Agenda packet, regular meeting, second session — San Clemente City Council, January 16, 2024 (part 5 of 7)

Pramira, Inc · 2552 Walnut Ave., Suite 200, Tustin, CA 92780 · 800.678.1169 Table of Contents
1 Certification ................................................................................................................ 3 2 Executive Summary .................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Conclusion and Recommendations: ..................................................................... 5 3 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 6

3.1 Site Description: ................................................................................................... 6

3.2 Site Configuration Being Modeled: ..................................................................... 7 4 Predictive Analysis Details: ........................................................................................ 8

4.1 Analysis Locations: .............................................................................................. 8

4.2 Antenna Inventory: ............................................................................................... 9

4.3 RF Emissions Diagram(s) .................................................................................. 10

4.3.1 RF Emissions Diagram(s)- All Transmitters .............................................. 11

4.3.2 RF Emissions Diagram(s)- Dish Wireless Transmitters Only: .................. 13 5 Signage/ Barrier Detail ............................................................................................. 13

5.1 Signage/ Barrier Diagram................................................................................... 15 6 Conclusions and Recommendations: ........................................................................ 17 7 Appendix A: FCC Compliance and RF Safety Policies ........................................... 18 8 Appendix B: Overview of RoofMaster Functions and Assumptions .................... 21 9 References ................................................................................................................. 24 10 Limited Warranty ...................................................................................................... 25 344

Page 3 of 25 ends

Pramira, Inc · 2552 Walnut Ave., Suite 200, Tustin, CA 92780 · 800.678.1169 1 Certification
This report, prepared by Pramira, Inc. for Dish Wireless, is intended to document compliance and evaluate power density levels as outlined in the report. The computations, analysis, and resulting report and conclusions were based on applicable FCC guidelines and regulations for maximum permissible exposure to humans consistent with FCC OET Bulletin 65, Edition 97-01.

Additionally, Pramira, Inc. certifies that the assumptions are valid and that the data used within Pramira' control are accurate, including information collected as part of Pramira’ field surveys. Pramira, Inc. does not however certify the accuracy or correctness of any data provided to Pramira, Inc. for this analysis and report by Dish Wireless or other third parties working on behalf of Dish Wireless.

I certify that the attached RF exposure analysis and report is correct to the best of my knowledge, and all calculations, assumptions and conclusions are based on generally acceptable engineering practices:
_____________________________________________
Tim Alexander, P.E.

This compliance assessment and report has been prepared and reviewed by:

Preparer Reviewer
Name Abdelsalam Masoud Mike Arnold
Title RF Engineer Project Manager
Date 06/15/2023 06/15/2023
345
346
2 Executive Summary
This repoli provides the results of an RF power density analysis performed for Dish Wireless at site LSSNA01020A in accordance with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules and regulations for RF emissions described in OET Bulletin 65, Edition 97-01.

This report addresses RF safety for two classified groups defined by OET Bulletin 65:

Occupational/ Controlled and General Population/ Uncontrolled. Based on the analysis, this site will be Compliant with FCC rules and regulations and Dish Wireless 's Signage and Bani.er Policy if the mitigation details provided in Table 1 are implemented. ' &CAUTIOtj
r • IDIICI• (<'1,>) ~ 1- 4- -■m•=• I Final Compliant ~
~---- 1--
--- 1
--~--r:-~ ...._,/ , ~ .=.:':':s ~~ ~.=.a:::r- -·----- I Configuration =~- 1~=:£:-'= --- ----·- ="':"..:.~.: - ·-::i:.-· =-=-~ -----·- s:-~-=- - • ~ - -------- _ .. ...,...,.... ... ... .............. -· rt' ffl • • • -;ir.,h . • • ,1:;-.... •

GUIDELINES NOTICE CAUTION WARNING NOC INFO BARRIER/MARKER Access Point(s) ~ [l] * □ [] □ [] □ [] ~ [l] * □
Alpha □ [] □ [] □ [] □ [] □ [] □
Beta □ [] □ [] □ [] □ [] □ [] □
Gamma □ [] □ [] □ [] □ [] □ [] □
OTE: The table represents either the signage/barriers installed / removed OR items required by the market (if mitigation is not installed by consultant/vendor). • These RF signs should be posted on the.Access Gate to the Site. (See drawing in Section 5.2) Specialty Sien Detail
Location NIA
Access Point NIA
Alpha NIA
Beta NIA
Gamma NIA
NOTE: The tables above 1·epresent EXISTING compliance items implemented at this location. otes/ Additional Compliance Requirements(s):

Mitigation is required per the Signage/ Bairier Diagram.

Table 1: Mitigation Requirements for Compliance

Page 4 ends

Pramira, Inc · 2552 Walnut Ave. Suite 200, Tustin, CA 92780 • 800.678.1169

Page 5 of 25 ends

Pramira, Inc · 2552 Walnut Ave., Suite 200, Tustin, CA 92780 · 800.678.1169

2.1 Conclusion and Recommendations:

x The results of the analysis indicate that power density levels in the generally accessible areas on the Utility Pole level will not exceed the FCC’s MPE limit for General Population environments.
x The max theoretical % MPE is 0.83% (FCC General Public) directly in front of the antenna beams at the Utility Pole level.
x NOC and Guidelines Signs need to be posted on the Access Gate to the Site. x This site will be operating in general compliance with FCC OET Bulletin 65 and Dish Wireless ’s signage policy as the mitigation requirements outlined in the Executive Summary are implemented. See Signage/Barrier Diagram section for further details on the recommended signage placement locations.

Note: Modifications to the site; and/or increases in channel counts or power levels exceeding those listed in this report will require additional evaluation to determine compliance. .

347

Page 6 of 25 ends

Pramira, Inc · 2552 Walnut Ave., Suite 200, Tustin, CA 92780 · 800.678.1169 3 Introduction
The purpose of this analysis and report is to evaluate the cumulative power density levels of all non-excluded antennas located on the site and identify any areas of concern that require mitigation. This report also assesses the site’s compliance with FCC OET Bulletin 65; “Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Fields”.

3.1 Site Description:
x Site Name: LSSNA01020A
Street Address 2M Northeast of San Clemente
San Clemente, CA 92672
x Latitude: 33.44368333°
x Longitude: -117.58865°
x Structure Type Self, Support
x Structure Height: 137.5' AGL
x BTS Equipment Location: The BTS Equipment is located on the Ground. x Co-Locators/ Other Antennas: N/A
x Access: 1
348

Page 7 of 25 ends

Pramira, Inc · 2552 Walnut Ave., Suite 200, Tustin, CA 92780 · 800.678.1169

3.2 Site Configuration Being Modeled:
x This a Self, Support application where Dish Wireless antennas are mounted on the Self, Support.
x This will be a Three-Sector site with One Active in each sector. x The values of the antennas rad center for all sectors (67’), Utility Pole Height (35’) and Shelter Height (10’) are based on the CDs. These values must be verified on the site audit for the post study.
x Each sector supports 5GNR at 600, 1900, 2100MHz. All LTE supports MIMO. x All technologies were evaluated assuming the maximum number of channels and were running at maximum power 100% of the time.
349

Page 8 of 25 ends

Pramira, Inc · 2552 Walnut Ave., Suite 200, Tustin, CA 92780 · 800.678.1169 4 Predictive Analysis Details:

For purposes of this analysis, RoofMaster® was configured to provide an output based on the appropriate MPE limit(s) published in the FCC’s guidelines. The antenna information was loaded into RoofMaster®, an MPE predictive analysis tool by Waterford Consultants, LLC.

4.1 Analysis Locations:

Number of Elevations Analyzed: 1
x Utility Pole Level
x A study at the Other levels was not required as the study at the Utility Pole level shows that the MPE limit is below the General Population MPE limit on the Other levels.

350

Page 9 of 25 ends

Pramira, Inc · 2552 Walnut Ave., Suite 200, Tustin, CA 92780 · 800.678.1169

4.2 Antenna Inventory:

The following table shows all transmitting antennas and contains the technical data used to simulate the power density that may be encountered with all antennas simultaneously operating at full rated power with the exception of any excluded antennas cited in this document. If Co-Locator antennas exist and the use of “Unknown” as an antenna model that means the specific antenna details could not be secured, generic antennas, frequencies, and Tx powers were used for modeling. The assumptions used are based on past experience with communications carriers.

Z-height represents the distance from the nearest walking surface to the Centerline of the antenna.

The antenna Z-heights listed above are referenced to the Top of the Utility Pole Level.

Table 2- Antenna Inventory
351
(MHIJ Tra111 Tra111 011,or Talallnput Total ERP T_, l!IRP Utayl'ole (ft) did ID - FNq
- Count
.._ -iw-, iw-, ,_, Mfs Modal lift) Type "- Gain WddtDish Alpha_Antl N600 600 30 0.5 107 1924 3156 CellMax CX12044x 32.0 Panel 6.0 12.55 71 0 Dish Alpha_Antl N1900 1900 40 0.5 142.6 7924 13000 CellMax CX12044x 32.0 Panel 6.0 17.45 63 0 Dish Alpha_Antl N2100 2100 40 0.5 142.6 8689 14255 CellMax CX12044x 32.0 Panel 6.0 17.85 66 0 Dish Beta_Antl N600 600 30 0.5 107 1924 3156 CellMax CX12044x 32.0 Panel 6.0 12.55 71 120 Dish Beta_Antl N1900 1900 40 4 0.5 142.6 7924 13000 CellMax CX12044x 32.0 Panel 6.0 17.45 63 120 Dish Beta_Antl N2100 2100 40 4 0.5 142.6 8689 14255 CellMax CX12044x 32.0 Panel 6.0 17.85 66 120 Dish Gamma_Antl N600 600 30 0.5 107 1924 3156 CellMax CX12044x 32.0 Panel 6.0 12.55 71 240 Dish Gamma_Antl N1900 1900 40 4 0.5 142.6 7924 13000 CellMax CX12044x 32.0 Panel 6.0 17.45 63 240 Dish Gamma_Antl N2100 2100 40 4 0.5 142.6 8689 14255 CellMax CX12044x 32.0 Panel 6.0 17.85 66 240

Page 10 of 25 ends

Pramira, Inc · 2552 Walnut Ave., Suite 200, Tustin, CA 92780 · 800.678.1169

4.3 RF Emissions Diagram(s)
The RF Emissions Diagram(s) display the Theoretical spatially averaged Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) percentages that are expected for each study’s elevation for Dish Wireless antennas and all other carrier antennas at the site.

General Population MPE limit is included to demonstrate where Dish Wireless is a significant contributor to accessible areas where multiple carrier’s transmitters are present.

These diagrams use modeling as prescribed in OET Bulletin 65 and assumptions detailed in Appendix A.

The keys at the bottom of each diagram indicates if percentages displayed are referenced to Occupational Limit and FCC General Public Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) limits.
% of FCC General Public Exposure Limits
% of FCC Occupational Exposure Limits
352
0% -5 o 5% -100% 100% - 500% .500% - 5000% 5000% +
1000% ,

Page 11 of 25 ends

Pramira, Inc · 2552 Walnut Ave., Suite 200, Tustin, CA 92780 · 800.678.1169

4.3.1 RF Emissions Diagram(s)- All Transmitters
Reference Plane: Utility Pole Level
The maximum theoretical % MPE of the General Population limits =0.83% 353
[TI
Ground
Utility
Pole· ~ .

I
I
t
Percent MPE legend
□ 0%-5%
5%- 100%
100% • 500%
0 500-/. • 5000%
■ 5000%+
General Population Limits
Sula9
10 fool grid size
(Avg: 35 lo 41 Feel)
Max Value: 0.83%
Carrier Color Code I• Dish

Page 12 of 25 ends

Pramira, Inc · 2552 Walnut Ave., Suite 200, Tustin, CA 92780 · 800.678.1169 Reference Plane: Utility Pole Level
The maximum theoretical % MPE of the Occupational Limit =0.17% 354
[I] +
Ground
Utility
Pole· ~ .
-I-+-
Percent MPE legend
□ 0% - 1%
1%- 20%
20%-100%
0 100% -1000%
■ 1000%+
Occupational Limits
Sula9
l O fool grid size
(Avg: 35 to 41 Feet)
Max Value: 0.17%
Carrier Color Code I• Dish

Page 13 of 25 ends

Pramira, Inc · 2552 Walnut Ave., Suite 200, Tustin, CA 92780 · 800.678.1169

4.3.2 RF Emissions Diagram(s)- Dish Wireless Transmitters Only:

Reference Plane: Utility Pole Level
The maximum theoretical % MPE of the General Population limits =0.83% 355
[TI
Ground
Utility
Pole· ~ .

