA CLASS K
(50KAIC) OR J (200KAIC)

FUSE CARTRIDGES

NEUTRAL-GROUND LINK
NEH % AHG GREENINSULATED GROUND HIRE
BONDED PER NOTE 4.
f------NEH I" SEALTITE CONDUIT

EARTH GROUND/BODY
GROUND CONNECTION, TYP.---,~--+-1---+�
NEH % AHG GREENINSULATED GROUND

HIRE TO GROUND
BAR, TYPICAL OF 5 ------<D

NEH TINNED-COPPER

MASTER GROUND BAR
NEH #2 AHG GREENINSULATED GROUND

HIRE IN U-GUARD ON

POLE TO GROUND ROD
MAX KVA 11.5

SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM
H/ 3-#lf, AHG, NO GND.)

NEH EQUIPMENT SHROUD
DISTRIBUTE 3-#10 AHG
TO PSU G30B,
1-% 'A' HOT (RED

HIRE - SEE NOTE G)
1-% 'B' HOT (BLK
WIRE - SEE NOTE If,)
1-% NEUTRAL HIRE
(HHITE HIRE)
NEH (I) PSU G30B

POHER SUPPLY UNIT
NEH 4B VOLT

DC POHER CABLES
NEH (2) REMOTE

RADIO UNITS (RRU)

NEH FIBER NETHORK

INTERFACE DEVICE (NID)
2411x3611 SCALE= NTS 7
1111x1711 SCALE: NTS
CROSS
Q.8t1E
RUN 2 HOLE LUG CAST "T" SPLICER BOLT PARALLEL
CLAMP

UNIVERSAL UNIVERSAL

PIPE CLAMPS PIPE CLAMPS
75/1.25 ,;Q82.
(N) EQUIPMENT WITH LUG

HOLES BY MANUFACTURER

GROUND LUG WITH

CONDUCTOR PER PLAN

TO (N) GROUND

BAR/GRID PER PLAN
"U
11 B01 I

PIPE CLAMP
BOLT
Q.8t1E

PARALLEL
BOLT GRND 2 BOLT PARALLEL
ROD CLAMP �
MECHANICAL CONNECTIONS SCALE, NTS 6
�---PROPOSED GROUNDING
HELL
--�---COPPER CLAD GROUND ROD

GROUND WELL/ROD
(5/B"� x 10'-0' LONG)
2411x31o" SCALE: NTS
1111xl711 SCALE: NTS
1-++----PLASTIC INSULATOR NOT

REQUIRED

GALV GROUND BUSS BAR

GROUND BUSS
THK. GALV. STL.

GROUND BUSS BAR 2411x31o" SCALE: NTS
1111xl7P SCALE: NTS
5 NOT USED
L ..
% AHG GROUND HIRES IN COAX/GROUND CONDUIT

1.IL_COAX/GROUND CONDUIT
% AHG ANTENNA MAST GROUND WIRE <Pf--% AWG CAGE GROUND HIRE II
lL ____ � .--'-----'-,� ---- I I
4690
RRU
11 11
11 11
11 BEHIND EQUIPMENT SHROUD TO ��
I

I ALL GROUND WIRES ROUTE
'--===� I - - - I
I

MASTER GROUND BAR
---- 11 I ,I EQUIPMENT SHROUD
1 1 1
1 I Ii �-�,---+-111
_ __..., __ % AWG RRU GROUND

WIRE, TYPICAL
c!>c!>c!>c!>ooooc!>oo 0000
00000000000 0000
GROUND RISER DIAGRAM 24"x31f," SCALE, NTS
ll'xl7" SCALE, NTS 3

GENERAL ELECTRICAL NOTES,
2411x3/o� SCALE: NTS
1111xl7N SCALE, NTS 2
I. PROVIDE ALL ELECTRICAL WORK t MATERIALS AS SHOWN ON THE DWGS, AS CALLED FOR HEREIN, t AS 15 NECESSARY TO FURNISH A COMPLETE INSTALLATION.

2. THE INSTALLATION SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE

CURRENT ADOPTED CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA TITLE24, ALL OTHER APPLICABLE WDES AND ORDINANCES < THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FIRE MARSHALL. ALL EQUIPMENT HIRING SHALL BEAR

THE APPROVAL STAMP OF UNDERHRITERS LABORATORY (UL) OR AN

APPROVED TESTING LABORATORY, PAYMENT FOR ALL INSPECTION FEES AND PERMITS ARE PART OF THIS CONTRACT.

3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SAFETY AND GOOD CONDITION OF ALL MATERIALS t EQUIPMENT FOR THE ENTIRE INSTALLATION < UNIT COMPLETION OF WORK, ERECT < MAINTAIN APPROVED t SUITABLE BARRIERS, PROTECTIVE DEVICES t WARNING SIGNS, BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE

FOR ANY LOSS OR INJURY TO PERSONS OR PROPERTY RESULTING FROM NEGLIGENCE AND/OR ENFORCEMENT OF ALL SAFETY PRECAUTIONS < WARNINGS.

4. COORDINATE THE ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION HITH ALL OTHER TRADES.

5. ALL SAW CUTTING, TRENCHING, BACK FILLING t PATCHING SHALL BE PART OF THIS CONTRACT.

If,_ FINALIZE ALL ELECTRICAL SERVICE ARRANGEMENTS, INCLUDING

VERIFICATION OF LOCATIONS, DETAILS, COORDINATION OF THE INSTALLATION t PAYMENT OF ACCRUED CHARGES HITH LOCAL POHER COMPANY, VERIFY LOCATION FOR FACILITIES < DETAILS WITH POWER UTILITY, IN ADDITION TO

THE REQUIREMENTS SHOWN IN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, HORK SHALL COMPLY WITH CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS < SERVICE REQUIREMENTS OF THE RESPECTIVE UTILITIES, INCLUDING ANY SUPPLEMENTAL DHGS ISSUED < SHALL BE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF THESE UTILITIES.

7. ALL WIRING SHALL BE COPPER. INSULATION FOR BRANCH CIRCUIT CONDUCTORS SHALL BE TYPE "THHN" CONDUCTORS LARGER AND % AWG MAY BE TYPE "THHNN OR "TWN".

B. PROVIDE CONDUIT SEALS FOR ALL CONDUITS PENETRATING
HEATHERPROOFING OR HEATHERPROOF ENCLOSURE ENVELOPE. MASTIC SEAL ALL CONDUIT OPENING PENETRATIONS COMPLETELY HATERTIGHT.

9. UNLESS SHOHN OTHERHISE, FUSED DISCONNECT SHITCHES SHALL BE PROVIDED HITH LOH-PEAK, S\DUAL ELEMENT FUSES SIZED TO EQUIPMENT NAMEPLATE FUSE CURRENT RATING. MOTOR STARTERS SHALL BE PROVIDED

WITH SIMILARLY SIZED FUSIBLE ELEMENTS, SH ITCHES AND OTHER OUTDOOR EQUIPMENT SHALL BE RATED NEMA 3R AND/OR UL LISTED FOR WET ENVIRONMENT.

10. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR TESTING THE GROUNDING SYSTEM AND ENSURING A 5 OHM OR LESS GROUNDINGPATH, ADDITIONAL

GROUND RODS AND/OR CHEMICAL ROD SYSTEM SHALL BE USED TO ACHIEVE

THIS REQUIREMENT IF THE GIVEN DESIGN CANNOT BE MADE TO ACHIEVE THIS REQUIREMENT.

POWER AND TELCO NOTES,
I. POHER AND TELCO POINTS OF CONNECTION AND ANY_ EASEMENTS ARE PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE BY THE UTILITY COMPANIES.

2. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE HITH UTILITY COMPANY FOR FINAL AND

EXACT WORK/MATERIALS REQUIREMENTS AND CONSTRUCT TO UTILITY

ENGINEERING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS ONLY WHERE APPLICABLE PER PROJECT SCOPE OF HORK.

3. WNTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH AND INSTALL CONDUIT, PULL WIRES, CABLE

PULL BOXES, CONCRETE ENCASEMENT OF CONDUIT, TRANSFORMER PAD,

BARRIERS, POLE RISER TRENCHING, BACK FILL, AND UTILITY FEES, AND INCLUDE REQUIREMENTS IN SCOPE.

4. CONTRACTOR SHALL LABEL ALL MAIN DISCONNECT SWITCHES AS REQUIRED BY CODE.

NOTES,
I. SUBCONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE DIST. PANEL AND BREAKERS FOR POWER TO EQUIPMENT.

2. ALL SERVICE EQUIPMENT AND INSTALLATIONS SHALL COMPLY HITH THE N.E.C. AND UTILITY COMPANY AND LOCAL CODE REQUIREMENTS.

3. SUBCONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ELECTRICAL SERVICE ENTRANCE

EQUIPMENT WITH FAULT CURRENT RATINGS GREATER THAN THE AVAILABLE FAULT CURRENT FROM THE POWER UTILITY.

4. MAXIMUM ONE WAY CIRCUIT RUN NOT TO EXCEED 75 FEET.

NOTES 24"x31f," SCALE, NTS
1111xl7" SCALE, NTS 1
verizon"
2770 SHADELANDS DR. BUILDING II
WALNUT CREEK, CA '145'1
UOIA
I SPECTRUM POINTE DRIVE, SUITE 130
LAKE FOREST, CA 'l2'-30-22B3
0 ((AlmAHI

ENGINEERING & SURVEYING
23'-75 BIRTCHER DRIVE
LAKE FOREST, CA '12'-30

PROJECT ID,

DRAHN BY,

CHECKED BY,
& 10/30/2025 JOOS CD (PCC-1)
4 11/12/2024 JOOS CD (NEW RFDS)
3 10/21/2024 IOOS CD'• (VIEl,,ISHED)
2 07/01/2024 IOOI CD'• (ANTENNA CI-IG.)
I 06/17/2024 IOOI CD's (RADIO UPDATE)
0 06/06/20Z3 IOOI CD'• FOR SUBMITTAL
A 04/27/20Z3 'IOI CD'• FOR REVIEJ,J

REV DATE DESCRIPTION
TBD
MA
DH
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
IT IS A VIOLATION OF I.Al,,I FOR ANY PERSON,
UNLESS TI-IE'I" ARE ACTING UNDER Tl-IE

DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
EN<.INEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.

SC001 CARMELOSTONEWAl.l(OPT2)
�uH l'.I
IFOC'ARMELOST,4SOJTHEAST0:10lHAVE
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, CA 93921
M[X; NUMBER: 5CXXXJ81318
[

SHEET TITLE

ELECTRICAL & GRO UNDING

DIAGRA MS, NOTES

SI-IEET NUMBER
E-1
l
ATTACHMENT 3

r ill
H a.
lfHOM I �
0VOH
100 ft
•
• ---',_
•
. � � >
l--ltr --
�f
112FTMINI
110 FT MIN [
i:::
11TH AVE. (25 MPH)
,.., ----100 ft------1-►
• >
• >
• >
• >
. � >---•
•
•
•
•
• �·
tr�
•
•
•
------
-
155 ft -
/.,. ;.; --
·�--,
',,Y,,,,,,,,
100 ft
-
45 ft
100 ft
�,� -�
100 ft
,
J<®
c�D
c�� ii:c
'
=
Legend
Cone42"
188 Work area

NO PARKS TO BE PLACED
72 HOURS IN ADVANCE

PLAN NOTES,
I. PLANS DEPICTED ARE GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR TEMPORARY VEHICULAR TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS (TCP) TO INCLUDE PEDESTRIAN AND 1'IORKER SAFETY. CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO HAVE PREPARED A SITE-SPECIFIC TCP FOR REVIE!,,1 AND APPROVAL BY THE HIGHi,,iAY AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION. IF REQUIRED, THE FIRM PREPARING THE TCP SHALL BE AUTHORIZED OR CERTIFIED BY THE AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION.

2. EXTEND CHANNELIZATION DEVICES INTO SHOULDER HHERE APPLICABLE.

3. DISTANCES AS INDICATED IN TABLE I SHOULD BE INCREASED FOR CONDITIONS THAT l,,IOULD AFFECT STOPPING. DISTANCE SUCH AS 001,,iNGRADES OR LIMITED SIGHT DISTANCES.

DISTANCES CAN BE DECREASED FOR LOW-SPEED (RESIDENTIAL) AREAS HITH APPROVAL BY THE AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION. NIGHT-TIME WORK 15 PROHIBITED UNLESS IT 15

REQUIRED AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL BY THE HIGHWAY AND LOCAL AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION .
-4. SHOULDER TAPERS SHOULD BE 1/3 OF THE ON-STREET TAPER LENGTH.

5. MAINTAIN A MINIMUM LANE HIDTH OF 10'.

TABLE I

POSTED DISTANCE

SPEED BETWEEN TAPER BUFFER
(MPj..j) SIGNS

A B C L E
15 1001 1001 1001 451 100
1 20 If)( I If)( I If)( I BO' 111;
1 25 100' 100' 100' 125' 155'
::IU L:>V :t!:>{ L:>V lt'.>U' 200'
3 5 250' 250' 250' 245' 250
1 40 2501 2501 2501 3
20' 3
05 1
45 3
501 3
501 3
50' 540' 3
'=>
0 1
50 3
501 3501 3
501 '=>00' 425'
55 5001 5001 5001 '=>'=>0' 495'
"-,0 5001 5001 5001 720' 570
1 '=>
5 5001 5001 5001 7BO' '=>
45'
N NOTES, -•· A) DISTANCES IN FEET UNLESS OTj.jERWISE NOTED.

B) CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY EXISTING SPEED LIMIT.

C) DISTANCES SHOWN ARE NOT VALID FOR LIMITED
ACCESS HIGHWAYS. CONSULT STATE DOT MANUAL
5 FOR DISTANCES.

I VEHICULAR TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN 241
1x3611 SCALE: NTS
11Mxl711 SCALE: NTS
verizon"
2770 SHADELANDS DR. BUILDING II
WALNUT CREEK, CA '145'1
!!J DEPLOYMENT SERVICES, ]NC.

I SPECTRUM POINTE DRIVE, SUITE 130
LAKE FOREST, CA 'l2'-30-22B3
0 ((AlmAHI

ENGINEERING & SURVEYING
23'-75 BIRTCHER DRIVE
LAKE FOREST, CA qz"-30

PROJECT ID,
DRAi,,iN BY,

CHECKED BY,
& 10/30/2025 IOOli CD (PCC-1)
4 11/12/2024 IOOli CD (NEi,,i RFDS)
3 10/21/2024 JOOS CD'• (VIEl,,ISHED)
2 07/01/2024 IOOI CD'• (ANTENNA CI-IG.)
I 06/17/2024 IOOI CD's (RADIO UPDATE)
0 06/06/20Z3 IOOI CD'• FOR SUBMITTAL
A 04/21/20Z3 'IOI CD'• FOR REVIEW

REV DATE DESCRIPTION
TBD
MA
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAI,,! FOR ANY PERSON,
UNLESS TI--IEY ARE ACTING UNDER Tl-IE

DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
EN<.INEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.

SC001 CARMELOSTONEWAl.l(OPT2)
�uH l'.I
IFOC'ARMELOST,4SOJTHEAST0:10lHAVE
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, CA 93921
M[X; NUMBER: 5CXXXJ81318

SHEET TITLE

TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN
51-lEET NUMBER
TCP-1
ATTACHMENT 3

TRAFFIC CONTROL GENERAL NOTES,
I. ALL TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAGE, LAYOUTS AND PROCEDURES SHALL COMPLY WITH LOCAL

JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND MANUAL OF UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES (MUTCD), LATEST EDITION, HHICHEVER 15 MORE STRINGENT.

2. PRIOR TO ANY ROAD CONSTRUCTION, TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNS AND DEVICES SHALL BE IN PLACE.

3. TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES FOR LANE CLOSURES INCLUDING SIGNS, CONES, BARRICADES, ETC. SHALL BE PLACED AS SHOWN ON PLANS. SIGNS SHALL NOT BE PLACED HITHOUT ACTUAL LANE CLOSURES AND SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY REMOVED UPON REMOVAL OF THE CLOSURES.

4. SELECTION, PLACEMENT, MAINTENANCE, AND PROTECTION OF TRAFFIC, PEDESTRIANS, AND HORKERS

SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE HITH THE MANUAL OF UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES (MUTCD) - PART VI "TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL", AND LOCAL JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENTS UNLESS

OTHERHISE NOTED IN THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE APPROPRIATE HIGHWAY AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION.

5. ADVANCE HARNING SIGNS, DISTANCES, AND TAPER LENGTHS MAY BE EXTENDED TO ADJUST FOR

REDUCED VISIBILITY DUE TO HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL CURVATURE OF THE ROADHAY AND FOR ACTUAL TRAFFIC SPEEDS IF IN EXCESS OF POSTED SPEED LIMITS. '-· TAPERS SHALL BE LOCATED TO MAXIMIZE THE VISIBILITY OF THEIR TOTAL LENGTH.

7. CONFLICTING OR NON-OPERATING SIGNAL INDICATIONS ON THE (E) TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEMS SHALL BE BAGGED OR COVERED.

8. ALL (E) ROAD SIGNS, PAVEMENT MARKINGS AND/OR PLOHABLE PAVEMENT REFLECTORS HHICH CONFLICT WITH THE (N) TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN SHALL BE COVERED, REMOVED, OR RELOCATED. ALL

TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL BE RESTORED TO MATCH PRE-CONSTRUCTION CONDITION AFTER COMPLETION OF WORK.

9. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT LOCAL AUTHORITY HAVING HIGHHAY JURISDICTION AND PROVIDE ADDITIONAL "FLAGMEN' OR POLICE SUPERVISION, IF REQUIRED.

10. ALL EXCAVATED AREAS HITHIN OR ADJACENT TO THE ROADHAY SHALL BE BACKFILLED AND PLACED ON A MINIMUM .. HdV SLOPE PRIOR TO END OF EACH HORK DAY. OTHER EXCAVATED AREAS WITHIN THE

CLEAR ZONE ARE TO BE EITHER BACKFILLED OR PRECAST CONCRETE CURB BARRIER CONSTRUCTION BARRIER SET TEMPORARILY IN PLACE TO SHIELD VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC.

II. HHERE DICTATED BY LOCAL CONDITIONS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE PROVISIONS FOR MAINTAINING

PEDESTRIAN AND WORKER CROSSING LOCATIONS IN ACCORDANCE HITH ALL APPLICABLE CODES AND OSHA REQUIREMENTS.

12. CONSTRUCTION ZONE SPEED LIMIT IF REDUCED FROM POSTED LIMITS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH MUTCD AND HILL BE DETERMINED BY THE AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION.

13. THERE SHALL BE NO HORKERS, EQUIPMENT, OR OTHER VEHICLES IN THE BUFFER SPACE OR THE ROLL AHEAD SPACE.

14. DRIVEHAYS AND/OR SIDE STREETS ENTERING THE ROADHAY AFTER THE FIRST ADVANCE WARNING SIGN SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH AT LEAST ONE H20-I SIGN (ROAD HORK AHEAD) AS A MINIMUM.

15. CONES MAY BE SUBSTITUTED FOR DRUMS AND INSTALLED UPON THE APPROVAL OF THE AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION PROVIDED THEY COMPLY HITH MUTCD.

1... THE SPACING BETHEEN CONES, TUBULAR MARKERS, VERTICAL PANELS, DRUMS, AND BARRICADES SHOULD NOT EXCEED A DISTANCE IN FEET EQUAL TO 1.0 TIMES THE SPEED LIMIT IN MPH WHEN USED FOR TAPER CHANNELIZATION, AND A DISTANCE IN FEET EQUAL TO 2.0 TIMES THE SPEED LIMIT IN MPH HHEN USED FOR TANGENT CHANNELIZATION.

17. HHEN CHANNELIZATION DEVICES HAVE THE POTENTIAL OF LEADING VEHICULAR TRAFFIC OUT OF THE

INTENDED VEHICULAR TRAFFIC SPACE, THE CHANNELIZATION DEVICES SHOULD BE EXTENDED A DISTANCE IN FEET OF 2.0 TIMES THE SPEED LIMIT IN MPH BEYOND THE DOHNSTREAM END OF THE TRANSITION AREA.

18. TAPER LENGTHS ARE CALCULATED AS FOLLOHS,
L= HS'/W (40 MPH AND HIGHER) OR L2= HS (OVER 40 MPH),
HHERE W= OFFSET WIDTH (FT), 5= TRAFFIC SPEED (MPH).

19. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE FOR ACCESS TO ALL ADJACENT PROPERTIES DURING HORK HOURS.

CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO CAUSE AS LITTLE INCONVENIENCE AS POSSIBLE TO ABUTTING PROPERTY OHNERS/OPERATORS.

20. FLASHING YELLOH BEACONS SHALL BE USED ON ALL H20-I SIGNS AND ALL TYPE 11 BARRICADES GUARDING THE HORK AREA OVERNIGHT.

21. ALL SIGNS SHALL BE REFLECTORIZED AND STANDARD SIZE.

23. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE FOR SAFE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AT ALL TIMES.

Pl AN NOTES,
I. PLANS DEPICTED ARE GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR TEMPORARY VEHICULAR TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS (TCP) TO INCLUDE PEDESTRIAN AND HORKER SAFETY.

CONTRACTOR 15 REQUIRED TO HAVE PREPARED A SITE-SPECIFIC TCP FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE HIGHHAY AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION. IF REQUIRED,

THE FIRM PREPARING THE TCP SHALL BE AUTHORIZED OR CERTIFIED BY THE AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION.

2. EXTEND CHANNELIZATION DEVICES INTO SHOULDER HHERE APPLICABLE.

3. DISTANCES AS INDICATED IN TABLE I SHOULD BE INCREASED FOR CONDITIONS THAT HOULD AFFECT STOPPING. DISTANCE SUCH AS DOWNGRADES OR LIMITED SIGHT DISTANCES. DISTANCES CAN BE DECREASED FOR LOW-SPEED (RESIDENTIAL) AREAS HITH APPROVAL BY THE AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION. NIGHT-TIME HORK 15 PROHIBITED UNLESS IT 15 REQUIRED AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL BY THE HIGHHAY AND LOCAL AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION.

4. SHOULDER TAPERS SHOULD BE 1/3 OF THE ON-STREET TAPER LENGTH.

5. MAINTAIN A MINIMUM LANE HIDTH OF 10'.

TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNS TYP.
♦♦♦♦♦
W4-2 C30A (CA) W20-4 W1 -3 (LT) W3-4
♦♦♦♦♦
W24-1 W21-5 C12 (CA) W1-3 (RT) W1-4 (LT)
♦♦
C9A (CA) W21-7 R9-11 SC11
■
(MOD) W1-6
M4-9a M4-9b ♦♦ Ii
,A C30 W20-1 W6-4
♦ � 11 I RO I t'tf.ORI( I]
C20 (BIKE) W11-1 / W16-1 R9-9 G20-2
SYMBOL INDEX TYP.
101 - CONE OR DELINEATOR
� - HORK AREA
9 - FLAGGER
t - SIGN

D - ROAD STEEL PLATE
I VEHICULAR TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN 241
1x3611 SCALE: NT5
11Mxl711 SCALE: NTS
verizon"
2770 SHADELANDS DR. BUILDING 11
WALNUT CREEK, CA 9459
{SEOUOIA
!!J DEPLOYMENT SERVICES, ]NC.

I SPECTRUM POINTE DRIVE, SUITE 130
LAKE FOREST, CA 'l2'-30-2283
0 ((AlmAHI

ENGINEERING & SURVEYING
23'-75 BIRTCHER DRIVE
LAKE FOREST, CA '12'-30

PROJECT ID,

DRAHN BY,

CHECKED BY,
& 10/30/2025 IOOli CD (PCC-1)
4 11/12/2024 IOOli CD (NEH RFDS)
3 10/21/2024 IOOli CD'• (VIEHSHED)
2 07/01/2024 IOOI CD'• (ANTENNA CI-IG.)
I 06/11/2024 IOOI CD's (RADIO UPDATE)
0 06/06/2023 IOOI CD'• FOR SUBMITTAL
A 04/27/2023 'IOI CD'• FOR REVIEW

REV DATE DESCRIPTION
TBD
MA
DH
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC

IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAH FOR ANY PERSON,
UNLESS TI-IE'I" ARE ACTING UNDER Tl-IE

DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
EN<.INEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.