Page 14 of 25 ends

Pramira, Inc · 2552 Walnut Ave., Suite 200, Tustin, CA 92780 · 800.678.1169 Reference Plane: Utility Pole Level
The maximum theoretical % MPE of the Occupational Limit =0.17% 356
[I] +
Ground
Utility
Pole· ~ .
-I-+-
Percent MPE legend
□ 0% - 1%
1%- 20%
20%-100%
0 100% -1000%
■ 1000%+
Occupational Limits
Sula9
l O fool grid size
(Avg: 35 to 41 Feet)
Max Value: 0.17%
Carrier Color Code I• Dish
357
5 Signage/ Barrier Detail

5.1 Signage/ Barrier Detail
• &CAU)lo■ I
·- · () £. _4... -.J , Final Compliant --
=-~ --=-~ =-~-=r' --~·-=-.::.. I 1==. ------- Configuration i=~- r&;.~:: =----=:.~= --- ----- ~-==~ ~ -- - • . ----- c..-. ... , ..... ==~~ • -· .... -- __ ...., __ ... ff!ch • ... ,1,.,,_ • - •-;i•c~

GUIDELINES NOTICE CAUTION WARNING NOC INFO BARRIER/MARKER Access Point(s) ~ [1] * D [] D [] D [] ~ [1] * D
Alpha D [] D [] D [] D [] □ [] □
Beta D [] D [] D [] D [] □ [] □
Gamma D [] D [] D [] D [] □ [] □
NOTE: The table represents either the signagelbaniers installed I removed OR items required by the market (if mitigation is not installed by consultant/vendor). • These RF signs should be posted on the Access Gate to the Site. (See drawing in Section 5.2) Specialty Si2n Detail
Location NIA
Access Point NIA
Alpha NIA
Beta NIA
Gamma NIA
NOTE: The tables above represent EXISTING compliance items implemented at this location.

Notes/ Additional Compliance Requirements(s):

Mitigation is required per the Signage/ Banier Diagram.

Table 3: Mitigation Requirements for Compliance

Page 15 ends

Pramira, Inc · 2552 Walnut Ave. Suite 200, Tustin, CA 92780 • 800.678.1169

Page 16 of 25 ends

Pramira, Inc · 2552 Walnut Ave., Suite 200, Tustin, CA 92780 · 800.678.1169

5.2 Signage/ Barrier Diagram
358
N
Ground
Utility
Pole
Ground
NOC and Guidelines Signs need to be
posted at the Access Gate to the site.

Page 17 of 25 ends

Pramira, Inc · 2552 Walnut Ave., Suite 200, Tustin, CA 92780 · 800.678.1169 6 Conclusions and Recommendations:
x The results of the analysis indicate that power density levels in the generally accessible areas on the Utility Pole level will not exceed the FCC’s MPE limit for General Population environments.
x The max theoretical % MPE is 0.83% (FCC General Public) directly in front of the antenna beams at the Utility Pole level.
x NOC and Guidelines Signs need to be posted on the Access Gate to the Site. x This site will be operating in general compliance with FCC OET Bulletin 65 and Dish Wireless ’s signage policy as the mitigation requirements outlined in the Executive Summary are implemented. See Signage/Barrier Diagram section for further details on the recommended signage placement locations.

Note: Modifications to the site; and/or increases in channel counts or power levels exceeding those listed in this report will require additional evaluation to determine compliance. 359

Page 18 of 25 ends

Pramira, Inc · 2552 Walnut Ave., Suite 200, Tustin, CA 92780 · 800.678.1169 7 Appendix A: FCC Compliance and RF Safety Policies
In August of 1997, the FCC published OET Bulletin 65 Edition 97-01 to regulate methods for evaluating compliance with FCC guidelines for human exposure to radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields. The FCC guidelines for human exposure to RF electromagnetic fields incorporate two categories of limits; namely “Controlled” (a.k.a. Occupational) and “Uncontrolled” (a.k.a. General Public). The guidelines offer suggested methods for evaluating fixed RF transmitters to ensure that the controlled and uncontrolled limits deemed safe by the FC for human exposure are not exceeded.

OET Bulletin 65 recommended guidelines are intended to allow an applicant to “make a reasonably quick determination as to whether a proposed facility is in compliance with the limits.” In addition, the guidelines offer alternate supplementary considerations and procedures such as field measurements and more detailed analysis that should be used for multiple emitter situations.

These guidelines define RF as emissions in the frequency range of 300 kHz to 100 GHz.

The FCC define Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) limits within this frequency range based on limits recommended by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), and by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI).

As shown in Table 1 of Appendix A, the averaging time for Occupational/Controlled exposures is 6 minutes, while the averaging time for general population/uncontrolled exposures is 30 minutes.

As an illustration of the application of time-averaging to Occupational/Controlled exposure consider the following.

The relevant interval for time-averaging for Occupational/Controlled exposures is six minutes. This means, for example, that during any given six-minute period a worker could be exposed to two times the applicable power density limit for three minutes as long as he or she were not exposed at all for the preceding or following three minutes. Similarly, a worker could be exposed at three times the limit for two minutes as long as no exposure occurs during the preceding or subsequent four minutes, and so forth. 360
361
The specific MPE limits defined by the FCC are as follows:

Frequency
Range [MHz]

0.3- 3.0

3.0-30
30- 300
300-1 ,500
1,500 -100,000
Frequency
Range [MHz]

0.3-3.0

3.0- 30
30- 300
300-1 ,500
1,500 - 100,000
f = frequency
Limits for Occupational/Controlled Exposure
Electric Field Magnetic Field Power Density
Strength (E) [Vim] Strength (H) [Alm] (S) [mW/Cm"2]
614 1.63 100"
1842/f 4.89/f 900/f"2"

61.4 0.163 1
f/300
5 Limits for General Population/Uncontrolled Exposure
Averaging Time IEI"2,
IHI"2 or S [minutes]
6 6
6 6
6 Electric Field Magnetic Field Power Density Averaging Time IEI"2, Strength (E) [V/m] Strength (H) [Alm] (S) [mW/Cm"2] IHI"2 or S [minutes] 614 1.63 100" 30
842/f 2.19/f 180/f"2" 30

27.5 0.073 0.2 30
f/1 500 30
1 30
"Plane-wave equivalent power density
Table 1: The specific MPE limits defmed by the FCC
The FCC states that "Occupational/ Controlled limits apply in situations in which persons are exposed as a consequence of their employment provided those persons are folly aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over their exposure. Limits for Occupational/ Contrnlled exposure also apply in situations when an individual is transient through a location where Occupational/ Controlled limits apply provided he or she is made aware of the potential for exposure."
For General Population/ Uncontrolled limits the FCC states that "General Population/ Uncontrolled exposures apply in situations in which the general public may be exposed or in which persons that are exposed as a consequence of their employment may not fully be aware of the potential for exposure or cannot exercise control over their exposure." For purposes of this analysis, all limits are evaluated against the Power Density limits.

Typical guidelines for detennining whether Occupational/ Controlled limits can be applied include ensuring the environment (such as a rooftop) as limited/controlled access via locked doors or physical baITier that ru·e preferably controlled by a landlord that is awru·e of the situation and can info1m anyone going through the locked door of the existence of the RF emissions. Such notification/awareness is typically accomplished by means of signage on the door, or other access to the ru·ea of concern as well as signage on or near the antennas. Examples of such signs include the following:

Page 19 ends

Pramira, Inc · 2552 Walnut Ave. Suite 200, Tustin, CA 92780 • 800.678.1169

Page 20 of 25 ends

Pramira, Inc · 2552 Walnut Ave., Suite 200, Tustin, CA 92780 · 800.678.1169

Standards for when to use each of the above signs are as follows:

All MPE references are to the FCC Public limits.

All MPE references are to the FCC Occupational limits
No sign required: <100% of Public Limit MPE
Blue Sign, Notice: 100% to <500% of Public Limit MPE
Yellow Sign, Caution: 500% to <5000% of Public Limit MPE Red Sign, Warning: ≥5000% of Public Limit MPE
No sign required: <20% of Occupational MPE
Blue Sign, Notice: 20% to <100% of MPE
Yellow Sign, Caution: 100% to <1000% of MPE
Red Sign, Warning: ≥1000% of MPE
362

NOTICE &CAUTION
d~sh _ dl sh • dish _ I

Page 21 of 25 ends

Pramira, Inc · 2552 Walnut Ave., Suite 200, Tustin, CA 92780 · 800.678.1169 8 Appendix B: Overview of RoofMaster Functions and
Assumptions
RoofMaster is a RF Compliance software package designed to enable the analysis, assessment and mitigation of communications sites with respect to human exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields.

RoofMaster was developed in 2008 by Waterford Consultants to support compliance assessments performed at single and multi-operator wireless locations throughout North America and has been in service since 2008. Real-world experience in evaluating thousands of base station installations are reflected in the RoofMaster design approach.

This document provides a guide for creating simulations of RF hazard conditions through the characterization of antenna systems and site features and through FCC-specified computational analysis.

On any structure, one may encounter antennas installed by wireless service providers, public safety and other FCC-licensed and unlicensed operators. Siting constraints have resulted in diverse and complex environments accessible to people performing a variety of activities around these antennas. RoofMaster supports the characterization of these locations to convey important information regarding RF sources and accessible areas necessary to evaluate the potential for human exposure to hazardous levels of RF energy.

RoofMaster supports the depiction of communications sites through the display of construction drawing or aerial photography image files as well as providing line drawing tools. These representations are scalable to enable the modeling of any location.

RoofMaster utilizes a three-dimensional spatial framework consisting of a 1000 x 1000 grid with unlimited vertical dimensions necessary for the positioning of antennas and modeling of RF conditions at each grid point throughout the space. Predictive analysis is performed on a study plane at a specified elevation. The subsequent sections of this guide provide the steps necessary to create a site representation and conduct these studies.

RoofMaster employs several power density prediction models based on the computational approaches set forth in the Federal Communications Commission’s Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, OET Bulletin 65. This guideline utilizes several antenna and operational parameters in calculating the power density contributions from each emitter at specified points throughout the study space. RoofMaster enables antennas to be fully defined in site specific aspects as well as through the use of a library of manufacturer data. The parameters include:
363

Page 22 of 25 ends

Pramira, Inc · 2552 Walnut Ave., Suite 200, Tustin, CA 92780 · 800.678.1169 § Antenna model
§ Radiation patterns
§ Aperture length
§ Gain
§ Beamwidth
§ Antenna radiation center
§ Azimuth
§ Mechanical down-tilt
§ Location
§ Frequency
§ Power into antenna
In OET-65, the Cylindrical Model is presented as an approach to determine the spatially averaged power density in the near field directly in front of an antenna. In order to implement this model in all directions, RoofMaster utilizes the antenna manufacturer horizontal pattern data. Additionally, RoofMaster incorporates factors that reduce the power density by the inverse square of horizontal and vertical distance beyond the near field region.

Power density is calculated as follows:
x S is the spatially averaged power density value
x R is the horizontal distance meters to the study point x h is the aperture length in meters
x Pin is power into the antenna input port in Watts
RoofMaster Implementation:
x GH is gain offset to study point as specified in manufacturer horizontal pattern x Pin is adjusted by the portion of the antenna aperture in the 0-6 ft vertical study zone x Hr accounts for 1/R2
Far Field roll off which starts at 2*h
x Vr accounts for 1/ (vertical distance) 2
roll off from antenna bottom to the top of the 0-6ft
study zone (or antenna top to bottom of 0-6ft study zone) 364

Page 23 of 25 ends

Pramira, Inc · 2552 Walnut Ave., Suite 200, Tustin, CA 92780 · 800.678.1169 Not to Scale
365
z
R~Horlzontal Distance
Far Field
Vertical
Distance
_____ __ ____ _ ._ _____________________________ .i.....;o:.;h;_ Horizontal Distance

Page 24 of 25 ends

Pramira, Inc · 2552 Walnut Ave., Suite 200, Tustin, CA 92780 · 800.678.1169 9 References
FCC (1997). “Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields”; Federal Communications Commission; Office of Engineering and Technology, OET Bulletin 65, Edition 97-01, August.

Waterford Consultants, LLC. (2008). RoofMaster User Guide, Waterford Consultants, LLC.
366

Page 25 of 25 ends

Pramira, Inc · 2552 Walnut Ave., Suite 200, Tustin, CA 92780 · 800.678.1169 10 Limited Warranty
Pramira, Inc. warrants that this analysis was performed in good faith using the methodologies and assumptions covered in this report and that data used for the analysis and report were obtained by Pramira, Inc. employees or representatives via site surveys or research of Dish Wireless ’s available information. In the event that specific third-party details were not available, best efforts were made to use assumptions that are based on industry experience of various carriers’ standards without violating any confidential information obtained under non-disclosure terms.

Pramira, Inc. also warrants that this analysis was performed in accordance with industry acceptable standards and methods.

There are no other warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, relating to this agreement or to the services rendered by Pramira hereunder. In no event shall Pramira be held liable to Dish Wireless, or to any third party, for any indirect, special, incidental, or consequential damages, including but not limited to loss of profits, loss of data, loss of good will, and increased expenses. In no event shall Pramira be liable to Dish Wireless for damages, whether based in contract, tort, negligence, strict liability, or otherwise, exceeding the amount payable hereunder for the services giving rise to such liability. 367

EXHIBIT E
368
369
11/8/23, 12 33 PM Vintage Skynet AT&rs Abandoned "Long Lines" Microwave Tower Network 99% Invisible

ARTICLE BY KURT KOHLSTEDT
Vintage Skynet: AT&T's Abandoned "Long
Lines" Microwave Tower Network
U I Infrastructure 110.20.17
B etween early wired networks and today's fiber optics sat a system of microwave relay towers transmitting information from coast to coast across the United https //99percentinvisible org/article/vintage skynet atts abandoned long lines microwave tower network/ 30 9LQWDJH6N\QHW $7 7
V$EDQGRQHG/RQJ/LQHV0LFURZDYH7RZHU1HWZRUN

,QYLVLEOH
KWWSV

SHUFHQWLQYLVLEOH RUJDUWLFOHYLQWDJH VN\QHW DWWV DEDQGRQHG ORQJ OLQHV PLFURZDYH WRZHU QHWZRUN

!"
"

$%

370
... ...........
- ~-...... = --+-: ..:.'!:-. -
30 9LQWDJH6N\QHW $7 7
V$EDQGRQHG/RQJ/LQHV0LFURZDYH7RZHU1HWZRUN

,QYLVLEOH
KWWSV

SHUFHQWLQYLVLEOH RUJDUWLFOHYLQWDJH VN\QHW DWWV DEDQGRQHG ORQJ OLQHV PLFURZDYH WRZHU QHWZRUN

!"
371
30 9LQWDJH6N\QHW $7 7
V$EDQGRQHG/RQJ/LQHV0LFURZDYH7RZHU1HWZRUN

,QYLVLEOH
KWWSV

SHUFHQWLQYLVLEOH RUJDUWLFOHYLQWDJH VN\QHW DWWV DEDQGRQHG ORQJ OLQHV PLFURZDYH WRZHU QHWZRUN 372
373
11/8/23, 12 33 PM Vintage Skynet AT&rs Abandoned "Long Lines" Microwave Tower Network 99% Invisible Qwest Building in Minneapolis, Minnesota topped with microwave tower array Today, many of the towers are in disrepair or have been taken down entirely, but some are built into the very design of urban architecture. Others can be easy to miss among HVAC outcroppings, cell towers and other antennas but are possible to spot if you know what you're looking for. In the countryside, old towers are often found adjacent to concrete bunkers (some are even occasionally for sale). At times, you can even catch a glimpse them itate night show backgrounds.

Copy of Long Lines sites in U.S.

This map was made with Google My Maps. Create your own. . Ir ... . Ir ... t" t"
~\, r;;- ~\, r;~ ~\,
p p
I ,
Map data @2023 lmaQery @2023 Terms 2,000 mi
The microwave relay system was part of thEAT&T Long Lines network, which included wire and cable connections. 99pi fan and Long Lines aficionado Corey Carlson explains that "the Long Lines network relayed analog data from one horn to another, with polarization of radio waves to expand the signal capacity." Their "SUV-sized 'horn' antennas" were designed to focus radio signals out horizontally toward other towers and be durable, "resistant to the pressure wave from a nuclear blast."
https //99percentinvisible org/article/vintage skynet atts abandoned long lines microwave tower network/ 374
11/8/23, 12 33 PM Vintage Skynet AT&rs Abandoned "Long Lines" Microwave Tower Network 99% Invisible -- · ------
Microwave relay towers in beautiful downtown Oakland, Ca liforn ia, image by Kurt Kohlstedt Obsolete in today's world of fiber optics, satellites and wireless internet, many of the towers have been taken down or swapped out for cellular use. Some, however, serve as emergency backups in rural areas. And others, it would seem, are so built into the aesthetic of their associated buildings that owners have seen no reason to remove them.

Iii------------
.. T R • . .. _, •
EPIS ODE97
·-· .. ► ·• • • Nu mbers Stations .
,f I 1i-. 'J I
► +
For those looking to learn more about this technology, there's a wealth of information on these systems - including images, maps, diagrams, magazine and newspaper clippings - to be found on Long-Lines.net.
https //99percentinvisible org/article/vintage skynet atts abandoned long lines microwave tower network/ 375
11/8/23, 12 33 PM Vintage Skynet AT& rs Abandoned "Long Lines" Microwave Tower Networ1< 99% Invisible Microwave relay towers around 16th and Franklin as seen from Frank Ogawa Plaza, image by Kurt Kohlstedt Enjoy 99pi?
Subscribe to the podcast!

ITUNES RSS FEED
Enjoy 99pi? Subscribe to the podcast!

SUBSCRIBE
https //99percentinvisible org/article/vintage skynet atts abandoned long lines microwave tower networ1</ 376
11/8/23, 12 33 PM Vintage Skynet AT&rs Abandoned "Long Lines" Microwave Tower Network 99% Invisible Share ~ [I] [I] ~
Comments (11)

MOREIN INFRASTRUCTURE
See-Through Sidewalks:

Daylight Helps Scared
Salmon Brave the Seattle ...

For decades, Seattle planners have
been exploring a ...

The Great Red Car
Conspiracy
https //99percentinvisible org/article/vintage skynet atts abandoned long lines microwave tower network/ 377
11/8/23, 12 33 PM

ALL CATEGORIES
Vintage Skynet AT&rs Abandoned "Long Lines" Microwave Tower Network 99% Invisible Vintage Skynet: AT&T's
Abandoned "Long Lines"
Between early wired networks and
today's fiber optics... . . J
Answering the Call: The
Architect Behind Brazil's
Iconic "Big ...

Brazil's cities already contained
over half of the ... I J
https //99percentinvisible org/article/vintage skynet atts abandoned long lines microwave tower network/ 378
11/8/23, 12 33 PM Vintage Skynet AT&rs Abandoned "Long Lines" Microwave Tower Network 99% Invisible Archlttttun ln[rostructurt Cit/rs Objrcts
Sounds Visuals Ttchnoiol'I History
https //99percentinvisible org/article/vintage skynet atts abandoned long lines microwave tower network/ 1L. ·- EXHIBIT E.2
379
380
The Microwave Radio and Coaxial Cable Networks
of the Bell System
Telephone Men on a coaxial-cable project in New York state, ca. 1970 Contents
• Places and Routes
• Technologr- and EQuinment
• Qnerations
• Documents
• Sources of information
• Links
• Qrganizations, Museums, and Archives
• E-mail Lists
• Site History
Upcoming Events
• None currently - please let me know of any!
Announcements of updates to this site ( and lots more interesting information and discussions) will be posted on the Cold War Communications e-mail list. To join, or to learn more about the list, go to the ColdWarComms web ~g~.

If you have information about the Bell System's networks you'd like to share, or have any questions about the material posted here, I look forward to hearing from you. I'd also welcome your comments about the implementation of this web site.

Last updated on April 11, 2013 at 21 :31 by Albert LaFrance EXHIBIT E.3
381
382
AT&T Long Lines Technology and Equipment
Switching
• No, 5 Crossbar ( a collection of articles from the Bell Laboratories Record, 1949-1951; courtesy of Sam Etier)
• "The Evolution of Telephone Switching" (article from the Bell Laboratories Record, June 1965) • Western Electric No. 4 Electronic SwitchingJi}.:stem
introduced in 1976 and still the foundation of AT&T's switching network • "Programming the Number 101 ESS" (article from the Bell Laboratories Record, Apr. 1965) • "The 304 Conference Switching..Sy:stem" (article from the Bell Laboratories Record, Jan. 1965) • "The Crossbar Switch" (article from the Bell Laboratories Record, July 1937) • A New "B" Board for Panel Offices (article from the Bell Laboratories Record, December 1930) Analog Frequency Division Multiplexing
• Multiplex hierarchy diagram
Frequency Control
• The Bell System Primary~™Y Standard
advertisementfrom 1952
Microwave Radio
General Information
• "The TD2 Story", a three-part article from the Bell Laboratories Record:
o Part 1 - "From Research to Field Trial" (October 1967) o Part 2 - "Vacuum Tubes and Systems Engineering: (November 1967) o Part 3 - "Changing for the Future" (December 1967)
• "TD2: Eighteen Years And Still Growing:, from the Bell Laboratories Record, July-August 1968 • Booklet "Radio Relay: Communications by Microwave"
Thanks to Al Hajny, P.E. for providing these scanned images. • "Microwaves for Relaying TV Programs"
From the November 1948 issue of "Radio and Television News" • "The Microwave Era Begins"
From the October 1950 issue of"Radio and Television News" Transmitter-Receivers
• TD-2 Microwave Radio Transmitter-Receiver Bay: Descrintion Bell System Practice 410-410-100, Issue 1, March 1975
• List of microwave radios used in the Bell SY.stem
from Bell System Practice 010-150-002, April 1968
• TD-2 radio bay, showing.!fill,jor components
From: "TD-2 Radio Channel Maintenance", OJT 57, Issue 1, June 1971, AT&T Long Lines, p. 16 • TD-2 radios baY.s underg2ing factoIY. checkout
Advertisement, circa 1953-1954
383
• TD-2 vacuum-tube transmit amnlifier
From: "TD-2 Radio Channel Maintenance", OJT 57, Issue 1, June 1971, AT&T Long Lines, p. 184 • "Microelectronics Renlace Vacuum Tubes in the Microwave Network" from the Bell Laboratories Record, February 1983
Data Transmission
• "The l A Radio Digital System Makes 'Data Under Voice' A Reality" from the Bell Laboratories Record, December 1973
• "lA Radio Digital Terminals Put 'Data Under Voice"'
from the Bell Laboratories Record, May 1974
Alarm and Control
• Advertisement for alarm and control sy:stem, from 1952 • C-1 Alarm System indicator nanel lamn assignments illustration from a Bell System Practice Antenna Systems
Delay Lens Antennas
• The KS-5759 Delay: Lens Antenna: Descrintion
• Bell Telephone Laboratories drawing ES-877600, "TD 2 Radio KS-5759 Ll Delay Lens Antenna Assembly" (sheet 1 of2 sheets) Location: TOI
• Bell Telephone Laboratories drawing ES-882975, "TD 2 Radio KS-5759 Ll Delay Lens Antenna Bracing Assembly" (2 sheets) Location: TOI
• Western Electric drawing ED-63953-70, "Toll Systems I TD-2 Radio/ Waveguide Iris for KS-5759 Antenna" Location: TOI
Horn-Reflector Antennas
• The KS-15676 Hom-Reflector Antenna: Description
• "Broadband Hom Reflector Antenna" (article from the Bell Laboratories Record, Nov. 1955) • Drawing of original horn-reflector concepJ., for U.S. 12atent annlication Systems Combining Networks
• "A Microwave Sy:stems Combining Network" (from the March 1963 Bell Laboratories Record) Waveguide
• Western Electric Wavegyide Products brochure (December 1967) Towers
• Mark Foster's AT&T tower ~"
Lists AT&T's tower type designations, with example photographs • Western Electric Type "E" tower brochure (November 1967) • Western Electric Microwave Tower Services brochure (March 1963) • The concrete microwave towers
• TY Towers Sprout from Sliding Form (from Popular Science magazine, June 1950) 384
Coaxial Cable
• "Stevens Point and Minneapolis Linked by Coaxial Sy.£tem.'.'.. article from the Bell Laboratories Record, January 1942 • 20-tube coaxial cable description
• 20-tube coaxial cable diagram, showing order-wire assignments • Cross-section image of 20-tube coaxial cable
• Advertisement: 4000-Mile Trench
• Photo of coaxial-cable SP-licing training, from 1970s • Close-up_P-hoto of coaxial-cable snlice
• "New York - Chicago L3 SY.stem"
article from the Bell Laboratories Record, May 1954
• Bell Laboratories Record, July} Augyst 1967
entire issue devoted to the L4 coaxial system
Alarm, Control, Testing and Monitoring
The L4 Remote Control Center
• Photo 1
• Photo 2
Maintenance, Repairs and Emergency Restoration
• Richmond, VA "Flying Sguad"
• Photo of submarine coaxial cable repair, from 1973
• AT&T Job Aid 26, "Basic Coaxial Cable Maintenance", Issue 1, 1989 (on file) • Restoration after bombings of microwave and cable stations in Utah and Nevada in 1961 (by David Massey)
Communications Satellites
• Booklet "The Telstar Experiment: The Bell System's Role in Communications Satellite Development" [copy on.file]
• Angular Calibration Using Celestial Radio Sources" (from the January 1965 Bell Laboratories Record) The Testboard
• A Private Line Testboard
• The Switched Access Remote Test System (SARTS)
• Carrier Transmission Maintenance System (CTMS)JQgo
The Power Room
• Gould PAT/PCT Data Sheet
describes a typical "submarine cell" used in Long Lines station batteries Wire-Pair (non-coaxial) Carrier Systems
• Advertisement for open-wire carrier sy..siem, from 1952 385
• Man ofK-carrier route in PennsY.lvania, from 1937
• Catalog description of C-carrier eQuipment, from 1948 • J-Carrier twelve one-way voice circuits multiplexed on a single open-wire pair Local Loop (Exchange) Plant
• "Dedicated Outside Plant" (from the January 1965 Bell Laboratories Record) Related Technologies
• ~ - by Vaux Electronics
Teletypewriters were used in the Bell System both for internal communications and for text communications services offered to subscribers, and for many years AT&T owned the Teletype Corporation, a major manufacturer of this equipment.

Support Systems
• Electric Incinerating Toilet - used at many stations in isolated areas. • Rack for storing spare fluorescent lamps - everything had its place in the Bell System. • Bell System waterless hand cleaner - for hard-working Telephone hands. • Bell System floor finish - helping AT&T keep those floors looking great.