SC001 CARMELOSTONEWAl.l(OPT2)
�uH l·.I
IFOC'ARMELOST,4SOJTHEASTOF10lHAVE
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, CA 93921
M[X; NUMBER: 5CXXXJ81318

SHEET TITLE

TRAFFIC CONTROL

NOTES & SIGNS

SI-IEET NUMBER
TCP-2
ATTACHMENT 3

2/23/2026
SE e: PierCon Solutions
Specia/is1s in Wireless Sy.we111s
Radio Frequency Supplemental
Report #4
Site ID: "Carmel Node 001"
RF Supplemental Report
Carmelo Street
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA 93921
Monterey County
Prepared for
Verizon Wireless
By
PierCon Solutions, LLC
February 23, 2026
10 PARK PLACE BUILDING 6C SUITE 402, BUTLER, NJ 07405 PHONE 973-628-9330

ATTACHMENT 4

Contents

1. Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. 4

2. Background and Prior Engineering Record .............................................................................................. 4

2.1 Initial Engineering Evaluation ............................................................................................... 5

2.2 Subsequent Technical Supplements ................................................................................... 5

2.3 City Determination and Identification of Alternate Location .................................................. 5

2.4 Purpose of This Supplemental Evaluation ............................................................................ 6

3. Engineering Standard for Evaluating Alternatives ................................................................................... 6

4. Small Cell Network Design and Deployment Framework ....................................................................... 7

4.1 Proximity-Based Coverage Design ....................................................................................... 7

4.2 Deployment Architecture Selected for the Subject Area ....................................................... 8

4.3 Coordinated Node Spacing and Network Geometry .............................................................. 8 EXHIBIT A- SMALL CELL GEOMETRY .................................................................................... 1 O

4.4 Balanced Two-Way Service and Uplink-Limited Design ....................................................... 11

4.5 Spatial Containment and Residential Deployment Objectives ............................................ 11

4.6 Application to the Subject Area .......................................................................................... 11

5. Golden Bough Rooftop -Technical Evaluation ..................................................................................... 12

5.1 Evaluation Framework ...................................................................................................... 12

5.2 Spatial Positioning Relative to the Service Gap ................................................................... 12

5.3 Rooftop Physical Constraints and Configuration Considerations ........................................ 12

5.4 Interpretation of Uplink-Limited Path Loss Maps ................................................................ 13

5.5 Uplink-Limited Comparative Path Loss {Omni-Equivalent Evaluation) ................................. 13 EXHIBIT B- UPLINK-LIMITED AWS PATH LOSS COMPARISON {127 dB MAPL) Proposed SF-001 Small Cell vs. Golden Bough Rooftop {Omni-Equivalent Configuration) ................................. 15

5.6 Long-Range Projection Characteristics - Golden Bough Rooftop ........................................ 16 EXHIBIT C - LINE-OF-SIGHT PROFILE - ELECTRICAL DOWNTILT SENSITIVITY 2 ° vs 8
°
............ 17

5. 7 Antenna Downtilt Sensitivity- Uplink-Limited Performance Impact .................................... 18 EXHIBIT D - COMPARITIVE UPLINK-LIMITED PATH LOSS {127 Db) Proposed SF-001 vs. Golden Bough {2° Electrical Downtilt) .............................................................................................. 20 EXHIBIT E - COMPARITIVE UPLINK-LIMITED PATH LOSS {127 Db) Proposed SF�001 vs. Golden Bough {8° Electrical Downtilt) .............................................................................................. 21

5.8 Comparative Configuration Summary ................................................................................ 22

5.9 Summary of Golden Bough Technical Evaluation ................................................................ 22 2/23/2026 Page 2 of 25
ATTACHMENT 4

6. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 23

7. Appendix - Propagation Parameters ....................................................................................................... 25 2/23/2026 Page 3 of 25
ATTACHMENT 4

1. Executive Summary
This supplemental analysis was prepared in response to the City's determination that the Golden Bough rooftop may represent a less intrusive alternative to the proposed small wireless facility.

The purpose of this review is not to determine whether measurable signal could be produced from the rooftop, but rather to evaluate whether the Golden Bough location is capable of functioning as a technologically feasible alternative capable of achieving the identified service objectives under realistic deployment conditions.

The original Radio Frequency Report and subsequent supplements established through calibrated drive testing and propagation modeling that a localized service gap exists within this residential coastal area, particularly with respect to reliable in-building performance for mid-band services including AWS (2.1 GHz) and C-Band (3.7 GHz).

Following the hearing, additional technical evaluation was performed, including:
• Application of an uplink-limited maximum allowable path loss (MAPL) threshold of 127 dB to ensure balanced two-way service and conservative in-building performance assessment;
• Comparative A WS path loss modeling of the proposed small cell and the Golden Bough rooftop under identical propagation assumptions;
• Evaluation of antenna configuration constraints associated with rooftop deployment; • Line-of-sight (LOS) profile and free-space propagation analysis toward an unobstructed two-mile northwest path over water; and
• Assessment of electrical downtilt tradeoffs required to control extended signal projection.

The analysis demonstrates that the Golden Bough rooftop cannot simultaneously achieve controlled projection and sufficient uplink margin within the documented service gap area. When configured for reach, the rooftop projects substantial signal energy beyond the intended service area. When adjusted to limit projection through increased downtilt, localized coverage performance is reduced. In addition, rooftop installation constraints necessitate directional antenna configurations inconsistent with the coordinated small-cell deployment architecture established for this area.

Collectively, these findings indicate that while the Golden Bough rooftop may produce modeled signal under certain configurations, it does not represent a technologically feasible alternative for achieving the documented service objectives under consistent engineering criteria.

2. Background and Prior Engineering Record
This supplemental report builds upon the original Radio Frequency Engineering Report and subsequent technical submissions previously provided in support of the proposed small wireless facility.
2/23/2026 Page 4 of 25
ATTACHMENT 4

2.1 Initial Engineering Evaluation
The original RF Engineering Report documented a localized service deficiency within the subject residential coastal area through calibrated drive testing and propagation modeling. The evaluation included:
• Measured RSRP and SINR data collected using industry-standard testing equipment; • Analysis of both low-band and mid-band performance;
• Assessment of in-building service capability based on uplink-constrained design assumptions; and
• Identification of a defined service area requiring densification to support reliable midband service.

The findings demonstrated substandard performance within portions of the neighborhood, particularly with respect to indoor service reliability and mid-band capacity objectives.

The proposed small wireless facility was engineered to operate as part of a coordinated small-cell deployment strategy intended to provide proximity-based coverage and complete the intended node spacing geometry.

2.2 Subsequent Technical Supplements
Following initial review and public proceedings, additional supplemental analyses were prepared to respond to questions raised by the city and members of the public. These submissions addressed, among other topics:
• Clarification of mid-band performance characteristics, including C-Band deployment considerations;
• Technical background and need for the proposed small cell; • Establishing the importance of a dominant signal and a controlled RF design; • Expanded propagation modeling reflecting consistent engineering assumptions; • Clarification regarding the operational status and coverage contribution of previously approved small-cell nodes; and
• Expanded Golden Bough engineering analysis addressing spatial positioning, proximity to the service area, antenna deployment constraints, and observed field conditions to evaluate whether the rooftop can achieve the identified service objectives under consistent engineering assumptions relative to the proposed small cell.

These supplements maintained consistent modeling methodology and applied identical propagation assumptions to ensure objective comparison across candidate locations.

2.3 City Determination and Identification of Alternate Location In its decision, the city determined that the Golden Bough rooftop may represent a less intrusive alternative location capable of addressing the documented service deficiency. 2/23/2026 Page 5 of 25
ATTACHMENT 4

The City's determination was based primarily on the assumption that signal could be produced from the rooftop location. The engineering question therefore becomes not whether signal can be generated, but whether the Golden Bough rooftop can represent a technologically feasible facility consistent with the established small-cell network design framework.

2.4 Purpose of This Supplemental Evaluation
Following the City's determination, additional engineering evaluation was conducted to assess the Golden Bough rooftop under realistic deployment conditions. This expanded analysis includes:
• Comparative A WS path loss modeling using an uplink-limited MAPL threshold; • Antenna configuration and rooftop deployment constraint evaluation; • Line-of-sight (LOS) profile and extended propagation assessment; • Electrical downtilt tradeoff analysis; and
• Comparative signal behavior evaluation relative to the proposed small cell.

This report presents the results of that expanded analysis and evaluates the Golden Bough rooftop against established wireless engineering principles governing proximity, link balance, architectural consistency, and operational reliability.

3. Engineering Standard for Evaluating Alternatives
The evaluation of candidate wireless facility locations must be grounded in established radio frequency engineering principles and system-level network design methodology. The objective is not simply to determine whether measurable signal can be produced from a location, but whether that location can reliably achieve the defined service objectives under reasonably expected operating conditions.

Wireless networks are engineered as integrated systems. Accordingly, alternative locations must be assessed based on their ability to function within the intended network architecture and achieve the identified service objectives under consistent engineering criteria.

Sound engineering practice requires that candidate sites be evaluated using consistent modeling assumptions and objective performance criteria, including:
• Proximity to the area requiring service;
• Alignment with the planned small-cell deployment geometry; • Compatibility with the intended antenna configuration and facility type; • Ability to maintain balanced two-way communication under uplink-limited design conditions;
• Availability of sufficient link margin to tolerate normal environmental and operational variability; and
• Deployment conditions that are predictable and operationally controllable over time. 2/23/2026 Page 6 of 25
ATTACHMENT 4

The presence of modeled signal alone does not establish technical viability. Engineering viability is determined by whether a location can deliver reliable, balanced service performance consistent with network design objectives, including in-building service requirements.

Mid-band spectrum deployments, including A WS and C-Band, are particularly sensitive to transmission distance, clutter, and indoor attenuation. As a result, such deployments typically rely on proximity-based small-cell architecture to maintain link balance and predictable performance. Facilities that rely primarily on extended transmission distance or materially different antenna configurations may produce signal; however, they do not necessarily satisfy the deployment and performance criteria governing the coordinated small-cell system.

In evaluating the Golden Bough rooftop, the same propagation models, terrain data, and uplinklimited maximum allowable path loss (MAPL) threshold were applied consistently across all scenarios to ensure objective comparison. The analysis therefore focuses on whether the rooftop can satisfy the above engineering criteria relative to the proposed small cell.

This engineering standard provides the framework through which the Golden Bough rooftop is evaluated in the sections that follow.

4. Small Cell Network Design and Deployment Framework
The proposed facility is part of a coordinated small-cell deployment strategy intended to address a localized service deficiency within a residential coastal environment characterized by varied terrain, closely spaced homes, and mid-band propagation sensitivity.

4.1 Proximity-Based Coverage Design
Mid-band spectrum, including A WS and C-Band, provides higher spectral efficiency and greater user throughput capability than low-band frequencies. While low-band spectrum offers broader coverage reach, it is not well-suited for delivering sustained high data rates or improved signal quality in residential environments.

In the subject area, the service deficiency is characterized not by sector loading or congestion, but by the absence of a dominant serving mid-band layer and suboptimal SINR performance on low-band carriers. Deployment of A WS and C-Band is therefore intended to improve signal dominance, enhance SINR, and increase achievable user throughput, particularly for in-building service.

Proximity-based deployment reduces transmission distance between the antenna and end user, increasing available link margin and improving tolerance for indoor penetration loss, terrain variation, and routine environmental variability.

The proposed facility was engineered to operate within this proximity-based framework. 2/23/2026 Page 7 of 25
ATTACHMENT 4

4.2 Deployment Architecture Selected for the Subject Area Verizon has selected a proximity-based small-cell deployment architecture for this residential coastal area as the appropriate technical method for introducing and densifying mid-band services, including A WS and C-Band.

This architectural approach reflects Verizon's network design standards for residential environments where:
• Mid-band performance objectives require reduced transmission distance; • In-building service reliability is a defined performance goal; and • Coordinated node spacing is necessary to maintain balanced link conditions.

The proposed facility is engineered as one component of this coordinated small-cell system. Site selection, antenna configuration, and modeled performance were developed within this architectural framework.

Alternative locations must therefore be evaluated not solely on whether signal can be generated, but on whether they can function within the selected small-cell deployment architecture and achieve comparable service performance under the same design principles.

4.3 Coordinated Node Spacing and Network Geometry
Effective small-cell networks are engineered through coordinated node placement such that each facility serves a defined localized coverage area while minimizing excessive overlap and unintended coverage gaps. In mid-band deployments, node placement is derived from link budget constraints, propagation behavior, and the need to position each facility in functional alignment with the area of service demand.

The proposed SF-001 node location aligns with previously approved small-cell facilities to complete the intended coverage geometry within the neighborhood. This coordinated spacing approach:
• Supports continuous localized service;
• Maintains predictable cell dominance;
• Reduces unnecessary long-range projection; and
• Preserves balanced uplink and downlink conditions.

Small-cell placement is highly location-sensitive. Even modest positional shifts can materially alter dominant serving boundaries, uplink margin, and in-building performance. Accordingly, node placement within the service gap area is intentional and derived from propagation modeling and link budget analysis rather than arbitrary siting preference.

Exhibit A, to follow, illustrates the relative positioning of existing, approved, proposed, and alternate facilities in relation to the documented mid-band deficiency gap area. The mid-band 2/23/2026 Page 8 of 25
ATTACHMENT 4

deficiency gap area is defined by the red-dashed polygon. The red-dashed polygon (gap area) was extrapolated by tracing the gap remaining after considering the wireless service contribution from the current on-air and planned facilities based upon the in-building drive test and coverage maps.

As shown in Exhibit A, the proposed SF-001 location occupies a central position within the identified deficiency gap area and maintains geometric alignment with previously approved nodes. The Golden Bough rooftop, while located within the broader neighborhood, is positioned toward the periphery of the deficiency gap area and nearer the edge of existing coverage dominance.

The relevant engineering consideration is whether the alternate location occupies a comparable geometric position within the service gap area sufficient to achjeve the identified service objectives. The proposed SF-001 node was engineered to mmrrnize transmission distance to the center of the documented deficiency gap area and to maintain balanced link conditions consistent with proximity-based small-cell architecture.

The Golden Bough rooftop does not occupy the same functional geometric position within the service gap area and would therefore operate under materially different transmission dynamics than the proposed node. Please refer to Exhibit A below for a graphical representation:
2/23/2026 Page 9 of 25
ATTACHMENT 4

2/23/2026

EXHIBIT A-SMALL CELL GEOMETRY

SMALL CELL NODE GEOMETRY RELATIVE TO

DOCUMENTED MID-BAND DEFICIENCY AREA
e Exisllng On AJr Site L 7 Remaining Deficiency Area
•
•
•
Approved Site
Proposed Site
Golden Bough-Alt
\..

N
+

ATTACHMENT 4

4.4 Balanced Two-Way Service and Uplink-Limited Design
Wireless networks operate as two-way communication systems. While downlink signal strength is often visually represented in propagation maps, system performance is typically constrained by the uplink due to the limited transmit power of user devices.

Accordingly, small-cell deployment for mid-band services is commonly designed using uplinklimited maximum allowable path (MAPL) loss thresholds to ensure balanced link conditions and consistent indoor performance.

The proposed facility was modeled using an uplink-limited MAPL of 127 dB, representing a conservative design condition intended to support reliable two-way communication, including in-building service.

This balanced-link design framework governs both node spacing and facility placement within the area of need.

4.5 Spatial Containment and Residential Deployment Objectives ln residential environments, small-cell installations are engineered to provide controlled, localized coverage rather than extended signal projection. Spatial containment is an important operational objective, as it:
• Limits unintended signal dominance beyond the intended service area; • Reduces unnecessary handoff activity;
• Minimizes inter-cell overlap; and
• Supports predictable network behavior.

The proposed facility reflects these deployment objectives and is configured to provide localized mid-band service consistent with coordinated small-cell architecture.

4.6 Application to the Subject Area
The small-cell deployment plan for this neighborhood reflects:
• The documented service deficiency;
• The mid-band performance objectives of A WS and C-Band; • The need for in-building reliability; and
• The geometric relationship between existing and approved facilities.

The proposed node location is therefore not arbitrary but is derived from link budget constraints, propagation behavior, and the need to complete the intended spacing geometry within the service gap area.
2/23/2026 Page 11 of 25
ATTACHMENT 4

The sections that follow evaluate whether the Golden Bough rooftop can satisfy these same deployment and performance criteria.

5. Golden Bough Rooftop - Technical Evaluation

5.1 Evaluation Framework
Consistent with established radio frequency engineering practice, alternative wireless facility locations must be evaluated based on their ability to:
• Provide proximity-based coverage within the area requiring service; • Operate within the intended small-cell network architecture; • Maintain balanced two-way communication under uplink-limited design conditions; • Provide sufficient link margin to tolerate normal environmental variability; and • Function predictably under existing, controllable deployment conditions.

The following analysis evaluates the Golden Bough rooftop against these criteria.

5.2 Spatial Positioning Relative to the Service Gap
As illustrated in Exhibit A, the proposed SF-00 l small cell occupies a central position within the documented mid-band deficiency gap area and aligns with the coordinated small-cell geometry established by previously approved nodes.

The Golden Bough rooftop, by contrast, is positioned toward the periphery of the deficiency gap area and nearer the edge of existing coverage dominance. Because it does not occupy the same geometric relationship to the service gap area, it would necessarily rely on greater transmission distance to reach portions of the documented gap.

Wireless performance is directly influenced by transmission distance. As separation between the antenna and end user increases, path loss increases and available link margin decreases. Facilities positioned outside the service gap area therefore operate with reduced tolerance for indoor attenuation, terrain variation, and normal environmental variability.

The question is not whether measurable signal can be generated from the rooftop, but whether it can provide the same proximity-based service performance as the proposed node under realistic operating conditions.

5.3 Rooftop Physical Constraints and Configuration Considerations The Golden Bough rooftop presents physical and geometric constraints that preclude deployment of a true omnidirectional small-cell configuration. The sloped roof geometry, ridgeline obstruction, and mounting limitations restrict the ability to achieve uniform 360-degree radiation without pattern shadowing and structural interference. Furthermore, due to the Golden Bough's 2/23/2026 Page 12 of 25
ATTACHMENT 4

location projecting coverage in the north, east, or south directions would conflict with coverage from the existing on-air facilities.

Accordingly, a sectorized rooftop configuration was modeled to approximate the gain and tilt characteristics of the proposed omnidirectional small-cell design while limiting radiation to feasible southwest and northwest sectors. This configuration represents the most favorable practicable approximation of small-cell performance achievable at the rooftop location.

The uplink-limited comparative modeling of this omni-equivalent configuration is presented in Section 5.5.

5.4 Interpretation of Uplink-Limited Path Loss Maps
The comparative modeling exhibits presented in this report utilize an uplink-limited maximum allowable path loss (MAPL) threshold of 127 dB. Path loss represents the total signal attenuation between the base station and user device. Areas where modeled path loss exceeds 127 dB indicate insufficient uplink margin to reliably sustain communication under the applied design criteria.

The color scale applied in the exhibits reflects relative uplink margin with respect to the 127 dB threshold:
• Areas depicted with positive margin values represent locations where modeled path loss remains below the threshold and sufficient link margin is maintained. • Areas depicted near O dB margin indicate minimal tolerance for additional attenuation, such as indoor penetration or terrain variability.
• Areas depicted with negative margin values represent locations where modeled path loss exceeds the allowable threshold and reliable uplink performance is not supported under the applied design assumptions.

All comparative exhibits utilize identical propagation parameters, clutter assumptions, antenna heights, and MAPL thresholds to ensure consistency and direct comparability between configurations.

5.5 Uplink-Limited Comparative Path Loss (Omni-Equivalent Evaluation) To evaluate technological feasibility under balanced two-way communication conditions, a conservative uplink-limited maximum allowable path loss (MAPL) threshold of 127 dB was applied uniformly across all modeling scenarios.

MAPL represents the maximum allowable signal attenuation between the base station and user device while maintaining reliable communication. The 127 dB threshold reflects an uplinkconstrained design condition and incorporates appropriate margin to support in-building service objectives.
2/23/2026 Page 13 of 25
ATTACHMENT 4

Exhibit B presents a side-by-side comparison of A WS path loss modeling for:
• The proposed SF-001 omnidirectional small-cell configuration; and • The Golden Bough rooftop modeled using an omni-equivalent sectorized configuration.

Identical terrain, clutter, antenna height, and MAPL assumptions were applied in both scenarios.

Under these consistent modeling conditions, the proposed small cell maintains positive uplink margin throughout the deficiency gap area. By contrast, the Golden Bough rooftop configuration exhibits predominantly sub-threshold performance (:'.SO dB margin) across substantial portions of the documented deficiency gap area.

Areas operating at or below the MAPL threshold do not maintain usable uplink margin and therefore lack tolerance for indoor attenuation, terrain variability, and normal environmental fluctuation. As a result, the Golden Bough configuration does not sustain balanced two-way communication conditions within the deficiency gap area under uplink-limited evaluation.

The relevant engineering question is not whether isolated signal presence can be produced, but whether sufficient positive link margin is maintained to support predictable in-building performance. Based on the modeling reflected in Exhibit B, the Golden Bough rooftop does not maintain sufficient uplink margin to achieve the identified service objectives within the documented service gap area.

Comparable modeling under C-Band using identical assumptions demonstrates consistent relative behavior; therefore, redundant frequency-specific exhibits are not included. 2/23/2026 Page 14 of 25
ATTACHMENT 4

Proposed SF-001 -AWS - Uplink-Limited Path Loss (127 dB) Omnidirectional Small-Cell Configuration
I I Pine Ridg
flew Ave
e Ex111,ng On Aw S.te
• App,oved Small Cen Site
• Proposed Small Cell
• Golden Bough Rooftop
2/23'2025
.1 Ni
ndthr
e
SF SOUTH CARMEL 003
%Iker A.,,
<t
t! ,r
_L_ t
-
Maximum Allowable Path Loss Margin
-Pathloss Marg"'(> 10 dB) Pathlo .. Margin (5 lO <10 dB) Palhloss Margin (0 to <5 dB)
Pathloss Margin(< 0 dB)
I,...

Ne11er1and SF_005
d
� j
[: J Deficiency Gap A100 � Site Sec:IOf'I
•
r
Golden Bough Rooftop
_
-AWS - Uplink-Limited Path Loss (127 dB)
Sectonzed Rooftop Configuration
Omni-Equivalent Gain and Tilt Parameters
02 ''<, <ii i � S
.,..-
m
,-ile-1.-, - I j ! 5 l 6th Ave � ;_z 91 J
_,.Perni,.-._ 1" Ocean Ave 1'q.

I \� g
� 77thA ve i!
Red Eagle Ln '>�
. \,
DOWNTOWN CARMEL -1,..,
5 lil'
�
lil'
1/1
Pine Ri<lg
rtewAve
• ExJSbng On Aw S,te
• Approved Small Cell Sile
• Proposed Small Cell
• Golden Bough Rooftop
'thAve '
9th Ave N
indlh Ave
•
SF SOUTH CARMEL 003
Walker Ave
<t
t! ,r
� -�
-
Maximum Allowable Path Loss Margin
-Palhlo6s Margin(> 10 dB) Palhloss Margin (5 lo <10 dB) Palhlo6s Margin (0 to <5 dB)
Pathloos Margin (< 0 dB)
Nevflrland SF_005
c:J OeficoonoyGapA,eo
� Site Seetors

•
ATTACHMENT 4

5.6 Long-Range Projection Characteristics - Golden Bough Rooftop When modeled using a scctorized rooftop configuration with low electrical downtilt (0--2 degrees), the Golden Bough location exhibits extended line--0f-sight propagation toward the northwest over open water.

Open-water paths introduce minimal clutter attenuation and therefore allow signals to propagate efficiently over extended distances.

Under low-downtilt conditions, modeled signal strength persists well beyond the intended residential service area.

Extended projection of this nature is inconsistent with proximity-based small-cell design, which is intended to localize coverage within the immediate service gap area. Excessive projection increases the potential for:
• Unintended service area expansion;
• Overlapping coverage with distant cells; and
• Reduced control over dominant serving boundaries.

To limit long-range projection and concentrate coverage within the intended residential area, increased electrical downtilt is required.

Exhibit C presents a line--0f-sight profile comparison of the Golden Bough rooftop under 2 ° and 8
° electrical downtilt configurations,
illustrating the corresponding change in propagation geometry.

Under a 2
° electrical downtilt configuration, the antenna's upper radiation lobe projects outward at a shallow angle. In the northwest direction, there are no terrain obstructions and the signal travels over open water, where there is very little natural attenuation. As a result, free-space calculations incorporating antenna gain show that the signal level remains approximately -76 dBm at a distance of two miles from the rooftop.

A signal at -76 dBm is strong enough to influence device selection and serving boundaries well beyond the intended residential service area. In practical terms, this means the rooftop would project energy far outside the localized service gap it is intended to address.

When electrical downtilt is increased to 8
°
, the signal at that same two-mile location drops to approximately -94 dBm; an 18 dB reduction. An 18 dB decrease represents more than a sixtyfold reduction in received signal power. While this higher downtilt improves containment of the signal and reduces extended projection, it does not uniformly improve localized coverage within the service gap area.

In this specific terrain environment, the Golden Bough rooftop is elevated relative to portions of the service area but not centrally positioned within it. Increasing downtilt redirects energy downward; however, due to the rooftop's position near the edge of the service gap and the downward terrain profile toward the water, portions of the service area fall outside the strongest portion of the vertical radiation pattern. This results in uneven margin and localized areas where uplink-limited performance remains constrained despite increased downtilt.

Accordingly, the Golden Bough rooftop presents a configuration tradeoff: lower downtilt produces excessive projection beyond the intended area, while higher downtilt improves containment but does not produce continuous positive margin throughout the documented service gap under the applied design criteria. 2/23/2026 Page 16 of25
ATTACHMENT 4

11 ll
R
Total distance·
Ground distance
Exhibit C - Line-of-Sight Profile - Golden Bough Rooftop - Electrical Downtilt Sensitivity (22 vs. 82) 19 12
3S
2 miles. 18 feet
2 miles. 36 feet
16 11
Climbtng
Descending.
1 Moles
145 feet
-141 feet
ElevatKJn change
Min/Max.
4 feet
0/144
Golden Bough Rooftop (22 Downtilt Configuration)
Unobstructed Over-Water Propagation Path (~ 2 Miles)
11 2 0
-?•
,, '
·/,
LWA
OVE
•: . :, . . .
........ ocl,�---�=
" • 1
1 :::.::_:;/ Gl �
• • �oArrw"-d,
•:. • • 11
o ,oinf
Ill
15 19
ll
II ,1
ll
11 JS
M E
16 11
L ll
II �\
•r¼ .:
'
Miles
Total distance 1759 feet
1764 feet
Chmb,ng
Descending
0 feet
-104 feet
ElevatKJn change
Min/Max
Ground distance
Golden Bough Rooftop (82 Downtilt Configuration)
-104 feet
371141
Reduced Long-Range Projection; Localized Ground Intercept ATTACHMENT 4

5.7 Antenna Downtilt Sensitivity- Uplink-Limited Performance Impact To quantify the service impact of downtilt selection, additional uplink-limited path loss modeling was performed for the Golden Bough rooftop under two electrical downtilt conditions: 2 ° and g
0 ,
using identical MAPL (127 dB) assumptions and propagation parameters.

Under 2
° electrical downtilt, extended propagation persists toward the northwest, consistent with the geometric behavior described in Section 5.6. While measurable signal is present within portions of the service area, the configuration does not maintain positive uplink margin within the central portion of the documented deficiency service gap area.