Mobile Communications
• "Teleghones Aboard the 'Metroliner"', from the Bell Laboratories Record, March 1969 The Picturephone
• Bell Laboratories Record Pictureghone issue, May-June 1969 Adobe PDF file, 8.9 MB Courtesy of David Massey
Return
Updated on April 15, 2014 at 08:47 by Albert Lafrance
EXHIBIT E.4
386
387
AT&T Long Lines Places and Routes
Maps, Diagrams and Lists
• New York-Boston Radio Relay Inaugurated - article from The Telephone News, February 1948 • Route map from 1898 (Thanks to Keith Cheshire for contributing this link) • New Plan for Designation of Radio Repeater and Terminal Stations -from June 1960 - explains how station names were assigned
• Stations in Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin (compiled by Al Hajny, P.E.)
0 ListingJzy state ( 468KB)
o Listing bY- FCC callsign (517KB)
• AT&T's First Transcontinental Microwave Radio Route
o Teleo.hone S/s)m!JJy brochure (2.3 MB PDF file)
o "34 Jum12s to Chicago" from the Sep. 1949 Long Lines magazine o List of stations
o Article from Radio & Television News, Nov. 1951
o Article from The C&P "Transmitter", Nov.-Dec. 1951
o Pages from 1952 Bell Telephone Almanac:
■ Cover showing two types of microwave tower
■ "Electronic Pony,: Express"
• Mention of planned Pittsburgh-St, Louis route ( one sentence) ■ Multiple items
• Rebus puzzle
• Microwave route between Blue Ridge Summit No, 2. PA (Site R) and Washington No, 4, YA (Mount Weather)
• AT&T's first fiber-optic cable route - between Cambridge, MA to Washington, DC; placed in service 1983/84
• Long Lines routes in the Washingt.Qn, DC area, Jan. 1970 (267KB) • Richmond-Greensboro "C" Cable route mapJpartial), L3 coaxial cable between Lombardy Grove and Virgilina, VA
• Long Lines routes in the Philadel12hia, PA area, Jan. 1970 (288KB) • Long Lines routes in Virginia (and adjoining areas), Jan. 1970 (344KB) • Long Lines routes in Georgia (and adjoining areas), Jan. 1976 (260KB) • Long Lines route map, u,s,, 1952
• Microwave route ma12, U.S. and Canada, March 1960 (2.1 MB) • Microwave route maps, U.S. and Canada, October 1966
o Eastern Section, small (722 KB)
■ Inset 2 - New York City,: region
■ Inset 3 - Washington, DC region
■ Inset4-CT
■ Detailed Extract 1
Approximate boundaries:
■ Center: Clarksville, NY
■ NW comer: North Bay, Ont.
■ NE comer: Grove, ME
■ SW comer: Malaga, OH
■ SE comer: Cape May, NJ
° Central Section. small (681 KB)
■ Detailed Extract I : Minnesota. Wisconsin and surrounding areas (incl. Chicago, Des Moines, and Omaha) 0 Western Section, small (604 KB) 388
■ Detailed Extract 1: Colorado, WY.oming
• The kCarrier System (by Mark Foster)
• New York and New England Tower List from 1982, a list of AT&T towers and their complements of antennas
• 1983 High Frequency Line Schedule - C&P Telephone area o lh.l
0 P-· 2
0 12,...1
0 12:..i
• 1983 High Frequency Line Schedule - Pennsylvania and Delaware 0 12..l 0 12...1.
0 12,...l
0 ~
0 }2..2
• 1982 High Frequency Line Schedule - Pennsylvania and Delaware o lla.l
• TD2 Radio Route Diagram; Sycamore, PA - Cherryville, NJ dated 1-29-81; includes Fairchance, Salisbury, Chaneysville, McConnellsburg, Cashtown, Hanover, Freysville, Cornwall, Centerport, and Lanark, PA
• List of coaxial-cable routes, Washington_eg11ipment engineering_area,..May...ll,..12.12 • List of Omaha District "L" Cables, Jan, 1977
Facilities by State
Note: AT&T Corporate Security has requested that the names and exact locations of active AT&T network facilities not be published. Accordingly, such facilities are identified on this web site by fictitious names, shown in [brackets], or by Common Language Location Identifier (CLLI) codes.

Arizona
• Apache Junction
• Kingman L-31 station on ''first blast-resistant coast-to-coast underground communications cable system" (by Chad Perkins)
• Oracle
• Phoenix "Main"
• Seligman L-31 station on ''first blast-resistant coast-to-coast underground communications cable system" (by Chad Perkins)
• Eh,gstaffL-31 station on ''first blast-resistant coast-to-coast underground communications cable system" (by Chad Perkins)
• fhgstaff (downtown)
• Holbrook k3I station on ''first blast-resistant coast-to-coast underground communications cable system" (by Chad Perkins)
Arkansas
• Alexander - integrated building-tower station on the TD-3 field trial route • Palmer - integrated building-tower station on the TD-3 field trial route • West Helena - integrated building-tower station on the TD-3 field trial route California
389
• AT&T Long Lines Microwave Sites in California (Multiple locations) • ~ - a hardened underground cable and microwave station (by Michael W. Jacobs) • Bernal Heights
• Blyjhe L-1, L-3, Radio (by Chad Perkins)
• Corona (by Mark Foster)
• East Bay: Hills
• Kelso Peak
• Loma Prieta
• Los Angeles (Pacific Bell)
• Los Angeles Grande com~ (by Mark Foster)
• MountVaca
• Mojm (by Daryl Gibson)
• Oak Hill
• Oat Mountain
• Point Arena (Manchester} - terminal station for undersea cables to Hawaii • Sacramento - AT&T Long Lines and Pacific Bell
• San Luis Obispo Junction (by Mark Foster)
• Santa Rosa - Pacific Bell
• Strawberry.hak (by Mark Foster)
• Tui2anga Ridg~
• Tum~
• Walpert Ridg~
Colorado
Route Maps
• Long Lines routes in Colorado (and adjoining areas), Jan, 1976 (240 KB) Locations
• Atwood station on the first transcontinental microwave route • Buckhorn Mountain station on the first transcontinental microwave route • "A Blast-Resistant Communications Network" - Cheyenne Mountain Com~ (from the Oct. 1965 Bell Laboratories Record).
• Cortez Mountain Bell/Long Lines
• Julesburg station on the first transcontinental microwave route • fem station on the first transcontinental microwave route • ~pect Valley. station on the first transcontinental microwave route Connecticut
• Bald Hill near Stafford Springs - a relay station on AT &T's first microwave route, which began operation in 1947
• Cheshire underground main station
• Durham
• John Tom Hill near Glastonbury - also a relay station on AT&T's first microwave route • I.we
Delaware
• &peater hut north of Wilmington
390
District of Columbia
• Washington 1
Florida
• Pennsuco (overseas and high-seas HF radio, microwave) - by Mark Foster Georgia
• Rockdale (ConY.ers) FacilitY. Maintenance Center and former Regional Center (by Will Cardwell) • Dahlonega
o Dahlonega
o Dahlonega 2 (by Chris Ness)
Illinois
Locations
• Chadwick
• ChamP-aign.
• Chicago Heights
• Chicago No. 2
• ShiP--to-shore station WAY, ChicagQ (operated by Illinois Bell, providing communications for Lake Michigan shipping)
• Cisco
• Cloverdale
• DeKalb
• Dixon
• Eola
• Elizabeth
• Hanover CS (satellite earth station)
• HanoverR
• Lake Zurich
• Lee
• Monroe Center
• Morris (K-carrier reP-eater: Ottawa KIE)
• NRWYILNO (CLLI code for active facility)
• Odell No. 1
• Plano
• Plato Center
• Pontoon Beach (K-carrier repeater)
• fu!Y.brook
• SP-ring Grove
• Sublette
Radio Routes
• Hanover CS, IL - Lee, IL
Cable Routes
391
• Plano, IL - LY.ons, NE Cable
Indiana
• Angola
• Goshen
• La Porte
• Mishawaka
• Morgantown (by Michael W. Jacobs)
• Orleans (by Harold Peach)
• South Bend
• Valapraiso
Iowa
Locations
• Adair
• Boone (underground main station and AUTOVON switch)
• Collins
• ElkHom
• Fairfield
• Lowden
• Minden
• Mineola
• Princeton
Kansas
Locations
• Concordia
• Fairview (by Mark Foster)
• HoyJ
• Louisburg
Cable Routes
• Fairview, KS - Offutt AFB, NE Cable
Louisiana
• New Orleans - showing installation of a KS-15676 horn-reflector antenna in 1974 Maine
Route Maps
• Long Lines routes in Maine (and adjoining areas), Jan. 1979 (122KB) Locations
392
• Andover - America's first commercial communications satellite earth station ° First Transatlantic Transmission of a Television Signal via Satellitet 1962 by the IEEE History Center
a ceremony commemorating the 40th anniversary of the event was held on July 11, 2002 o Mark Foster's Andover nag~
Maryland
• Clarksville
• FLKNMDFK (CLLI code for active facility)
• Germantown
• HGTWMDQ00lO (CLLI code for active facility)
• Lambs Knoll (under construction)
• Lewistown
• [MD-1] (fictitious name for active facility)
• North Barnaby
• Randallstown
• Thurmont (passive microwave repeater)
• Waldorf, Blue Ridge Summit (the Alternate National Military Command Center) (by Michael W. Jacobs) • Yellow Springs
Massachusetts
Routes
• Talk to Boston! - from the April 1924 issue of Long Lines magazine, on the 40th anniversary of the first Boston-New York telephone line
Locations
Michigan
Route Maps
• Long Lines routes in Detroit area. Jan, 1970 (11 s KB) Locations
• Dansville
• Milford (includes adjacent stations: Atlas, Detroit, Dansville, Pontiac CO, and Southfield) • Ply.mouth Junction
• Pontiac
Minnesota
Locations
• Minneapolis Downtown
393
Routes
• "Stevens Point and Minne@olis Linked by Coaxial System" article from the January 1942 issue of the Bell Laboratories Record Mississippi
• Arkabutla
• Dundee
Missouri
• Ballard
• Elkhorn
• wxSummit
• Hennaoo
• Hillsboro
• J:2Jilin
• Kansas City
Montana
Route Maps
• Long Lines routes in Montana (and adjoining areas), Jan. 1971 (368 KB) Locations
• Mac Pass Radio, LLC (Multiple locations)
• Brad Coho's Montana AT&T station P-hotos (Multiple locations) Nebraska
Locations
• Chagpe11
• I.,y:ons - a hardened main station and "Combat Ciders 11 Ground Entry Point • St. Libory:

Cable Routes
• Ly..Qm_, NE -North Bend, NE "A" Cable
• Fairview, KS - Offutt AFB, NE Cable
• flanQ., IL -Ly~ NE Cable
Nevada
• Mount Rose highest elevation on AT&T's first transcontinental microwave route • Wendover
New Jersey
394
• Bedminster AT&T's National Network Operations Center
• Cedarbrook (by Michael W. Jacobs)
• Cherry_yille
• Holmdel Bell Laboratories transmission research facility • Iselin
• Lawrenceville Former overseas transmitting station
• Manahawkin Former overseas and high-seas shortwave receiving station, and Bermuda undersea cable terminal
• Murray: Hill Bell Telephone Laboratories location
• Ocean Gate Former overseas and high-seas shortwave transmitting station • QuL_rry.rille (by Michael W. Jacobs)
• Quinton
• Stockton
New Mexico
• Organ
New York
Routes
• Talk to Boston! - from the April 1924 issue of Long Lines magazine, on the 40th anniversary of the first Boston-New York telephone line
Locations
• Airmont - a hardened underground cable and microwave station (by Michael W. Jacobs) • ~ - a hardened underground cable and microwave station (by Michael W. Jacobs) • Cherry Valley:
• Clarksville - a hardened underground cable and microwave station (by Michael W. Jacobs) • Farnham (by Michael W. Jacobs)
• Jackie Jones Mountain - a station on AT&T's first microwave route • NQyack
• Putnam Valley: (by Michael W. Jacobs)
• ~ - a hardened underground cable and microwave station (by Michael W. Jacobs) • Vernal - an early rectangular concrete tower
North Carolina
• Gibsonville (underground L4 power-feed station)
• Stanfield (hardened underground main station)
o Stanfield (by Dexter McIntyre)
o Bell Laboratories Record article about the L-4 coaxial-cable system. and a construction photo of Stanfield
• Chatham (hardened troposcatter "Project Office'')
Ohio
Route Maps
• Long Lines routes in Ohio (and adjoining areas)., Jan. 1970 (278 KB) 395
Locations
• Bluffton - underground coaxial-cable main station
• Castalia
• Catawba
• Cleveland (by David Lesher)
• Lorain
• Medina - underground coaxial-cable main station (by David Lesher) • SP-ringboro
• SP-ringfield
• Swanton
• White Oak
• Xenia - a hardened underground cable station (by Michael W Jacobs) Oklahoma
• Daisy
• Mounds - former AUTOVON switch
• Noble
• Oklahoma City
• Sentinel
Oregon
Locations
• Day_yille, Hoodoo Butte, Long Butte, MauP-in (by Rich Williamson) • John Day_P-assive reP-eater
• King Mountain
• Portland
Route Maps
• Long Lines routes in Oregon (and adjoining areas}, Jan. 1976 (252KB) Pennsylvania
Locations
• Baileyv:ille (by Michael W. Jacobs)
• Buckingham
• Berrysburg - Restoration Plot Plan
• Cashtown (by Brady Alleman)
• Clark's Knob - Restoration Plot Plan
• Dean (by Michael W. Jacobs)
• Dillsburg
• Elderton (by Michael W. Jacobs)
• Finland
o Web p.1!,ge bY. Michael W. Jacobs
o Draft P-ress release, from 1969
o Fact sheet
o Shock-mounted alarm P-anel
396
o Nuclear blast detector control box (~P.are unit) - exterior o Nuclear blast detector control box (~P.are unit) - interior o Portion of architectural P.lot P.lan
• Hallam
o Hallam (by Michael W. Jacobs)
o Restoration Plot Plan
• Harrow
• Hawley: Communications satellite earth station
• Jennerstown (by Michael W. Jacobs)
• Johnstown
• Laurelton (by Michael W. Jacobs)
• Lilly_yille (by Michael W. Jacobs)
• Lionville
• Logan (by Michael W. Jacobs)
• LY.IlJ!P.Ort
• McConnellsburg (by Brady Alleman)
• New Holland - Restoration Plot Plan
• Pottstown - an early underground main station
• Sideling Hill
• Swissdale (by Michael W. Jacobs)
• Thomas Hill - Restoration Plot Plan
• Unionville
• Waggoners Gan (by Michael W. Jacobs)
• Wy:ndmoor
Route Maps
• Pittsburgh - New Castle K-carrier cable route (1937).