Specifically, the area where drive testing previously measured degraded SINR values corresponds to modeled path loss exceeding the 127 dB uplink-limited threshold, resulting in <O dB margin. In such conditions, the Golden Bough configuration would not be expected to establish a dominant serving signal within that portion of the service gap area.

Under g
o electrical downtilt, long-range projection toward the northwest is reduced, and modeled signal containment improves relative to the 2
° configuration. However, uplink-limited modeling
indicates that margin within portions of the central deficiency service gap area remains constrained.

Specifically, while certain areas previously modeled below threshold under the 2 ° configuration
improve slightly, the resulting uplink margin within much of the service gap area is limited to approximately O to <5 dB. Margin within this range provides minimal tolerance for indoor attenuation, terrain variability, or routine environmental fluctuation and may not establish a consistently dominant serving condition.

In addition, modeling along portions south of 11th A venue up to the southern edge of the deficiency area indicates path loss exceeding the 127 dB threshold, resulting in negative uplink margin in those locations. Such conditions suggest that even with increased downtilt, the Golden Bough rooftop configuration does not provide continuous positive margin throughout the intended service gap area and may require additional network densification to address remaining sub-threshold areas.

Exhibits D and E present the comparative uplink-limited path loss results for the Golden Bough rooftop under 2� and g
o electrical downtilt configurations.

In addition to the modeled geometric and uplink-margin limitations, field inspection confirms the presence of mature vegetation located within close proximity to the potential antenna mounting area in the southwestern direction on the Golden Bough rooftop. The propagation modeling performed herein utilized standard clutter assumptions and did not incorporate discrete nearfield foliage obstruction at the antenna aperture.

Close-in vegetation within the primary radiation path can introduce additional attenuation, multipath variability, and time-varying signal fluctuation that are not fully captured in 2/23/2026 Page 18 of 25
ATTACHMENT 4

generalized propagation modeling. Even with selective tree trimming, residual foliage and seasonal regrowth may materially affect signal stability in the immediate service direction.

Accordingly, real-world performance from the Golden Bough rooftop would reasonably be expected to be more variable than reflected in the idealized modeling results presented above.

The modeling demonstrates that tilt adjustment at the Golden Bough location produces a performance tradeo:ff: lower tilt results in extended projection, while higher tilt reduces projection but does not simultaneously achieve controlled projection and continuous positive uplink margin across the documented service gap area.
2/23/2026 Page 19 of 25
ATTACHMENT 4

Proposed SF-001 - AWS - Uplink-Limited Path Loss (127 dB) Omnidirectional Small-Cell Configuration
02 .'o in
--m-.lles___ 1
J
�---,J
lh7thAvo
V Pine Ridg
flew Ave
e Ex11t,ng On Alt Site
• App<oved Small CeN Site
• Proposed Small Coll
• Golden Bough Roottop
.........

NindthAve
• I
SF SOUTH CARMEL 003
-
Maximum Allowable Path Loss Margin
-Pathloss Marg"' (> 10 dB)
Pathloss Margin (5 to <10 dB)
Pathloss Margin (0 to <5 dB)
Pathloss Margin (< 0 dB)
'
Neverfand SF _005
\
�
0 J
[: J 0ef"""'1CY GoP A,ea [==1s1teSector1
...
•
Golden Bough Rooftop -AWS - Uplink-Limited Path Loss (127 dB) Sectorized Rooftop Configuration - 2° Electrical Downtilt ,,,,q,,
Red Eagle ln "{,.,
. '.,._
DOWNTOWN CARMEL -1��
Pine Ridg
•
SF _SOUTH_CARMEL_002
• Ex15ting On Alf S11e
• Approved Small Cen Site
• Proposed Small Cell
• Golden Bough Roottop
NindthAve
•
SF SOUTH CARMEL 003
Never1and SF_005
0 I!'
-
Maximum Allowable Path Loss Margin
-Pa�s Margin(> 10 d8)
Palhloss Margin (5 to <10 dB)
[: J Def"""'1CY GoP Area
Palhlosa Margin (0 to <5 dB)
Pathloss Margin (< 0 dB)
[==1 s,1e Sectors
•
i
t
ATTACHMENT 4

Proposed SF-001 -AWS - Uplink-Limited Path Loss (127 dB) Omnidirectional Small-Cell Configuration
ii
f � 6thA�
ol,;anAve .,,"<,
I Red Eagte-Ln I'?�,;
., '
DOWNTOWN CARMEL I 1-f� I I
l--
I
NindlhAve
•I
I
SF SOUTH C RME1 003
Pine Ridg
•
Ne11ertand SF_005
liewAve
e Existing On Air Site
• Approved Small Cell Site
• Proposed Small Cell
e Golden Bough Rooftop
%Iker Ave
lI:
r
�
� .!
-
Maximum Allowable Path Loss Margin
-Palhloss Margin(> 10 dB) Pathloss Margin (5 to <10 dB) Palhloss Margin (0 to <S dB)
Palhloss Margin(< 0 dB)
'� 0.
[: J Deficiency Gap Area C:JsrteSectors
I Golden Bough Rooftop -AWS - Uplink-Limited Path Loss (127 dB) I Sectorized Rooftop Configuration - 8 ° Electrical Downtilt

0.2 .r'
6th Ave
•

DOWNTOWN CARMEL
'•
NindthAve
SF SOUTH CARMEL 003
Pine Ridg
•
SF _005
/iewAve
•
SF _SOUTH_CARMEL_002
e Exisbng On Air Sile
e Approved Small Cell Site
• Proposed Small Cell
• Golden Bough Rooftop
-
Maximum Allowable Path Loss Margin
-Pathloss Margin(> 10 dB) Pathloss Margin (510 <10 dB)
Palhloss Margin (0 lo <S dB)
Pathloss Margin(< O dB)
[: J Def1e1ency Gap Area C:J S11e Sectors
ATTACHMENT 4

5.8 Comparative Configuration Summary
The following table summarizes the comparative modeling results under identical uplink-limited MAPL (127 dB) assumptions and consistent propagation parameters.

Evaluation Proposed Small Golden Bough - Golden Bough - Golden Bough - Criterion Cell (SF-001) Omni- 2
° Electrical 8° Electrical
Equivalent Downtilt Downtilt
Located within
documented Yes No No No
service gap area
Proximity-based
coverage Yes No No No
geometry
Maintains No (service gap
positive uplink area margin
margin across Yes No No limited to 0-<5
service gap area dB in central
zone)
Central <O dB (majority
deficiency area Positive of service gap <OdB 0-<5 dB
margin area)
Southern / 11th Positive <O dB 0-<5 dB <OdB Ave margin
Long-range Limited projection Localized Extended Reduced behavior coverage
Sensitivity to
downtilt Low NIA High High
adjustment
Near-field
vegetation Minimal Present Present Present
influence
Indicates need
for additional No Yes Yes Yes
densification

5.9 Summary of Golden Bough Technical Evaluation
The expanded modeling and field evaluation demonstrate that the Golden Bough rooftop is constrained by geometric separation, configuration sensitivity, and physical site conditions that materially limit its ability to achieve the identified service objectives.

The rooftop is positioned outside the documented service gap area and therefore must rely on transmission distance rather than proximity-based coverage to serve the central service gap area. 2/23/2026 Page 22 of 25
ATTACHMENT 4

Under an omni-equivalent configuration evaluated using a conservative uplink-limited MAPL threshold of 127 dB, modeling indicates that positive uplink margin is not maintained throughout the central deficiency area.

When configured with low electrical downtilt (2°
), the rooftop produces extended line-of-sight
projection over open water while still failing to establish consistent positive margin within the central portion of the documented service gap. Increasing electrical downtilt (8° ) reduces longrange projection; however, uplink margin within the service gap area becomes constrained to minimal levels (approximately Oto <5 dB), and certain portions of the southern and eastern service area remain below threshold.

The modeling therefore reflects a configuration sensitivity in which reduced projection and adequate margin cannot be simultaneously achieved from the Golden Bough location under consistent uplink-limited design assumptions.

By contrast, the proposed SF-001 small-cell configuration is positioned within the service gap area and maintains positive uplink margin throughout the documented deficiency area without reliance on extended projection or aggressive downtilt adjustment.

Based on unifonn modeling assumptions and consistent application of uplink-limited perfonnance criteria, the engineering record does not support the Golden Bough rooftop as a technologically feasible alternative for achieving the documented service objectives within the identified deficiency area.

6. Conclusion
This supplemental evaluation applied unifonn uplink-limited modeling criteria (127 dB MAPL), consistent propagation assumptions, and documented field conditions to assess whether the Golden Bough rooftop represents a technologically feasible alternative.

Under all evaluated configurations-including omni-equivalent, 2 ° electrical downtilt, and 8
°
electrical downtilt-the Golden Bough location does not maintain continuous positive uplink margin across the documented service gap area. Low-downtilt configurations result in extended projection beyond the intended residential area while failing to remediate the central deficiency zone. Increased downtilt reduces projection but constrains uplink margin within the service gap area and leaves portions of the southern service area below threshold.

The modeling further reflects configuration sensitivity and geometric limitations inherent to the rooftop's position outside the service gap area. These constraints are not attributable to tunable parameters but to spatial separation and physical site conditions, including near-field vegetation.

By contrast, the proposed SF-001 small-cell facility is positioned within the documented service gap area and maintains positive uplink margin under the same modeling assumptions without reliance on extended projection or aggressive downtilt adjustment. 2/23/2026 Page 23 of 25
ATTACHMENT 4

Based on consistent engineering criteria and comparative analysis, the Golden Bough rooftop does not represent a technologically feasible alternative for achieving the identified service objectives to the identified deficiency area. The proposed SF-001 small-cell configuration remains the technically appropriate solution supported by the engineering record.

Report Prepared by:
&Conr�y, Presid
Senior RF Engineer
February 23, 2026
2/23/2026
�v:!1:JJ�0
Senior RF Erlgmeer
February 23, 2026

ATTACHMENT 4

7. Appendix - Propagation Parameters
Carmel 127 dB Pathloss Model Parameters
Site SF S Carmel Golden Bough Golden Bough Golden Bough 001
Latitude 36.549322 36.551884 36.551884 36.551884
Longitude -121.926922 -121.924606 -121.924606 -121.924606 SiteAMSL 82.3 156.9 156.9 156.9
(ft)
AGL CL (ft) 47 34 34 34
Antenna Omni_10DT CUUT070X06Fxyz NHHSS-65C-HGT- NHHSS-65C-HGTModel R3B 02DT R3B 08DT Antenna Omni Clover Directional Directional
Type
E Downtilt 10 10 2 8
(degrees)
Azimuth 360 220 220 220
(degrees) 340 300 300
Gain (dBi) 8 14 19.4 19.4
HBW (deg) 360 77 62 62
VBW (deg) 20 15 4.7 4.7
Dimensions 29.8" H X 14.6" 24" H x 14.6" D 96"H x 11.9" Wx 7.1" D 96"H x 11.9" W x 7.1" D D
Clutter 1 sec 2021 USGS tuned to drive test data
Terrain 2016 30m
Frequency 2100
(MHz)
Model COST-231 Hata
ERP (dBm) 51.3 51.3 59.8 59.8
2/23/2026 Page 25 of 25
ATTACHMENT 4

Feasibility Review for Alternate Location
Verizon Wireless Facility at the
Golden Bough Playhouse
Prepared for City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California
February 2026
ATTACHMENT 5

2 Contents
1 Overview of the Golden Bough Playhouse Alternative Site ..........................................................................3 2 Proposed Wireless Coverage .......................................................................................................................7 3 Compliance With FCC Radio Frequency Exposure Guidelines.....................................................................10 Summary of qualifications - Lee Afflerbach, P.E..................................................................................................17 ATTACHMENT 5

3 1 Overview of the Golden Bough Playhouse Alternative Site The alternative site to the Verizon proposed site is the Golden Bough Playhouse located on Monte Verde Street, between 8th and 9th Avenues. Because of the topology in that part of Carmel, the easternmost part of the building on Monte Verde Street has a height above mean sea level (AMSL) of 109.2 feet while the westernmost part of the building, bordering on Casanova Streert, is 94.7 feet AMSL. That means that the peak of the western edge of the roof is approximately 42 feet above ground level in reference to Casanova Street and the easternmost part of the peak is roughly 27 feet above Monte Verde Street. Figure 1 shows the section view of the proposed facility from recent construction documents provided by RFM Architects who oversaw recent renovations at the Playhouse.

Figure 1: Golden Bough Playhouse Section
We are evaluating a proposal for Verizon to install the antennas and mounting structure in a faux chimney/smokestack with two wireless antennas at azimuths of 220 and 330 degrees along with four radios to support operation in Verizon’s 1950, 2150 and 3750 MHz FCC licensed commercial wireless bands.

Figure 2 is a rendition of the proposed Verizon site with the faux chimney/smokestack antenna and radio system.

ATTACHMENT 5

4 Figure 2: Golden Bough Playhouse Proposed Verizon Site Figure 3 is a sketch of the antennas placed inside of the chimney. These antennas were selected based on information provided by Verizon in their analysis of using the Golden Bough Playhouse as an alternative site for constructing the new wireless facility. Verizon also provided the antenna bearing angles that we investigated in our study.

ATTACHMENT 5

5 Figure 3: Top View of Antenna Canister
Figure 4 is a depiction of the radio and antenna equipment that would be installed in the canister. (For visual clarity, we omit the wiring and diplexers which connect the radios to the antennas).

All other related wireless equipment would be installed within the building.

ATTACHMENT 5

6 Figure 4: Simulated Cross-Section of Antenna Canister ATTACHMENT 5

7 2 Proposed Wireless Coverage
We have prepared computer-generated models of the anticipated coverage that will be provided from the Golden Bough Playhouse site for the three Verizon licensed wireless band proposed by Verizon in their original application. Figure 5 is a computer-generated plot of 2150 MHz mid-band coverage utilizing the propagation modeling defined by the International Telecommunications Union1.

Figure 5: Computer Modeled Coverage 2150 MHz Verizon Wireless Mid-Band 1 Recommendation ITU-R P.1816-4 (08/2019) The prediction of the time and the spatial profile for broadband land mobile services using UHF and SHF bands P Series Radiowave propagation, International Telecommunications Union, Genevia, Switzerland ATTACHMENT 5

8 The green area plotted on the map represents the minimum signal level power level Verizon associates with reliable in-building services. The extended red and blue areas define areas that adjacent Verizon sites -95 coverage contours will receive co-frequency interference at the 5dB/10dB level.

Likewise, Figure 6 is a is a computer-generated plot of the 1950 MHz mid-band coverage using the same propagation modeling defined by the International Telecommunications Union.

Figure 6: Computer Modeled Coverage 3700 MHz Verizon Wireless Mid-Band ATTACHMENT 5

9 Obviously, it will still be necessary to determine the true impact of the nearby trees and foliage on the west side of the Playhouse to the mid-band signal propagation from the proposed antenna location. To that, we continue to recommend (as Deltaphase endorses in their submissions) that Verizon place a temporary antenna setup to simulate this proposed base station site. We also understand the City officials are willing to work with the Playhouse to trim existing trees on site and will also trim any trees if needed in the public right of way.

ATTACHMENT 5

10 3 Compliance With FCC Radio Frequency Exposure Guidelines The FCC’s guidelines for evaluating human exposure to RF signals were first established in 1985.

The current guidelines were adopted in August 1997 in FCC OET Bulletin 65.2 The guidelines are expressed in terms of Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) to electric and magnetic field strength and power density. The guidelines, which cover the frequency range of 300 kHz to 100 GHz, address two separate tiers of exposure:

1. Occupational/controlled exposure limits apply to situations in which persons are exposed as a consequence of their employment and in which those persons who are exposed have been made fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over their exposure.

2. General population/uncontrolled exposure limits apply to situations in which the general public may be exposed or in which persons who are exposed as a consequence of their employment may not be made fully aware of the potential for exposure or cannot exercise control over their exposure.

Figure 7 is a plot of MPE as a function of radiofrequency (RF) human exposure as a function of the frequency spectrum. Note that the spectrum between 30 and 300 MHz is the most restrictive.

All commercial wireless networks operate in a spectrum above 600 MHz.

Figure 7: FCC Limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure
2 “Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields,” OET Bulletin 65, edition 97-01. https://www.fcc.gov/general/oet-bulletins-line#65 ATTACHMENT 5

11 We examined the specifications for the radio equipment proposed for this site. This information has been used to examine compliance with the FCC’s guidelines for evaluating human exposure to RF signals as adopted in August 1997 in FCC OET Bulletin 65. We conclude that the proposal is fully compliant with FCC’s limits of radiofrequency exposure.

Figure 8 is a Google Earth map depicting the maximum distance of radio frequency radiation exceeding FCC standards in the vicinity of the antennas with their radiation center at the height of 52’ above ground level.

Figure 8: Area Near Antenna Radiation Center at 52’ AGL Where RF Exposure Exceeds FCC General Public Limit ATTACHMENT 5

12 Figure 9 through Figure 12 are graphs which show an elevation depicting the maximum distance and heights (in meters) of radio frequency radiation in the vicinity of the antenna at the individual antenna with a radiation center of 52’ at top of the at bearings of 220, 330, 0, and 180 degrees from the utility pole. The blue plot lines show the extent of the RF exposure for FCC occupational limit (trained communications and utility workers). The red lines show the extent of the RF exposure limits set by the FCC for the general public; the green lines show a very conservative RF exposure limit of 20% of the FCC general public, for comparison. The grey boxes are nearby buildings within the plane of each bearing for comparison. It is clear that none of the buildings-- even with a 2 meter (6-foot) tall person on top, comes close to the green lines that indicate only 20% of the general public RF exposure limit. Thus, the proposed wireless facility would clearly be compliant with the FCC Radio Exposure Guidelines.

ATTACHMENT 5

13 Figure 9: RF Exposure Level Above Ground Level (Bearing 220 degrees) All Distances Measured in Meters
Blue – FCC Occupational Control Exposure Area
Red – 100% of FCC General Public Uncontrolled Exposure Area Green – 20% of FCC General Public Uncontrolled Exposure Area ATTACHMENT 5

14 Figure 10: RF Exposure Level Above Ground Level (Bearing 330 degrees) All Distances Measured in Meters
Blue – FCC Occupational Control Exposure Area
Red – 100% of FCC General Public Uncontrolled Exposure Area Green – 20% of FCC General Public Uncontrolled Exposure Area ATTACHMENT 5

15 Figure 11: RF Exposure Level Above Ground Level (Bearing 0 degrees) All Distances Measured in Meters
Blue – FCC Occupational Control Exposure Area
Red – 100% of FCC General Public Uncontrolled Exposure Area Green – 20% of FCC General Public Uncontrolled Exposure Area ATTACHMENT 5

16 Figure 12: RF Exposure Level Above Ground Level (Bearing 180 degrees) All Distances Measured in Meters
Blue – FCC Occupational Control Exposure Area
Red – 100% of FCC General Public Uncontrolled Exposure Area Green – 20% of FCC General Public Uncontrolled Exposure Area ATTACHMENT 5

17 Summary of Qualifications - Lee Afflerbach, P.E.

CTC Media Group – Project Manager
I am a communications systems engineer with more than 50 years of experience advising federal, state, and local government clients. I am the founder of Columbia Telecommunications Corporation, a firm that has delivered independent consulting services to federal, state, and local government clients since 1983.

My expertise covers a wide range of communications technologies, including urban 4/5G commercial wireless deployment, broadcasting facility design, and UHF/VHF public safety land mobile radio. My daily work involves radio frequency (RF) propagation modeling to determine the extent of coverage feasible from a given wireless facility sitting; I also evaluate network capacity and examine alternative deployment strategies to address clients’ needs.

Wireless siting expertise
For over two decades of experience assisting local government clients in reviewing and examining options for siting commercial wireless communications facilities consistent with local zoning codes and federal regulations. In this work, I routinely perform computer modeling to determine the extent of existing and proposed coverage for a wide range of commercial wireless applications prepared by commercial carriers. As part of these evaluations, when requested by the client, I identify and examine alternative locations for proposed sitings; in addition to meeting coverage requirements, these alternative sites are intended to address specific local government planning and zoning requirements.

I currently provide ongoing support to municipal clients evaluating options for deploying advanced cellular technology in their respective communities. I serve as CTC’s project leader for the team of engineers who are examining or have recently examined deployment options for more than a dozen cities in California, including the cities of Arcadia, Campbell, Burlingame, Fremont, Hillsborough, Los Angeles, Los Altos, Monterey, Napa, Palo Alto, Palos Verdes Estates, Piedmont, Rancho Palos Verdes, and Sonoma. Over the past 20 years, I have reviewed several hundred site applications for both new and upgrades for wireless facilities for numerous ongoing municipal clients in the Washington DC and Baltimore metropolitan areas.

As a part of my support to local l government clients, performed and supervised our technical team l review of wireless facilities applications, oversight of field signal verification measurements, negotiations of technical options/issues with carriers, expert witness testimony in litigation, and presentations before local planning commissions and city councils.

I have served as an expert witness providing testimony in support of municipal clients in their ongoing litigation with commercial wireless carriers in both State and Federal courts. My assignments have included the preparation of testimony and analysis of technical filings presented before the court by the cities of Wilmington, DE; Los Angles, Los Altos, Hillsborough ATTACHMENT 5

18 and Piedmont, CA; Pueblo County, CO; Wichita, KS; McKinney, TX; and North Buffalo Township, PA. As directed by the courtsin some of these disputes, I have supported numerous communities in preparing technical alternatives to wireless carriers’ initial wireless facility siting applications.

Design and deployment of statewide broadband wireless network I serve as CTC’s project leader for managing the Delaware Department of Transportation’s (DelDOT) statewide 4.9 GHz high capacity, sectorized SHF broadband wireless network. This network, with 20 core towers, interconnects the department’s statewide traffic cameras, traffic signals, traffic information network, and road sensor equipment. Capacity in the network is shared with other state and local government entities.

This project involves the deployment of multisector access points onto existing Delaware State Police towers. It includes a hybrid 11 GHz/fiber optic backbone interconnection network. CTC’s responsibilities include propagation modeling, site selection, oversight of installation, and proofof-performance testing evaluation.

Land Mobile Radio (LMR) System Design
Early in my career, as a group leader at the MITRE Corporation, I was the project leader for a wide range of land mobile initiatives for federal agencies. For the Federal Bureau of Investigation, I assisted in site selection and frequency channel planning for the Bureau’s VHF land mobile radio system. For the Drug Enforcement Administration, I established design criteria for a new generation of VHF vehicle tracking equipment.

At Kelly Scientific I served as a project manager on projects for the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA), the New York State Police, and the Georgia State Patrol. My tasks involved user requirements analysis, system design, and specification preparation for land-mobile radio, computer-assisted dispatching, and 911 emergency telephone systems. This work involved RF propagation coverage modeling, radio channel planning, and interference analysis in the VHF and UHF land mobile spectrum.

Broadband Planning Instruction-Expertise
Over the course of my career, I have prepared numerous digital network design training courses providing information on communications designs, applications, and operations. The courses have been presented at George Washington University (USA & Europe), ITS America for University of Maryland, COMNET, University of Alabama, and the National Security Agency (USA & UK).

Employment History
1990 – Present Vice President -Engineering Director, CTC Media Group, INC 1983 – 2010 Founder and Principal Engineer, Columbia Telecommunications Corporation 1981 – 1983 Vice President of Engineering, The Bertman Group, Vienna, VA ATTACHMENT 5

19 1971 – 1981 Group Leader, MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA and Frankfurt, Germany 1969 – 1971 Project Manager, Kelly Scientific Corporation, Washington, D.C. 1966 – 1969 Staff Engineer, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C.

Licenses and Education
Professional Engineer, Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, North Carolina, and Washington
Professional Associations IEEE, SBE
Bachelor of Science, Electrical Engineering, Drexel University Amateur Radio License – Extra Class License W3BRH
ATTACHMENT 5

51312.00003\44719541.1
Response to PierCon Solutions – Radio Frequency
Supplemental Report # 4
Prepared for City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California
February 2026
ATTACHMENT 6

51312.00003\44719541.1
Response to PierCon Solu:ons – Radio Frequency
Supplemental Report # 4
In support of the applica1on for a new small wireless facility Verizon included a technical report prepared by the firm of PierCon Solu1ons. This report included analysis of exis1ng coverage of all the nearby wireless sites to the proposed facility located at Carmelo Street in Carmel-by-the-Sea.

They also provided detailed mobile field measurements made within the City for both low-band (850 MHz) and mid-band frequencies (1900 and 2100 MHz). The purpose of providing the field measurement data was to verify signal power level and quality. Verizon then used that test data to demonstrate that there is a substan1al gap in coverage area in the City for both Verizon's lowband and mid-band spectrum.

Independently, we used this same data in our model to verify that there is an exis1ng gap in Verizon’s wireless service. In our analysis we focused on measured signal amplitude and quality of the received signals in both low- and mid-band spectrum. Further, we used the signal quality measurements data evalua1on criteria to conclude there is an exis1ng gap. Figure 1 is a map provided by PierCon Solu1ons in their original technical report, dated October 10, 2025, which provides plots of the actual signal-to-noise measurements they recorded. The data was ploSed over a 20-Decibel range, with 0 signifying no signal to a maximum of 20 dB signal-to-noise. The best performance is illustrated by the blue dots which represent 20 dB. The unacceptable or gap areas are denoted by either Gray or Black dots. Addi1onally, they provided a boundary of a doSed orange line describing their target area for upgraded wireless service with a “mid-band gap” which covers 0.39 square miles.