Rhode Island
Route Maps
• Long Lines routes in Rhode Island (and adjoining areas)~ Jan. 1970 (60 KB) Tennessee
• Tennessee ValleY- TelWeb (multiple sites - by Matthew Sadler, KF4LHP) • Culleoka (by Middle Tennessee Two-Way)
Texas
Route Maps
• Multiple route maps ( also Western Union and MCI maps) Locations
• Adams
• Albany:
• Amarillo
• Batson
397
• Bellevue (Belleview)
• Wa&.k
• Borger
• Cleveland
• Ennis
Utah
• Path Preservation (multiple sites - by Daryl Gibson)
• Cedar Mountain
• Knolls
• Stansbury Island
Virginia
Locations
• Aldie
• ARTNVACKT20 (CLLI for active facility)
• AY.lett
• Buckingham -formerly a hardened troposcatter relay station in a national-security network (External link - updated May 11, 2002)
• [YA-61 (fictitious name for active facility; formerly a hardened troposcatter relay station in a nationalsecurity network) (External link - created Aug. 27, 2005)
• [YA-21 (fictitious name for active facility)
• ~gtllill
• Flint Hill (under construction)
• Garden City, - includes photos of horn antennas being removed from tower • Hamilton .
• Leesburg
~
CO
• [YA-I] (fictitious name for active facility)
(External link- created May 9, 2004)
• Linden
• Middletown
• Nokesville
• Oak Grove
• Om~
• Oakton - Long Lines Eastern Region Headquarters
Cable Routes
• Cable markers - Mount Weather to Winchester, VA area
• Cable repeaters - Mount Weather to Winchester. YA area Washington
Route Maps
• Long Lines routes in Washington (and adjoining areas), Jan. 1976 (262KB) 398
Articles
• Article about Washington microwave route
Microwave and Cable Stations
• Enumclaw (by Casey Halverson)
• Moses Lake
• Yakima
West Virginia
• Kates Mountain The AT&T microwave network interface for the Greenbrier congressional relocation facility
• Laurel Mountain
Wisconsin
• Eden central office
• Eden KS K-carrier auxiliary station
• PalmY.Ia Showing the installation of horn-reflector antennas in 1956 • Prospect a cylindrical concrete tower
Routes
• "Stevens Point and Minneapolis Linked by Coaxial System" article from the January 1942 issue of the Bell Laboratories Record Wyoming
Route Maps
• Long Lines routes in Wyoming (and adjoining areas), Jan, 1976 (246 KB) International Communications
Japan - undersea cable
Comic-strip-style advertisement for the U.S. - Japan undersea cable, from the June 1965 issue of Boys' Life magazine. (PDF file, 9 MB)
Thanks to Steve Cichorsky for contributing this item
Return to ...
• Long Lines main Pllg~
Updated on April 11 , 2013 at 21 :31 by Albert Lafrance EXHIBIT E.5
399
400

AT&T LONG LINES MICROWAVE TOWERS AND SITES

IN CALIFORNIA
Microwave radio systems were first introduced by the AT&T Long Lines Department for the telecommunications industry in the 1950's. As long distance traffic and network reliability grew microwave towers were seen sprouting up on remote mountain tops, open fields and central city districts. Short towers were used on sites were topography had the advantage such as a mountain ridge or hill line. The taller towers, some reaching 300 feet into the sky were usually located on flat terrain such as the desert valleys or endless plains of the Midwest states. Trapezoidal "horns" were initially used and later higher capacity "cornucopia" horns supplemented the trapezoids.

California had a strong "backbone" of this microwave system which connected the state to neighboring cities and the rest of the nation. The microwaves would carry both telephone, television and limited data traffic streams. The microwave network also played a vital role during the "Cold War" for both secure and unsecured military communications.

There were basically two types of microwave sites, junction (switched) and repeater (relay).

Junction/switched sites were larger, sometimes manned, which provided switching of microwave signals from one path to another. Signals could be rerouted to various paths or underground cables depending on traffic load, bandwidth and location. End points to these microwave paths were usually located at a toll office or tandem central office in the major cities Repeater sites were in a sense relays that provided a point to allow amplification of the signal and a "jump" to the next tower or site. These sites were usually placed to redirect (not reroute) signals around obstructions (hills, mountains) or on long routes.

With the invention and installation of higher capacity fiber optic lines in the 1970s microwave use slowly dwindled to serving as a back up system, or serving telecommunications in remote areas where fiber optic installation was cost prohibitive. By the mid 1990's though, microwave transmission had all but been retired permanently. The towers that stood the test of time were tuned down for good, their site being sold to wireless telecommunication companies or even private parties. Horns and equipment have sadly been removed from numerous sites. The towers now stand bare but provide the height and location now to serve the modern technological revolution of cellular, paging and wireless.

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA MW SITES NORTHERN CALIFORNIA MW SITES CABLE STATIONS:

POINT ARENA
J&T North Cal. Map 1987
Also Please visit NORTHERN CALIFORNIA MW 1978 A wonderful collection of vintage sites from old slides
401
Note: Sorry for the crudeness of the maps. They were taken with a digital camera off the master. The maps should give a basic idea of routes and locations in the California region. Symbols are: round dot is a microwave repeater site and Triangular shapes are junction or switching points. The fuzzy lines are cable or FO routes.

Thanks to Way_ne Hay_es for the use of these maps.

Back to TeleP-hone Central Offices
EXHIBIT E.6
402
403
AT&T Long Lines
Operations
Switched Network Management
• Network Management of the DDD Network and Dial Administration an instructional text from the era of crossbar switches Radio-Frequency Interference Investigation
The Eastern Region of AT&T Long Lines used this ~P-ecially:-~uiP-P-ed motor home to search for "quiet" sites for satellite earth stations and to locate sources of interference to terrestrial microwave transmission.

Training
The following lists of courses are from:

Long Lines Operations Catalogue of Training Courses
Headquarters Operations Training
Cincinnati, Ohio
March 1973
Course materials are not available from this site, but individual course descriptions can be posted upon request.

Contributions of course texts and audio-visual materials, in physical or electronic form, will be much appreciated.
• Formal courses,_}2....1
• Formal courses,..R.,..l
• .QIT [On-the-Job Training] Courses,.R,...l
• orr Courses . .12..l
• JobAids
• Booklets
• Standard Plant Training Courses,_}2...1
• Standard Plant Training Courses._}l...2
• Standard Plant Training Courses,_12,...l
• Standard Plant Training Courses,_12,...i
• Standard Plant Training Courses,_12,..2
• Long Lines Engineering Training Courses
• Long Lines Management Courses
• Long Lines Sales Training Courses
• Management Technical Information
• Management DeveloP-ment Training Courses
Lenkurt Technical Training School, 1950
Traffic Operations
• Overseas switchboard, ca. 1940
404
Plant Operational Error prevention
In a complex activity like the operation of a nationwide broadband telecommunications system, there are numerous opportunities for human error. In the Bell System, such mistakes were called Plant Operational Errors, or POEs. Examples of POEs would be shutting down a piece of equipment while it was carrying traffic, or connecting a plug to the wrong jack causing communications to be misrouted.

Because a single coaxial conductor or microwave radio channel could carry thousands of simultaneous telephone calls, or a television network's programming for the entire country, Long Lines personnel took great care to avoid service disruptions on these broadband facilities. Motivational displays like those shown below served as day-to-day reminders of the need to be vigilant in preventing PO Es. • POE scoreboard
• "No POEs" sticker
Many Long Lines stations had the capability of establishing temporary connections among the station's broadband communications channels, and among various devices within the station. These connections, called "patches", were used to bypass equipment and channels which failed or were being taken out of service for routine maintenance, and to reconfigure the network to meet unusual, short-term service needs. For example, a spare radio channel could be patched to carry a special television broadcast from the town where it originates to a nearby city, where it would be patched into one of the national network "loops".

Patches were established by plugging "patch cords" - lengths of flexible cable with plugs at both ends - into jacks located on "patch bays". A "patch bay" was a vertical panel holding a number of jacks, each jack being permanently wired to an individual broadband communications channel or piece of equipment. A given function might require more than one patch connection. For example, since a broadband channel carries communications in only one direction, patches on two channels would be required in order to establish a two-way link for voice traffic.

To indicate the purpose of a particular patch and help prevent the accidental removal of active connections, an AT&T committee developed paper P-atch cord identification tags. which would be attached to the patch cords being used. The tags were furnished in various colors to distinguish among multiple patches which might be in place simultaneously for different purposes, allowing technicians to easily locate all of the patch cords being used for a given task.

Disaster Recovery
• "Miracle on Second Avenue" - booklet describing service restoration after a major fire at a Manhattan central office in 1975.
• "Mischief? Malice? Or Mother Nature?" - advertisement from 1968 Safety
• Wall thermometer with safety slogan
• Coaxial-cable reP-eater hut entry-exit P-rocedures sign Other Motivational items
• "All We Have to Offer is Service!" P-Oster
Western Electric
405
• Western Electric Washington Service Center booklet - from 1969 Return to ...
• Long Lines main pJ!.g~
Updated on May 13, 2010 at 20:25 by Albert Lafrance

EXHIBIT F
406
407
"" EB
V
!
} - ; ')
I I,
I I
I I
\ \,
(XIST! NG NORTHWEST ELEVATION
~i:r,•11 1 J1' ·•·
•l•Sll"f<ll'l'l'r,J\I,
_J
B' •• IO'
1;a·.1·-o·
llillli
I :tl~'("tOlt S'-'ll r.na '-'fR1r, "•l OIIK,Wli'
At;fftl'"" ,:irrtirlt,.T!Ol4'i kHIA to AtflLl,~lr, Nltf lfl rtl<illl CO~!H\lt.11Nf 1"10\1 ! )II "'-.I Jtl lll1Alt.i $ AU l"IKl•O-,lO 101\'tll t,iWMLU (,:;1111•1.1t"'' fO i,c. l"Aot-l'ltl 10' 1,1'-IC!t (~ISitJtl~ lfJv•i.:t ,.Ji!J _h0(.:l"l0. C:!Nr .. ~tc,w 10 ..,.,,.,. • .. lit ilf;1J1:1,.-,.,_ •iw.'+"i11 C'Ql.4• llllO e, 4Mti-n{»! !f·,t,(lt co•o"t:"'"''ION. 0.-,110 n1,111JA11, ~, . /021, 1t1r l~i~.,,-..r. !lflllt(.ll'Wf 1./L~f I•;[ lr,l.)t,!1'-,ftl TO 110(0U4T[lf ,,~ l~t f"~'.l~[D L(\,,1()1'1<, . Jh~ ':,TPtJ.:T,IP{ l.l;')tl,r~u,01,; 1,11_~-, Ar .,,.,,~to PRlrw, tCJ ~HC 1,,;:A1, ,.,,l"lti nr we N!-r.Nl!-H 4t-;![N,..-.•; --~ or\ffl~ tOI.N'Ll::-N1'
(!)Pl'tOFOSCOOISH
-,lftlL$S, U..C, H'f'8RIO
CA8U: TO BC INSTAU.£0 ON
N(W WAYEGOIOC lAOOCII
PJ\OPO$C001$t1WU!W:SS.

I-LA, ICE BRUt y \~
"'

1.k",.l"'t~ I':' 1•
·r -Jrr ,tt nu.o
DCIStlNC SDI-SuPPOR't
PROPOSED tOP EL • 75101 ACl.
:J) AA0POS[D OrSH WIRO.CSS LLC._AHTCHNA$
1W) (:ontfl: • t1'-0"
.. ,..
1/B"•l•- o• 2
dish
wreless.
5701 SOUTH SANTA rE ORM:

UTTl£TON, CO 80120
TOW(R ENCIHE[.RINC PROFESSIONALS
326 ~c.,91~~,~~,27603
06-01-2023
" ISA YO.,Anc)N 0, V,. , Oll' ,M't ll'f:ll'SON,
I.H.[SSfKVAIIL~UNCUMDMllC1'0M 0f A ~S(D HIOrt$.SIOtW.. ( MCM'llt, fO IIILTOIMSDDCWOf'I, DRAWN BV: )CHECl<[O BV:)APPRO\/CD BY
SSP SSE BS[
Rfl>S REV I :

CONSTRUCTION

DOCUMENTS
SUBMITTAL.$

REV I DATE I OCSCRIPTION

M E PROJECT NUMBER
237240.378860
DISH W!RO.ESS, LLC.