ATTACHMENT 6

51312.00003\44719541.1
Figure 1 - Drive Test SINR (Signal to Interference/Noise Ra;o) with Service Gap ATTACHMENT 6

51312.00003\44719541.1
Note on the map that many instances of the worst case (black dots) measurement from the data collected indica1ng “drop connec1ons or no service” are located near 8th Avenue and Casanova Street. The areas surrounding the proposed site Verizon South Carmel 001 are either designated in gray (defined as “poor low throughput”) or yellow (defined as “Limited speeds, frequent retransmissions”)
Figure 2 is a map provided by PierCon in this latest report, dated February 23, 2026, RF Supplement #4. Note that they have redefined the boundary of the gap area (now shown as a red doSed line). The gap which used to include the area surrounding the Golden Blough Playhouse has been shibed without explana1on such that it is no longer within the gap area. In fact, the new gap boundary has become Casanova Street, due west of the Playhouse. Yet the actual field measurements make it clear that one of the larger clusters of the worst-case coverage areas can be found around the intersec1ons of Lincoln Street and Eighth Avenue.

ATTACHMENT 6

51312.00003\44719541.1
Figure 2 - Re-Adjusted Boundaries of Verizon Mid Band Service Gap Area ATTACHMENT 6

51312.00003\44719541.1
On Long-Range Wireless Signal Projec;on Characteris;cs - Golden Bough RooNop At the start of our evalua1on, we noted the rela1vely unobstructed water path which stretches from northwest across the bay from Verizon’s Founders Building and Pebble Beach Tennis Club macro sites to the Carmel loca1ons. Subsequently, we requested informa1on from Verizon regarding specifics on the antennas employed at these sites as well as their beam 1lt angle. It appears that Verizon does not use beam 1lt to provide protec1on from an overly long signal path.

Note in the leSer below, Figure 3, that the beam 1lt for Founders Building is one percent and for Pebble Beach is two percent. For all other sites inside the City of Carmel, the beam 1lt is zero percent. It appears that Verizon finds that it is acceptable to employ a minimum beam 1lt in its network design in the Carmel area, presumably because it provides greater coverage plus enhanced upload data flow from customers versus suppressing coverage to minimize interference.

In modeling the feasibility of the Golden Bough site, we will consider selec1ng antenna 1lt angles that may create a reasonable area of overlap (interference on a ra1o basis) that will not materially impact subscriber service performance consistent with the standards currently set for exis1ng macro sites in Carmel.

Uplink Path Loss Considera;ons
We concur that 127 dB is a reasonable value to evaluate up link signal power. However, we have not had an opportunity to model this specific parameter on our computer model because all of the field measurement data provided by Verizon suppor1ng the applica1on un1l this most recent report dealt with download measurements only, which is the most common measurements used for network design. We can independently model the uplink performance using our computer model if we are provided with a printout from Verizon’s model using a 5° download 1lt.

ATTACHMENT 6

51312.00003\44719541.1
Figure 3 – Antenna and Beam Tilt Informa;on Provided by PierCon ATTACHMENT 6

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2026-002-PC

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA FINDING THAT

THE DENIAL OF THE PROJECT STATUTORIALLY EXEMPT FROM CEQA PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15270(a); AND DENYING A USE PERMIT, DESIGN REVIEW, AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT

PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SMALL WIRELESS FACILITY ON A REPLACEMENT PG&E UTILITY POLE. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY IN FRONT OF CARMELO STREET 4 SOUTHEAST OF 10TH AVENUE IN THE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) DISTRICT.

WHEREAS, Sequoia Deployment Services, Inc., on behalf of Verizon Wireless (“Applicant”), submitted an application requesting approval of a Use Permit, Design Review, and Coastal Development Permit application (“DR 25313 & UP 25314 [Verizon Sequoia Deployment]”) described herein (“Application”); and
WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing to construct a Small Wireless Facility on a replacement PG&E utility pole in the public right-of-way in front of Carmelo Street 4 southeast of 10th Avenue in the SingleFamily Residential (R-1) District; and WHEREAS, installation of Small Wireless Facilities on replacement poles requires approval of a Type III Conditional Use Permit application, including Design Review, and a Coastal Development permit by the Planning Commission (Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code [CMC] Section 17.46.050.A.1.c); and, WHEREAS, on January 9, 2026, a notice of public hearing was published in the Carmel Pine Cone for the January 21, 2026, Planning Commission meeting in compliance with State law (California Government Code 65091) and mailed to owners of real property within a 500-foot radius of the project indicating the date and time of the public hearing; and WHEREAS, on or before January 11, 2026, the Applicant posted the public notice on the project site and hand-delivered a copy of the public notice to each property within a 100-foot radius of the project site indicating the date and time of the public hearing; and WHEREAS, on or before January 16, 2026, the meeting agenda was posted in three locations in compliance with State law, indicating the date and time of the public hearing; and WHEREAS, on January 21, 2026, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive public testimony regarding the Application, including without limitation, information provided to the Planning Commission by City staff and through public testimony on the project; and WHEREAS, on January 21, 2026, the Planning Commission continued the hearing on the project to a date certain to February 4, 2026, due to the volume of correspondence that the city received within 24 hours of the meeting; and
WHEREAS, on or before January 25, 2026, the Applicant posted the public notice on the project site and hand-delivered a copy of the public notice to each property within a 100-foot radius of the project site indicating the date and time of the public hearing; and ATTACHMENT 7

WHEREAS, on or before January 30, 2026, the meeting agenda was posted in three locations in compliance with State law, indicating the date and time of the public hearing; and WHEREAS, on February 4, 2026, the Planning Commission continued the hearing on the project to a date certain to February 10, 2026, due to staff’s need for additional time to review continued correspondence from the public and the applicant; and
WHEREAS, on January 30, PierCon submitted Supplemental Report #2 which included the following language: “Additional best-server modeling was performed to assess whether the site [Golden Bough Theater] could be made viable under more aggressive and constrained design parameters. The only configuration that produced marginally acceptable modeled results required” antenna heights at roughly 37’ (antenna centerline of 34’), azimuths of 220 and 330, and narrow beamwidth antenna. Although the report concludes that further analysis (field test data) is required to identify whether or not the existing trees in proximity would impact the viability of the facility, the fact that there is an identified potential alternative site, there is a rebuttal presumption that there is a viable alternative location; and WHEREAS, on or before February 6, 2026, the meeting agenda was posted in three locations in compliance with State law, indicating the date and time of the public hearing; and WHEREAS, on February 10, 2026, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive public testimony regarding the Application, including without limitation, information provided to the Planning Commission by City staff and through public testimony on the project; and WHEREAS, this Resolution and its findings are made based upon the evidence presented to the Commission at the hearing date, including, without limitation, the staff report and attachments submitted by the Community Planning and Building Department; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations, and testimony herein above set forth and used their independent judgment to evaluate the project; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., “CEQA”), together with State Guidelines (14 California Code Regulations §§ 15000, et seq., the “CEQA Guidelines”) and City Environmental Regulations (CMC Chapter 17.60) require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that pursuant to CEQA regulations, the Application is Statutorily Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15270(a) of the CEQA Guidelines (Projects Which Are Disapproved) which states that CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves; and
WHEREAS, the facts set forth in the recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Carmel-By-TheSea does hereby make the following findings and determinations:

Section 1: FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR USE PERMIT DENIAL (CMC Chapter 17.64), DESIGN REVIEW AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. For each of the required findings listed below, staff has indicated ATTACHMENT 7

whether the submitted plans support the adoption of the findings. For all findings checked "no" the staff report discusses the issues to facilitate the Planning Commission's decision-making. Findings checked "yes" may or may not be discussed in the report depending on the issues.

Municipal Code Findings – CMC Section 17.64.010 General Findings Required for All Use Permits
YES NO

1. The proposed use will not conflict with the City's General Plan. ✔ General Plan conflict: When alternatives exist, the GP prioritizes community character over infrastructures.

2. That the proposed use will comply with all zoning standards applicable to the use and zoning district.
✔
Zoning non-compliance: requires two special exceptions that cannot be granted.

3. That granting the use permit will not set a precedent for the approval of similar uses whose incremental effect will be detrimental to the City or will be in conflict with the General Plan.
✔
Set precedent: approving sites in the highly incompatible R-1 locations invites similar future applications.

4. That the proposed use will not make excessive demands on the provision of public services, including water supply, sewer capacity, energy supply, communication facilities, police protection, and fire protection
✔

5. That the proposed use will not be injurious to public health, safety, or welfare. ✔ Injurious to safety: Fall zone concern – 50-foot structure only 25 feet from occupied residence, tree root disturbance.

6. That the proposed use will be compatible with surrounding land uses and will not conflict with the purpose established for the district within which it will be located. ✔
Incompatible land use: R-1 zone designated highly incompatible; directly fronts historic resource.

7. That the proposed use will not generate adverse impacts affecting the health, safety, or welfare of neighboring properties or uses.
✔
Adverse neighboring impacts: structural proximity, trench encroachment on drip lines, visual intrusion.

Municipal Code Findings – CMC Section 17.46.080.A Findings Required for Type 1 to IV Applications

1. The proposed wireless facility will not result in adverse visual impacts or have an adverse impact on property values because it complies with all applicable development standards in CMC § 17.46.040 and the Administrative Detailed Wireless Facility Design Guidelines.
✔
Adverse visual impacts: non-compliant with development standards, special exceptions not justified.

2. If applicable, to the extent the proposed wireless facility does not comply with all applicable development standards in CMC § 17.46.040 and the Administrative Detailed Wireless Facility Design Guidelines, the applicant has requested a special exception and the findings for granting a special exception pursuant to subsection (C) of this section can be made.
✔
Special exceptions fail: Golden Bough Theater is viable less-intrusive alternative.

3. The proposed wireless facility will comply with all applicable FCC regulations and guidelines for human exposure to RF emissions and will not, either individually or cumulatively with other transmitters in the vicinity, result in RF exposures that exceed the FCC's maximum permissible exposure level for the general population. ✔
ATTACHMENT 7

4. The proposed wireless facility will comply with all applicable fire safety and public safety standards.
✔

5. The proposed wireless facility will comply with fall zone requirements in the Administrative Detailed Wireless Facility Design Guidelines. ✔

6. All public notices required for the application have been given. ✔

7. All the findings required for a use permit pursuant to CMC § 17.64.010. ✔ Use permit findings cannot be made (as indicated in the 17.64.010 failures noted in previous findings).

8. All the findings for discretionary design review approval pursuant to CMC § 17.58.060 ✔ • Conform to the applicable policies of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program
✔
• Comply with all applicable provisions of this code ✔
• Are consistent with applicable adopted design review guidelines ✔ Design review fails: non-conformance with General Plan, LCP, and design guidelines.

9. If applicable, all the findings required for a coastal development permit. ✔ • The project, as described in the application and accompanying materials, as modified by any conditions of approval, conforms with the certified City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Local Coastal Program.
✔
• If the project is located between the first public road and the sea, the project conforms with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act of 1976 (commencing with Sections 30200 of the Public Resources Code).

N/A N/A
Coastal development permit fails: inconsistent with highly scenic area designation.

Municipal Code Findings – CMC Section 17.46.080.C Special Exceptions for Federal or State Preemption or Minor Deviations in Design (Types I to IV Only)

1. The applicant has shown that denial of an application will result in an effective prohibition or otherwise violate Federal law; or the applicant has shown that denial of an application will violate State law; or the applicant has shown that it is a minor deviation that achieves all of the applicable design objectives of this chapter, as well as, or better than, would be achieved by adherence to the adopted design guidelines. ✔
No effective prohibition: the applicant failed to eliminate Golden Bough as least-intrusive alternative.

2. The special exception requested by the applicant does not compromise or excuse compliance with any fire safety or other public health and safety requirements. ✔

3. The special exception is narrowly tailored such that any deviation from the requirements of this chapter is only to extent necessary for compliance with Federal or State law or to achieve all of the applicable design objectives of this chapter, as well as, or better than, would be achieved by adherence to the adopted design guidelines. ✔
Not narrowly tailored: two exceptions exceed what's necessary given viable alternative exists.

Section 2: REASONS FOR DENIAL. THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND THAT:

The Applicant has failed to meet its burden for granting the special exceptions requested. The Applicant has failed to show that denial of the Application would result in an effective prohibition of service under the significant gap/least intrusive means test because the Applicant failed to show that that the proposed site may be the least intrusive means because a less intrusive option may be technically feasible and potentially available. The Golden Bough Theater may address the coverage gap and may not require any Code exceptions.

ATTACHMENT 7

The Applicant has failed under the materially inhibits standard because in considering the totality of the circumstances, including the Code’s sitting preferences and requirements, another location (such as the Golden Bough Theater) may be technologically, economically feasible, and potentially available.

Therefore, the denial will not materially inhibit the carrier’s ability to provide personal wireless services.

Further, the Applicant has not shown that denial would violate state law because they have failed to show that the heightened review in the Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code for facilities in the R-1 zone right-of-way violates the applicant’s statutory franchise in Public Utility Code 7901 to use of the rightof-way.

Section 3: CEQA FINDINGS. The Planning Commission of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea does hereby FIND the project is Statutorily Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15270(a) of the CEQA Guidelines (Projects Which Are Disapproved) which states that CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves.

______________________________ ___________________________ __________ Applicant Signature Printed Name Date

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this 10th day of February 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES: Allen, Ahlborn, Locke, Karapetkob, LePage
ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED: ATTEST:

_________________________ _________________________
Michael LePage Shelby Gorman
Chair Planning Commission Secretary
ATTACHMENT 7

MACKENZIE & ALBRITTON LLP
155 SANSOME STREET, SUITE 620
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104
TELEPHONE 415 / 288-4000
FACSIMILE 415 / 288-4010
February 24, 2026

VIA EMAIL
Mayor Dale Byrne
Councilmembers Bob Delves, Jeff Baron,
Hans Buder, and Alissandra Dramov
City Council
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
Monte Verde Street
Carmel-by-the-Sea, California 93921
Re: Verizon Wireless Appeal, Applications DR 25313, UP 25314 Small Wireless Facility, Carmelo Street, City of Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council Agenda, March 2, 2026
Dear Mayor Byrne and Councilmembers:

Verizon Wireless requests that the City Council grant its appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of a small cell wireless facility on a replacement utility pole in the Carmelo Street public right-of-way (the “Proposed Small Cell”). Denial would violate both federal and state law. First, a denial would prohibit Verizon Wireless’s ability to provide service, violating the Federal Telecommunications Act. 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II). As demonstrated by voluminous evidence in the administrative record, including reports from qualified experts in their fields, the Proposed Small Cell is the least intrusive means to fill a significant gap in service, and denial would materially inhibit Verizon Wireless’s intended service improvements in Carmel-by-the-Sea (the “City”). Denial would also violate state law, which grants telephone corporations a statewide right to place their equipment along any public right-of-way. Cal. Pub. Util.

Code §7901.

Verizon Wireless has worked tirelessly to ensure that the Proposed Small Cell complies with all standards and findings of the Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code (the “Code”) and Administrative Detailed Wireless Facility Design Guidelines (the “Design Guidelines”), except for two location standards requiring approval of special exceptions.

Verizon Wireless has justified those exceptions in accordance with Code requirements, as confirmed by the City’s consultants. Consequently, a denial would also give rise to a federal action that the denial is not supported by substantial evidence. 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii). The Code and Design Guidelines would also be vulnerable to a challenge as applied to Verizon Wireless’s application.

ATTACHMENT 8

Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council
February 24, 2026

The City has denied six small cell wireless applications over the last seven years under both an old code and a new one. Indeed, we are not aware of a single small cell wireless facility in the public right-of-way that the City has approved for any carrier ever.

If the City denies the application for the Proposed Small Cell, it will have violated the Federal Communications Commission’s (“FCC’s”) moratorium order. De facto moratoria are “state or local actions that are not express moratoria, but that effectively halt or suspend . . . . approval of applications or permits for telecommunications services or facilities in a manner akin to an express moratorium.” Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Inv., 33 FCC Rcd. 7705 (August 3, 2018) at 7780, ¶ 149. De facto moratoria include “refusals to issue permits for a category of structures.” Id. Here, in addition to the lack of a single small cell in the City, the denial explicitly finds that approval of the Proposed Small Cell would “[s]et precedent” and that “approving sites in the highly incompatible R-1 locations invites similar future applications.” Denial Resolution, General Finding No. 3. The City plainly has a de facto moratorium on small cells in the public right-of-way.

The Proposed Small Cell will provide much-needed service in the City. The Proposed Small Cell will improve existing service and provide new 5G service. It includes a single small cylindrical antenna on top of an existing utility pole and network equipment concealed in a narrow shroud on the side of the pole. Because the existing wood pole is more than 70 years old, PG&E will replace it. Like most residential streets in the City, Carmelo Street is already lined with utility poles supporting transformers, utility lines, and other utility components of varying heights and bulk. Verizon Wireless’s discrete and minimal design fits in with the character of the neighborhood.

The Proposed Small Cell will provide reliable network service for residents, visitors, and emergency personnel. We urge the City Council to reverse the Planning Commission’s denial and approve the Proposed Small Cell.

I. Procedural History
Verizon Wireless applied for the Proposed Small Cell on October 15, 2025, after years of studying the City’s new Code and Design Guidelines. Planning Division staff originally recommended approval of the Proposed Small Cell in its staff report for the January 21, 2026, hearing (“January 21 Staff Report”), which the Planning Commission continued after hearing testimony from opponents of wireless facilities. The staff report for the February 10, 2026, hearing (“February 10 Staff Report”) continued to confirm compliance with all City standards, except for one special exception finding regarding alternative locations. The Planning Commission’s resolution included only thin findings of denial, unsupported by substantial evidence in violation of the federal Telecommunications Act.

II. The Proposed Small Cell
The Proposed Small Cell will be located on Carmelo Street between 10th and 11th Avenues. PG&E will replace an existing 38-foot 11-inch utility pole with a new, taller ATTACHMENT 8

Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council
February 24, 2026

pole because the existing pole is more than 70 years old. See Plans, attached as Exhibit A, at Sheets A-3, A-4; Verizon Wireless Responses to Comments, Vol. 1, January 30, 2026 (“Verizon Responses Vol. 1”), attached as Exhibit B, at pp. 3-4. Verizon Wireless will install a 2.5-foot-tall cylindrical pole-top antenna, making the new pole height 49 feet 10 inches. Id. Associated network equipment will be placed on the side of the pole between 7 and 17 feet, including radios and power supply units concealed within a narrow shroud as well as a PG&E electric meter/disconnect switch. Id. A nearby tree in the right-of-way will help screen the network equipment from view. See Photosimulations, attached as Exhibit C.

In addition to complying with the City’s Code and Design Guidelines, the Proposed Small Cell is subject to rules and regulations enacted by PG&E and the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”). The Proposed Small Cell complies with these additional requirements, as demonstrated by PG&E’s approval of the project design. Verizon Wireless February 10, 2026, Presentation to Planning Commission, attached as Exhibit D, at p. 11.

III. The Proposed Small Cell Complies with All City Standards and Findings for Approval.

The Proposed Small Cell satisfies the Code and Design Guidelines standards and findings, including the findings required for two special exceptions to location standards.

The antenna volume (2.89 cubic feet) falls below the 3-cubic foot limit. See Exh. A – Plans, Sheet D-2; Design Guidelines § II(B)(3). The network equipment will be concealed within a narrow vertical shroud mounted to the side of the pole along with a PG&E electric meter/disconnect switch. The total associated equipment volume will be

16.48 feet in volume, less than the 17 cubic feet allowed. See Exh. A – Plans, Sheet D-2; Design Guidelines § II(C)(2).

The Proposed Small Cell complies with the height limit in the right-of-way, where a facility on a replacement pole may rise 10 feet above the height of the replaced pole, or the additional height is necessary to comply with CPUC standards. Code §

17.46.040(F)(1)(b); Design Guidelines § II(A)(1); Exh. B –Verizon Responses Vol. 1, at pp. 3-4. The Proposed Small Cell will be 10 feet 8 inches taller than the existing utility pole. The additional 8 inches is required so the antenna and its mounting hardware is at least 6 feet above primary power lines, as required by CPUC General Order 95, Rule

94.4(C). Verizon Wireless may be able to reduce the height by six inches while complying with General Order 95.

As to equipment placement preferences, the pole-mounted network equipment is allowed because the preferred options of an underground vault or pole-mounted shroud less than six cubic feet are infeasible. Design Guidelines § II(C)(1). Verizon Wireless provided a vaulting analysis confirming that an underground vault is infeasible due to the large excavation area and loss of parking, as well as existing tree roots and underground utilities near the pole. Exh. B –Verizon Responses Vol. 1, at p. 3; Verizon Wireless Application Letter, October 14, 2025, attached as Exhibit E, at pp. 6-7. Additionally, it is ATTACHMENT 8

Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council
February 24, 2026

technically infeasible for a shroud less than six cubic feet to contain the network equipment required: two radios, a fiber box, two power supply units, and a cable diplexer, plus space for air circulation and worker access. Accordingly, the Code and Design Guidelines permit Verizon Wireless to install equipment concealed in a 15-cubic foot equipment shroud. Design Guidelines § II(C)(2). The January 21 Staff Report confirmed that the Proposed Small Cell complies with the volume, height, and equipment placement requirements, among other criteria.

The Code and Design Guidelines highly discourage wireless facilities in residential zone rights-of-way, despite the fact that the majority of the City is residential in nature. Code § 17.46.040(E)(1)(a). Small cell facilities are intended to fill in gaps where larger macro facilities do not reach, so the Proposed Small Cell needs to be near the area it serves. PierCon Report, October 14, 2025, attached as Exhibit F, at p. 7. The Proposed Small Cell requires only two special exceptions to Code standards, based on its location within the right-of-way in single-family residential zone and in front of an area five feet in either direction from the centerline of residential door or window. Code §§

17.46.040(E)(1)), 17.46.040(E)(2)(a). Verizon Wireless submitted a letter describing how its proposal meets the exception findings of Code Section 17.46.080(C) (Exhibit E), along with supporting evidence: the justification report by independent engineering firm PierCon Solutions (Exhibit F) and an Alternatives Analysis, attached as Exhibit G. Staff originally recommended approval of the exceptions. January 21 Staff Report, p. 17.

The Proposed Small Cell also satisfies the findings for approval of a use permit, coastal development permit, and design review. Code §§ 17.64.010, 17.58.060. For example, the Proposed Small Cell will not generate adverse impacts affecting the health, safety or welfare of neighboring properties because of its small size and placement on one of the many utility poles already lining Carmelo Street. The Dtech report confirms compliance with FCC radio frequency exposure limits (Exhibit H), and the Hammett & Edison report confirms compliance with City noise standards (Exhibit I). The Proposed Small Cell satisfies all City requirements for approval.

IV. The Planning Commission’s Denial Lacked Substantial Evidence.

The Planning Commission’s denial was not supported by substantial evidence of non-compliance with the Code and Design Guidelines. Additionally, several of the denial findings are preempted by federal or state telecommunications law.

Under the federal Telecommunications Act, a local government’s denial of a wireless facility application must be based on “substantial evidence.” See 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii). This means that denial must be based on requirements set forth in local regulations and supported by evidence in the record. See Metro PCS, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, 400 F.3d 715, 725 (9th Cir. 2005).

The FCC requires that a city’s aesthetic criteria for small cell facilities must be “reasonable,” that is, technically feasible and meant to avoid “out-of-character” deployments and “published in advance.” See Accelerating Wireless Broadband ATTACHMENT 8

Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council
February 24, 2026

Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order, 33 FCC Rcd. 9088, 9132, ¶¶ 86-88 (FCC 2018) (the “Infrastructure Order”). The FCC also found that local regulations that “materially inhibit” service improvements constitute a prohibition of service that violates the federal Telecommunications Act. Id. at 9104, ¶ 37; see also 47 U.S.C. §§ 253(a), 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II).

Finally, California Public Utilities Code Section 7901 grants telephone corporations a statewide right to place their equipment along any public right-of-way.

The California Supreme Court has upheld this right, affirming that permits for right-ofway facilities may be conditioned on aesthetics. See T-Mobile West LLC v. City and County of San Francisco (2019) 6 Cal.5th 1107, 1122. However, as noted, the FCC ruled that such aesthetic requirements must be “reasonable.”
Guided by this legal framework, Verizon Wireless responds to the Commission’s grounds for denial as follows.

A. The Golden Bough Theatre Is Not a Technically Feasible Alternative.

To avoid federal preemption under the prohibition of service standard, the City must raise another alternative that is available, technologically feasible, and less intrusive than the proposed facility, then allow Verizon Wireless to review that alternative. See TMobile USA, Inc. v. City of Anacortes, 572 F.3d 987, 998-999 (9th Cir. 2009). The Planning Commission claimed that the Golden Bough Playhouse - Founders Theatre and Circle Theatre (“Golden Bough”) is a viable, less intrusive alternative to the Proposed Small Cell. However, the Commission did not demonstrate that a facility at the theater could serve Verizon Wireless’s gap in service in western Carmel. Furthermore, the Golden Bough is likely unavailable and plainly more intrusive than the Proposed Small Cell. Finally, the City’s preference for private property over the public right-of-way is preempted by federal and state law.

1. A Rooftop Wireless Facility on the Golden Bough Is Technically Infeasible and Cannot Serve the Gap.

Verizon Wireless found that a facility at the Golden Bough could not serve the significant gap due to distance from the gap. Additionally, the Code’s 34-foot height limit would require the antenna at this location to be 15 feet lower than the Proposed Small Cell. See Alternatives Analysis, p. 10 (Exhibit G); see also Code §§ 17.10.030(B),

17.18.100, 17.46.040(F)(1)(b); Design Guidelines § I(B)(2).

PierCon Solutions also confirmed that a wireless facility on the Golden Bough roof, no matter the types of antennas used or design, could not serve the gap area.

PierCon Solutions initially modeled a wireless facility at the Golden Bough as a small cell. See Exh. F – PierCon October 14, 2025, pp. 18-19. PierCon Solutions confirmed that the theater location could address only 25% of the coverage gap, concluding that “[t]he alternative Golden Bough Playhouse will not effectively address the coverage gap, ATTACHMENT 8