PROJECT INf"ORM.\noN
CA- ATC- T- 89366
LSSNAO 1020A
2M NE or SAN CLEMENTE
SAN CLEMENTE, CA- 92672
SHCET TrTLt

EXISTING AND

PROPOSED ELEVATIONS

SH(ET NUMBER
C-2.1

EXHIBIT G
408

Best Practices for Analyzing and Mitigating Wildfire Impacts of Development Projects Under the California Environmental Quality Act I. Introduction
Wildfires are part of California’s present, and with the effects of climate change, an increasing part of our future. Development in fire-prone areas increases the likelihood that more destructive fires will ignite, fire-fighting resources will be taxed, more habitat and people will be put in harm’s way or displaced, and more structures will burn. It is therefore imperative that local jurisdictions making decisions to approve new developments carefully consider wildfire impacts as part of the environmental review process, plan where best to place new development, and mitigate wildfire impacts to the extent feasible.

This guidance is designed to help lead agencies1 comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code, section 21000 et seq. (CEQA), when considering whether to approve projects in wildfire-prone areas. These areas are often in the wildland-urban interface, generally defined as the area where the built environment meets or intermingles with the natural environment.2 The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) has classified lands based on fire risk, the highest being those classified as high or very high fire hazard severity zones. It has also identified areas where the State (as opposed to a local agency) has responsibility for fire-fighting.3 Particularly in these high-risk areas, but also throughout the 1 Lead agencies are any public agencies with “principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect upon the environment.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21067.) 2 CAL FIRE has published an instructive map on the wildland-urban interface in California: https://frap. fire.ca.gov/media/10300/wui 19 ada.pdf. The wildland-urban interface is defined differently by different agencies for different purposes, but the most widely used definition for wildfire purposes include the intermix and interface areas mapped by Radeloff et al. 2005, 2018. See Volker C. Radeloff, et al., Rapid Growth of the US Wildland-Urban Interface Raises Wildfire Risk. PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES USA, 115(13):3314-3319 (2018), available at https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073 /pnas.1718850115.
3 See https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/wildlandhazards-building-codes/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps/. Note that areas mapped by CAL FIRE as high or very high fire risk are not always coextensive with the wildland-urban interface. In addition, CAL FIRE’s maps are currently in the process of being updated and lead agencies should consult with CAL 409
~hde of Qlnii:fornin
® ££ice of il1e J\tiurn.et1 (lf;.ener aI

ROB BONTA

A TTORNEY GENERAL
2 wildland-urban interface, wildfire risks must be considered during the environmental review process for individual development projects.

This guidance provides suggestions for how best to comply with CEQA when analyzing and mitigating a proposed project’s impacts on wildfire ignition risk, emergency access, and evacuation.4 This guidance is aimed at proposed development projects, such as residential, recreational, or commercial developments.5 The extent to which it applies will inherently vary by project, based on project design and location. This document does not impose additional requirements on local governments or alter any applicable laws or regulations. Rather, it is intended to provide guidance on some of the issues, alternatives, and mitigation measures that should be considered during the environmental review process. This guidance is based on the Office of the Attorney General’s experience reviewing, commenting on, and litigating CEQA documents for projects in high wildfire prone areas, and is intended to assist lead agencies with their planning and approval of future projects. The guidance reflects current requirements and conditions and may need to be updated as changes occur.

II. Background
Although wildfires are and have been an important natural process throughout California’s history, recent changes in fire frequency, intensity, and location are posing increasing threats to the residents and environment of California. More acres of California have burned in the past decade than in the previous 90 years6 and eight of the State’s ten largest fires since 1932 have occurred in the last decade.7 While lightning is a common cause of some of the State’s largest FIRE before relying on the classifications listed on this map. CAL FIRE’s list of state responsibility areas (defined as areas where the State of California, as opposed to a local agency, is financially responsible for prevention and suppression of wildfires) can be found at: https://calfire-forestry.maps.arcgis.com/ apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=468717e399fa4238ad86861638765ce1. Each county should have a map of the very high or high fire hazard severity zones in its jurisdiction, and they are also included on the CAL FIRE zone map: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/.
4 Readers who want to determine their legal obligations under CEQA should consult their own attorney for legal advice.
5 This guidance is not intended to apply to state and local agency fire management activities, such as prescribed burns, approval of vegetation management plans to reduce wildfire risk, and review of timber harvesting plans.
6 CAL FIRE, Top 20 Largest California Wildfires (Jan. 13, 2022), available at https://www.fire.ca.gov /media/4jandlhh/top20 acres.pdf. See also Hugh D. Safford et al., The 2020 California Fire Season: A Year Like No Other, a Return to the Past or a Harbinger of the Future? (Apr. 17, 2022) GLOBAL ECOLOGY AND BIOGEOGRAPHY, available at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/geb.13498?af=R. 7 Paul Rogers, Map: 1 of Every 8 acres in California has Burned in the Last 10 Years. Here’s Where the Biggest Fires Spread—and are Burning Now, Mercury News (Sept. 29, 2021), available at https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/09/29/top-10-california-wildfires-megafires-map/. Notably, the large fires of late are not unprecedented in the State’s history with similarly large fires occurring specifically during the 1920s. See Jon E. Keeley & Alexandra D. Syphard, Large California Wildfires: 2020 410
3 fires, in recent years, many of the State’s most destructive fires have been caused by human activity, such as downed powerlines or electrical sources associated with residential development or industrial facilities.8
Wildfires can have dramatic, adverse ecological impacts. Frequent wildfires can result in habitat loss and fragmentation, shifts in vegetative compositions, reductions in small mammal populations, and accelerated loss of predatory species.9 Wildfire can also have adverse impacts on erosion and water quality. During active burning, ash and associated contaminants can enter water supplies. Later, after large burns, rainstorms can flush vast amounts of sediment from exposed soils into those same water supplies.10
Wildfires also have tragic consequences for California’s residents. Since 2010, wildfires have killed nearly 150 people in California11 and, since 2005, wildfires have destroyed over 97,000 structures,12 requiring mass evacuations and exacerbating the State’s already-pressing need for more housing. In addition, wildfire smoke is unhealthy to breathe and is a public health concern. Further, wildfire losses are not experienced equally. Lower-income households are more likely to lose all of their assets and less likely to have adequate insurance to cover their losses.14 Meanwhile, the costs of wildfire suppression and resiliency have become significant. In Fires in Historical Context (Aug. 25, 2021) FIRE ECOLOGY, available at https://fireecology.springeropen.com /articles/10.1186/s42408-021-00110-7.
8 See CAL FIRE, Top 20 Largest California Wildfires (Jan. 13, 2022), available at https://www.fire.ca.gov /media/4jandlhh/top20 acres.pdf; CalFire, Top 20 Most Destructive California Wildfires (Jan. 13, 2022), available at https://www.fire.ca.gov/media/t1rdhizr/top20 destruction.pdf. 9 See Alexandra D. Syphard, et al., Human Influence on California Fire Regimes. ECOLOGICAL APPLICATION 17:1388-1402 (2007).
10 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Wildfires: How do They Affect Our Water Supplies? (Aug. 13, 2019), available at https://www.epa.gov/sciencematters/wildfires-how-do-they-affect-ourwater-supplies#:~:text=Vegetation%20that%20holds%20soil%20in,%2C%20rivers%2C%20and%20 downstream%20reservoirs.
11 CAL FIRE, Top Deadliest California Wildfires (Oct. 22, 2021), available at https://www.fire.ca.gov/ media/lbfd0m2f/top20 deadliest.pdf.
12 Headwaters Economics, Wildfires Destroy thousands of structures each year (Nov. 2020, updated Aug. 2022), available at https://headwaterseconomics.org/natural-hazards/structures-destroyed-by-wildfire/. 13 See Kurtis Alexander, California Ranks Worst in Nation for Air Pollution Because of Wildfire Smoke, S.F.

Chronicle (June 23, 2022), available at https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/california-airquality-17259687.php. See also Lora Kolodny, The West Coast Is Suffering from Some of the Worst Air in the World — These Apps Show How Bad it Is, CNBC (Sept. 13, 2020), available at https://www.cnbc.com/ 2020/09/12/air-quality-apps-purpleair-airnow-iqair-essential-in-western-us.html; and California Air Resources Board, Protecting Yourself from Wildfire Smoke, available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ protecting-yourself-wildfire-smoke.
14 California Council on Science and Technology, The Costs of Wildfire in California (Oct. 2020), at p. 69, available at https://ccst.us/reports/the-costs-of-wildfire-in-california/. 411
4 2021, the State invested $1.5 billion in wildfire resiliency efforts, and the 2022-2023 budget includes an additional $1.2 billion to support wildfire and forest resilience.15 The changing nature of wildfires, under various metrics—frequency, area burned, adverse ecological impacts, the number of Californians displaced—is a worsening crisis that will unfortunately be part of California’s future.16
As of 2010, about one-third of California’s housing units were located within the wildland-urban interface.17 Residential developments in the wildland-urban interface and other wildfire prone areas can significantly increase the risks of wildfires and the risk to public safety for several reasons. First, introducing more people—via additional development—into a flammable landscape increases the likelihood of: (1) a wildfire igniting due to the increased presence of people; and (2) the ignition becoming a wildfire because of the placement of homes amongst the flammable vegetation.18 Second, building housing units in the wildland-urban interface puts more people in harm’s way.19 Wildfires, particularly those that impact developments in relatively remote locations, may impede the evacuation of communities and emergency access, making it more difficult to ensure public safety and to limit, control, or extinguish wildfires.

Finally, fires in remote locations require significant fire-fighting resources and mobilization of fire-fighters from all over the State—putting a major strain on the State’s fire-fighters and the State’s budget. Put simply, bringing more people into or near flammable wildlands leads to more frequent, intense, destructive, costly, and dangerous wildfires.20 Gavin Newsom, California State Budget (2022-2023), at p. 61, available at https://www.ebudget.ca. gov/FullBudgetSummary.pdf; California State Budget, Budget Addendum (2021-2022), at p. 3, available at https://www.ebudget.ca.gov/BudgetAddendum.pdf. 16 See California Council on Science and Technology, The Costs of Wildfire in California (Oct. 2020), at p. 17, available at https://ccst.us/reports/the-costs-of-wildfire-in-california/. Community Wildfire Planning Center, Land Use Planning Approaches in the Wildland-Urban Interface (Feb. 2021), at p. 7, available at https://www.communitywildfire.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/ CWPC Land-Use-WUI-Report Final 2021.pdf; see also Heather Anu Kramer, et al., High Wildfire Damage in Interface Communities in California (2019) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF WILDLAND FIRE, available at https://www.fs.usda.gov/nrs/pubs/jrnl/2019/nrs 2019 kramer 001.pdf. At the current rate of growth and under current growth patterns, it is anticipated that an additional 645,000 housing units will be developed in areas designated by CAL FIRE as very high fire hazard severity zones by 2050. Next 10, Rebuilding for a Resilient Recovery: Planning in California’s Wildland Urban Interface (June 2021), at p. 9, available at https://www.next10.org/publications/rebuilding-resilient. 18 See Alexandra D. Syphard, Why Are so Many Structures Burning in California? (2020) Fremontia, 47(2), at p. 29; Volker C. Radeloff, et al., Rapid Growth of the US Wildland-Urban Interface Raises Wildfire Risk.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES USA, 115(13):3314-3319 (2018). 19 See Heather Anu Kramer, et al., High Wildfire Damage in Interface Communities in California (2019) International Journal of Wildland Fire, available at https://www.fs.usda.gov/nrs/pubs/jrnl/2019/ nrs 2019 kramer 001.pdf; Volker C. Radeloff, et al., Rapid growth of the US wildland-Urban interface raises wildfire risk. PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES USA, 115(13):3314-3319 (2018). 20 See Michael L. Mann, et al., Incorporating Anthropogenic Influences into Fire Probability Models:

Effects of Human Activity and Climate Change on Fire Activity in California (Apr. 28, 2016) PLOS ONE 412
5 III. Wildfire and Land Use Planning
While this guidance is focused on best practices to disclose, analyze, and mitigate wildfire impacts in compliance with CEQA, it is important to note that general planning also provides a critical opportunity for local jurisdictions to think proactively about how to accommodate their housing and development needs while reducing the risks of wildfire.21 In the last ten years, new legislation has passed requiring local jurisdictions to consider wildfire risks in their general planning processes.22 The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) recently published comprehensive guidance to help local agencies comply with these requirements.23 We encourage local jurisdictions to consult this guidance and to thoughtfully plan for new development given the increasing risk of wildfires throughout the state.24 11(4), available at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0153589; Alexandra D.

Syphard, Why Are so Many Structures Burning in California? (2020) FREMONTIA, 47(2), at pp. 28-35, available at https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70215982; Alexandra D. Syphard, et al., Land Use Planning and Wildfire: Development Policies Influence Future Probability of Housing Loss (2013) PLOS ONE, available at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0071708& type=printable; see also Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action re Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines OAL Notice File No. Z-2018-0116-12 (“Statement of Reasons”), at p. 87, available at https://resources.ca.gov/CNRALegacyFiles/ceqa/docs/2018 CEQA Final Statement of%20Reasons 111218.pdf.
21 See Alexandra D. Syphard, Why Are so Many Structures Burning in California? (2020) FREMONTIA, 47(2), at p. 33, available at https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70215982 [concluding that “the most effective strategy at reducing future structure loss would focus on reducing the extent of low-density housing via careful land planning decisions”].
22 See Sen Bill No. 1241 (2011-2012 Reg. Sess.), amending and/or adding Gov. Code, §§ 65302, subd. (g)(3), 65302.5, subd. (b), and 66474.02) [requiring local jurisdictions within state responsibility areas or very high fire hazard severity zones to address wildfire risk when updating their safety elements and to submit their draft updates to the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection for review]; Sen. Bill No. 99 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.), amending Gov. Code, § 65302, subd. (g)(5) [requiring updated safety elements to identify residential developments within hazard areas that do not have at least two evacuation routes]; Assem. Bill No. 747 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.), adding Gov. Code, § 65302.15 [requiring local jurisdictions to update their safety element to address the capacity of evacuation routes under a range of various emergency scenarios]; Assem. Bill No. 1409 (2020-2021 Reg. Sess.), amending Gov. Code, § 65302.15 [requiring that safety elements identify locations where people can evacuate to]. 23 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Fire Hazard Planning Technical Advisory, 2022 Update (Aug. 2022), available at https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20220817-Fire Hazard Planning TA.pdf; and Wildland-Urban Interface Planning Guide: Examples and Best Practices for California Communities (Aug. 2022), available at https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20220817-Complete WUI Planning Guide.pdf. 24 Local jurisdictions that have complied with their general planning obligations, including incorporating wildfire and evacuation planning considerations into their general plans, may benefit from streamlined CEQA requirements at the project approval level. If a development project is consistent with an updated general plan and an environmental impact report (EIR) was prepared for that plan, the CEQA review for the project may be limited to the parcel-specific impacts of the project or impacts that new information, 413
6 IV. Analyzing and Mitigating Wildfire Risk Impacts Under CEQA A. CEQA’s requirements for analyzing wildfire risks
CEQA requires local jurisdictions considering development projects to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) or a mitigated negative declaration25 if the project may potentially have a significant impact on the environment and is not otherwise exempt from CEQA.26 Under CEQA, local jurisdictions may act as lead agencies with responsibility for preparing the EIR (or other CEQA document), or as responsible agencies relying on an EIR prepared by a lead agency. CEQA provides a critical process for local jurisdictions to understand how new developments will exacerbate existing wildfire risks, allowing them to consider project design features, alternatives, and mitigation measures that provide for smarter development and the protection of existing communities.

The CEQA Guidelines27 require that an EIR include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced.28 This “baseline” of existing environmental conditions is generally used to determine the significance of project-related impacts. In the EIR’s discussion of the existing environmental conditions, lead agencies should include information about open space areas and habitats within the project area that may be fire prone, as well as a discussion of fire history and fuels on the project site.

Including a discussion of existing available water supplies for fire-fighting is also critical.

Providing detail about existing environmental conditions at the project site that may exacerbate or minimize wildfire impacts will help ensure that the EIR fully considers the project’s impacts on wildfire risk.

The CEQA Guidelines require an analysis of “any significant environmental effects the project might cause or risk exacerbating by bringing development and people into the area affected,” including by locating development in wildfire risk areas.29 The “environmental checklist form” in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, Section XX, directs lead agencies to assess whether arising since adoption of the general plan, shows will be more significant than described in the prior EIR. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21083.3; CEQA Guidelines, § 15193). 25 Where “EIR” is used in this guidance it should also be considered to refer to a mitigated negative declaration.
26 Pub. Resources Code, § 21067; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15050 and 15367. 27 The CEQA Guidelines are found at California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 15000, et seq. 28 CEQA Guidelines, § 15125.
29 CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.2.
414
7 projects located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones,30 would:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan;
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire;
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment; or d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.31
In addition to the four questions above, Section IX(g) of the checklist broadly directs lead agencies to consider whether a project will “expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.”32 In answering these questions, lead agencies must consider both on- and off-site impacts.33 B. Analyzing a project’s impact on wildfire risks
Several variables should be considered in analyzing a project’s impact on wildfire risk, including:
• Project Density: Project density influences how likely a fire is to start or spread, and how likely it is that the development and its occupants will be in danger when a fire starts. Fire spread and structure loss is more likely to occur in low- to intermediatedensity developments.34 This is because there are more people present to ignite a fire (as compared to undeveloped land), and the development is not concentrated enough 30 See footnote 1 for more information on state responsibility areas and very high fire hazard severity zones.
31 CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, XX.
32 CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, IX(g). This Guidance focuses on these key wildfire-related questions in Sections IX(g) and XX of the checklist, but in conducting environmental review, lead agencies must continue to thoroughly address the other questions identified in Section XX and the checklist more generally.
33 CEQA Guidelines, § 15360 [defining the environment to be considered as “the area in which significant effects would occur either directly or indirectly as a result of the project”]. 34 Alexandra D. Syphard, The Relative Influence of Climate and Housing Development on Current and Projected Future Fire Patterns and Structure Loss Across Three California Landscapes (2019) GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE; Alexandra D. Syphard, et al., Housing Arrangement and Location Determine the Likelihood of Housing Loss Due to Wildfire (Mar. 28, 2012) PLOS ONE, available at https://journals.plos .org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0033954.
415
8 (as compared to high-density developments) to disrupt fire spread by removing or substantially fragmenting wildland vegetation.35 “Isolated clusters of development and low housing density mean that homes are embedded within, and more exposed to, a matrix of wildland vegetation.”36 Moreover, fire-fighters may have difficulty accessing more remote and disconnected developments.37
• Project Location in the Landscape: Project placement in the landscape relative to fire history, topography and wind patterns also influences wildfire risk. Although wildfire ignitions are primarily human-caused in California, wildfire behavior is largely driven by topography, fuel, climatic conditions, and fire weather (such as low humidity and high winds). How a development project is planned within the landscape determines to what extent it will influence fire risk.38 For example, if a project site is located in a wind corridor, above-ground power lines may become a source of ignition. Similarly, siting residential structures in rugged terrain or on the top of steep hills may increase the wildfire risk. By contrast, if a project site includes landscape features that could prevent or slow the spread of fire, such as a lake or an irrigated golf course, the development may be strategically located so as to capitalize on that feature as a natural fuel break.39 35 See generally Alexandra D. Syphard, et. al., Multiple-Scale Relationships between Vegetation, the Wildland-Urban Interface, and Structure Loss to Wildfire in California (Mar. 12, 2021) MDPI FIRE 2021. 36 Max A. Moritz, et al., Learning to Coexist with Wildfire (2014) NATURE 515(7525), at p. 64; see also Alexandra D. Syphard, et. Al., Multiple-Scale Relationships between Vegetation, the Wildland-Urban Interface, and Structure Loss to Wildfire in California (March 12, 2021) MDPI FIRE 2021. 37 See Alexandra D. Syphard, Why Are so Many Structures Burning in California? (2020) FREMONTIA, 47(2), at p. 31.
38 See generally Max Moritz, et al., Building to Coexist with Fire: Community Risk Reduction Measures for New Development in California (Apr. 2020) University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources, Publication 8680, available at https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6n12m6pn; Alexandra D. Syphard, Why Are so Many Structures Burning in California? (2020) FREMONTIA, 47(2), at pp. 28-35, available at https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70215982.
39 See Max Moritz, et al., Building to Coexist with Fire: Community Risk Reduction Measures for New Development in California (Apr. 2020) University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources, Publication 8680, at p. 10, available at https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6n12m6pn; see also Conservation Biology Institute, Paradise Nature-Based Fire Resilience Project Final Report (June 2020), available at https://d2k78bk4kdhbpr.cloudfront.net/media/reports/files/CBI Paradise Final Report for Posting Online.pdf [An examination of how siting and greenbelts may have protected homes during the Paradise fire]. Siting of a new fire-resistant development between wildlands and existing development may even serve as a protective barrier for the existing development. But there can still be some risk of ember spread if the new development succumbs to fire. See Alexandra D. Syphard, Why Are so Many Structures Burning in California? (2020) FREMONTIA, 47(2), at pp. 28-35, available at https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70215982; California Council on Science and Technology, The Costs of Wildfire in California (Oct. 2020), at p. 67, available at https://ccst.us/reports/the-costs-of-wildfire-incalifornia/. 416
9 • Water Supply and Infrastructure: As part of evaluating a project’s wildfire risk impacts, an EIR should analyze the adequacy of water supplies and infrastructure to address firefighting within the project site.40 This analysis should consider the potential loss of water pressure during a fire, which may decrease available water supply41 and the potential loss of power, which may eliminate the supply.42 To understand how a project may exacerbate the risk of wildfire, an EIR should qualitatively assess these variables and also use fire modeling and other spatial and statistical analyses to quantify the risks to the extent feasible. Experts should utilize fire models to account for various siting and design elements, as well as a variety of different fire scenarios. The modeling should include scenarios for fires that start in, near, and far from the project site, as well as extreme weather conditions that exacerbate fire spread.

Lead agencies are encouraged to develop thresholds of significance that either identify an increase in wildfire risk as a significant impact or determine, based on substantial evidence, that some increase in the risk of wildfires is not considered a significant impact. Relevant factors should include the project’s impact on ignition risk, the likelihood of fire spread, and the extent of exposure for existing and new residents based on various fire scenarios. Modeling the various scenarios enables local agencies to quantify increased wildfire risks resulting from a project adding more people to wildfire prone areas and to assess the risks according to the threshold of significance.

Some EIRs have concluded that the conversion of some wildland vegetation into paved development reduces or does not increase wildfire risk. This conclusion is contrary to existing evidence and the well-accepted understanding that the fundamental driver of increased wildfire risk is the introduction of people into a flammable landscape.43 Accordingly, the conversion of vegetation into developed land does not obviate the need for lead agencies to carefully consider and model how the addition of development into wildfire prone areas contributes to the risk of wildfire.
40 See Max Moritz, et al., Building to Coexist with Fire: Community Risk Reduction Measures for New Development in California (Apr. 2020) University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources, Publication 8680, at p. 19 and Appendix B, available at https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6n12m6pn. 41 See Max Moritz, et al., Building to Coexist with Fire: Community Risk Reduction Measures for New Development in California (Apr. 2020), at p. 19, University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources, Publication 8680, available at https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6n12m6pn. 42 See Alexandra D. Syphard, Nexus Between Wildfire, Climate Change and Population Growth in California (2020) FREMONTIA, 47(2), at p. 26.
See Heather Anu Kramer, et al., High Wildfire Damage in Interface Communities in California (2019) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF WILDLAND FIRE, available at https://www.fs.usda.gov/nrs/pubs/jrnl/2019/nrs 2019 kramer 001.pdf; see also Exhibit A to the Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action re Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines, OAL Notice File No. Z-2018-0116-12, at p. 212, available at https://resources.ca.gov/CNRALegacyFiles/ceqa/docs/2018 CEQA ExA FSOR.pdf. 417
10 C. Analyzing the project’s impact on evacuation and emergency access The addition of new development into high wildfire risk or adjacent areas may impact the evacuation of project residents, as well as the existing population (e.g., residents, workers, students, visitors, and possibly livestock) in the area and the ability of emergency responders to simultaneously access the area to fight wildfire. This can, in turn, impact the risk and extent of large-scale fire spread and community safety within and around the new development. The EIR should evaluate these impacts both during construction and over the life of the project. The required analysis is relative to a project’s impacts and risks; e.g., a higher density infill project within an already developed area would likely not require the same level of analysis as a new low-density development within the wildland-urban interface and surrounded largely by open space.44
For projects located in high wildfire risk areas that present an increased risk of ignition and/or evacuation impacts, evacuation modeling and planning should be considered and developed at the time of project review and approval—when there is greater flexibility to modify a project’s design, density, siting, and configuration to address wildfire considerations—rather than deferred to a later stage of the development process. Lead agencies will be best-positioned to ensure proposed development projects facilitate emergency access and ease constraints on evacuation with this information in hand prior to project approval. The ultimate objective is to allow for informed decision-making that minimizes the environmental and public safety hazards associated with new developments that increase the risk of ignition and impede evacuation in high wildfire prone areas.

Evacuation modeling and analysis should include the following:
• Evaluation of the capacity of roadways to accommodate project and community evacuation and simultaneous emergency access.
• Assessment of the timing for evacuation.
• Identification of alternative plans for evacuation depending upon the location and dynamics of the emergency.
• Evaluation of the project’s impacts on existing evacuation plans. • Consideration of the adequacy of emergency access, including the project’s proximity to existing fire services and the capacity of existing services. • Traffic modeling to quantify travel times under various likely scenarios. 44 See Max Moritz, et al., Building to Coexist with Fire: Community Risk Reduction Measures for New Development in California (Apr. 2020), University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources, Publication 8680, at p. 5, available at https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6n12m6pn [describing the benefits of infill development].
418
11 In considering these evacuation and emergency access impacts, lead agencies may use existing resources and analyses, but such resources and analyses should be augmented when necessary.

For example, agencies should:
• Utilize information from the EIR’s analysis of traffic/transportation impacts, but they should not limit themselves to that information, which may not reflect the impact of emergency conditions on travel times.
• Consult with local fire officials and ensure that assumptions and conclusions regarding evacuation risk are substantiated with sound facts. Emergency conditions may not allow for ideal evacuation scenarios—staggered, staged, or targeted evacuation in response to a wildfire may sometimes be possible, but human behavior is difficult to predict and wildfires can be erratic, unpredictable, and fast-moving.45 • Consider impacts to existing evacuation plans, but recognize that, depending on the scope of an existing evacuation plan, additional analyses or project-specific plans may be needed. Community evacuation plans often identify roles and responsibilities for emergency personnel and evacuation routes, but do not necessarily consider the capacity of roadways, assess the timing for community evacuation, or identify alternative plans for evacuation depending upon the location and dynamics of the emergency.
• Avoid overreliance on community evacuation plans identifying shelter-in-place locations. Sheltering in place, particularly when considered at the community planning stage,46 can serve as a valuable contingency, but it should not be relied upon in lieu of analyzing and mitigating a project’s evacuation impacts.47 Local jurisdictions are encouraged to develop thresholds of significance for evacuation times.

These thresholds should reflect any existing planning objectives for evacuation, as well as 45 See FEMA and U.S. Fire Administration, Wildland Urban Interface: A Look at Issues and Resolutions (June 2022), available at https://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/wui-issuesresolutions-report.pdf. 46 FEMA, Planning Considerations: Evacuation and Shelter-in-Place (July 2019), available at https://www. fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/planning -considerations-evacuation-and-shelter-in-place.pdf. The distinction between temporary shelter-in-place locations and buildings designed or retrofitted for longer term shelter-in-place should also be considered. See Max Moritz, et al., Building to Coexist with Fire:

Community Risk Reduction Measures for New Development in California (Apr. 2020) University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources, Publication 8680, at p. 17, available at https://escholarship .org/uc/item/6n12m6pn [discussing the difference between “safety zones”—areas with little flammable vegetations, such as golf courses—versus buildings that are designed to provide protection from heat and embers while the front of a fire passes, typically for a duration of at least 30-60 minutes]. 47 See Mejia, Pepperdine University Defends ‘Shelter in Place’ Decision During Woolsey Fire, Los Angeles Times (Nov. 13, 2018), available at https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-pepperdine-shelter20181113-story.html; Chandler, Am I Going to Stay in the Parking Lot . . . While the Fires Burn Around Me?, Record Searchlight (Dec. 12, 2019), available at https://www.redding.com/in-depth/news/ 2019/04/25/california-wildfire-shelter-place-plans-questioned-evacuation-preparation/3427075002/. 419
---------------
12 informed expert analysis of safe and reasonable evacuation times given the existing and proposed development. Local jurisdictions should consider whether any increase in evacuation times for the local community would be a significant impact. A conclusion that an increase in evacuation times is a less than significant impact should be based on a threshold of significance that reflects community-wide goals and standards.

In establishing thresholds, local jurisdictions should consider referring to successful evacuations from prior emergencies within their community or similarly situated communities. The thresholds should include, but not be limited to, whether the project creates an inconsistency with: (1) an adopted emergency operations or evacuation plan; (2) a safety element that has been updated per the requirements in Government Code sections 65302(g)(5) and 65302.15 to integrate wildfire and evacuation concerns; or (3) recommendations developed by the California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the safety of subdivisions pursuant to Public Resources Code section 4290.5.

D. Mitigating wildfire risk, evacuation, and emergency access impacts If a project presents significant increased wildfire risks and/or evacuation and access impacts, CEQA requires the lead agency to consider and adopt feasible alternatives and mitigation measures to avoid or reduce the project’s impacts (or make a finding of overriding consideration).48 Not all project design features or mitigation measures will achieve the same reduction in impacts for every project—the effects and effectiveness of measures will vary geographically and by project. An EIR that baldly concludes that certain project design features or mitigation measures will reduce or eliminate all potential wildfire risks, without first describing those risks, fails to fully analyze the project’s impacts. Compressing the analysis of impacts and mitigation deprives decision makers of a full description of the project’s adverse impacts and, therefore, fails to equip the decision makers with the necessary information to properly address the impacts by adopting project design features, mitigation measures, or alternatives. To avoid this error and provide for better project design, the project EIR should first analyze the increased wildfire risks and evacuation impacts, and then consider feasible mitigation and alternatives to avoid or reduce those impacts.

Set forth below are some examples of potential mitigation measures and design alternatives that may reduce wildfire risk impacts. This list is not exclusive and a lead agency’s adoption of some or all of these mitigation measures for a particular project may not be sufficient to comply with CEQA’s requirement to adopt all feasible mitigation measures. • Increasing housing density and consolidated design, relying on higher density infill developments as much as possible.
• Avoidance and minimization of low-density exurban development patterns or leapfrogtype developments (i.e., those with undeveloped wildland between developed areas). 48 Pub. Resources Code, § 21081.
420
13 • Decreasing the extent and amount of “edge,” or interface area, where development is adjacent to undeveloped wildlands.
• Creation of buffer zones and defensible space within and adjacent to the development, with particular attention to ensuring that vegetation will not touch structures or overhang roofs.49 It is also important that legal obligations are structured so that defensible space measures are retained over time.50
• Siting projects to maximize the role of low-flammability landscape features that may buffer the development from fire spread.
• Undergrounding power lines.
• Limiting development along steep slopes and amidst rugged terrain, so as to decrease exposure to rapid fire spread and increase accessibility for fire-fighting. • Placement of development close to existing or planned ingress/egress and designated evacuation routes to efficiently evacuate the project population and the existing community population, consistent with evacuation plans, while simultaneously allowing emergency access.
• Placement of projects close to adequate emergency services. • Construction of additional points of ingress and egress and modification of evacuation routes to minimize or avoid increasing evacuation times or emergency access response times.
• Fire hardening structures and homes—upgrading the building materials and installation techniques to increase the structure’s resistance to heat, flames, and embers—beyond what is required in applicable building codes, both for new structures and existing structures in proximity to the new development.
• Requiring fire-hardened communication to the project site including high-speed internet service.
• Enhanced communication to the project population about emergency evacuation plans and evacuation zones.
• Parking limitations to ensure access roads are not clogged with parked vehicles. • On-site water supply/storage to augment ordinary supplies that may be lost during a wildfire.

In all situations, mitigation measures should be combined and tailored to the specifics of the project, the surrounding landscape, and nearby existing uses. In some contexts, the mitigation measure itself may have an adverse impact that should be evaluated in an EIR. In addition, 49 Note, however, that defensible space around homes does not alone tend to account for structural survival. See Alexandra D. Syphard, Why Are so Many Structures Burning in California? (2020) FREMONTIA, 47(2), at p. 32, available at https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70215982; Alexandra D.

Syphard et al., The Role of Defensible Space for Residential Structure Protection During Wildfires (Oct. 14, 2014) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF WILDLAND FIRE, available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/WF13158. 50 See Max Moritz, et al., Building to Coexist with Fire: Community Risk Reduction Measures for New Development in California (Apr. 2020), at p. 12, University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources, Publication 8680, available at https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6n12m6pn. 421
14 mitigation measures may not provide the same level of protection or mitigation in all scenarios.51 For example, home hardening has been shown to be an extremely effective measure for preventing structure loss during a wildfire. The California Building Code was updated in 2008 to require more advanced fire hardening and homes built to the revised standards were shown to be 40 percent less likely to be destroyed by a wildfire than similarly situated homes built prior to the update.52 However, home hardening by itself may not be an adequate mitigation measure in all situations. During the Camp Fire, which swept through Paradise in 2018, homes built before and after the 2008 Building Code update were destroyed at roughly equal rates.53 Home hardening in conformance with the 2008 Building Code alone did not meaningfully effect survivability; rather, proximity to other destroyed structures, the extent of vegetative overstory, and defensive space around homes was more relevant to whether or not a home survived.54 While home hardening may be a worthy measure, this highlights the importance of combining measures, with an awareness to overall landscape conditions, to maximize public safety and minimize wildfire-related losses. It also demonstrates that defensive measures can improve but do not guarantee survivability, which highlights the continued importance of planning for evacuation and emergency access.

VII. Conclusion
As climate change and housing pressure continue to impact the State’s landscape, wildfire risks, and development needs, local agencies need to thoroughly evaluate where and how new development is planned and constructed. With careful forethought during the various planning processes and thoughtful environmental review at the individual project development stage, new development can be designed and positioned to minimize future wildfire risks, enhance fire resiliency of our communities, and protect the health and safety of California’s residents and natural resources. While the applicable rules, requirements, and analytical tools to reduce wildfire risk are evolving, this guidance is intended to provide suggestions for how best to comply with CEQA when analyzing and mitigating the wildfire risks of development projects in the wildland-urban interface and other fire prone areas. 51 See Alexandra D. Syphard, et. al., Multiple-Scale Relationships between Vegetation, the WildlandUrban Interface, and Structure Loss to Wildfire in California (Mar. 12, 2021), at p. 13, MDPI FIRE 2021 [noting that “the most effective fire risk reduction approach will account for multiple factors at multiple scales and will incorporate simultaneous strategies”].
52 Patrick W Baylis, et al., Mandated vs. Voluntary Adaptation to Natural Disasters: the Case of U.S.

Wildfires (Dec. 2021), National Bureau of Economic Research, available at https://www.nber.org/ papers/w29621.
53 Eric E. Knapp, et al., Housing Arrangement and Vegetation Factors Associated with Single-Family Home Survival in the 2018 Camp Fire, California (2021) FIRE ECOLOGY 17:25, available at https://fireecology. springeropen.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s42408-021-00117-0.pdf [37 percent of homes built between 1997 and 2008 survived, while 44 percent of homes built between 2008 and 2018 survived]. 54 Eric E. Knapp, et al., Housing Arrangement and Vegetation Factors Associated with Single-Family Home Survival in the 2018 Camp Fire, California (2021) FIRE ECOLOGY 17:25, available at https://fireecology. springeropen.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s42408-021-00117-0.pdf. 422

EXHIBIT H
423
424
Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA
As Recommended by CAL FIRE
_:~:-,~----.... ,
,, ... ......... 1-1,,_,,, '
-..:::....___.;;::;-v; .. ,
\. ....
------
-
,,,, ..
--
--
/
..
..
..

SAN DIEGO COUNTY
Flr• HaurdkvffltyZone,
. ......
--~
- •-
.. Cily~
= ·---·-
~-=:.··, ~"=====-= ~:~==·-------~-~
' ----,
T1-mapwasdevelope<IUla,gdatt;produets.ui:nNparcelandcilyboundariffpr0¥idedbyloealgovemment~. lncertaincases,ll'Alndude1oop)'lighledgeograpNci'lformalion. Themai-arelordilpaypurposesonly•queslion&and ,equestsrelaledlDparcelorcilybolMldarydataahouldbedirectedtolheappropriatelocalgovmnmententity. ·+· ' .. .

Projection Albers, NAO 1983
Scale 1: 16,000
at36" x42"
Octobef, 2011
/
..
..
1 Tatich, Tamara
From:

Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2023 10:36 AM
To: Atamian, Adam; Hall, Andy
Cc: Lightfoot, Jonathan; Blackwell, Michael; Crandell, Barton; Kuczynski, Chris; Planning Mail; Ruehlin, Jim; Smith Mike; Wu, Zhen; CityCouncil Mail; Cabral, Victor; Duncan, Chris; Knoblock, Steve; Loeffler, Rick; Sharp Sheryl
Subject: Cell Tower Workshop OCT 8 2023
Attachments: American Tower Bonk.pdf; American Tower Bonk.pdf; PRC 4291a copy 3.pdf; Farmers Ins.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Cell Tower Workshop OCT 8 2023
City Council, Planning Commission, Andy Hall,,
Please review the following (attached) to incorporate into city policy for approving cellular facilities:
•Two unanswered RSCC Master Association Certified Letters to American Tower requesting maintenance of the 100 foot fire zone around the tower in accordance with PRC 4291a.Written permission was included in each letter that allows American Tower to enter upon Master Association Property to maintain the fire zone. • PRC 4291a StateFire Zone mandate that requires 100 foot fire zones around structures located in fire prone areas. RSCCA's Master Association maintains 100 foot fire zones around the dwellings in RSCCA in accordance with GOV 51182.If we comply, American Tower should comply as well. • News Article11.7.2023 Farmer’s Insurance joins other major carriers and drops renewal of homeowners policies in California.

Respectfully,
Vonne Barnes
RSCCA Board President
425
August 21, 2020
American Tower Management, Inc.
19100 Von Karman
Suite 450
Irvine, CA 92612
American Tower Management, Inc.
116 Huntington Ave
Boston, MA 02116
VIA U.S. MAIL

AND CERTIFIED MAIL

RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Re: Rancho San Clemente Community Association
Subject: Required Maintenance of Parcel Number 690-552-05 Dear American Tower Management, Inc.

This firm is legal counsel for the Rancho San Clemente Community Association (“Association”). In that capacity, we have been directed to inform you that as the homeowner, it is your responsibility to maintain the defensible Fire Zone associated with your dwelling.

We understand that you are the record owner of Parcel Number: 690-552-05 located in the City of San Clemente, County of Orange, State of California (“Subject Property”). The Subject Property is immediately adjacent to brush covered open space parcels owned by the Association.

The Association has been advised by the Orange County Fire Authority (“OCFA”) that certain landscape work is required to be conducted in order to comply with landscaping and fuel modification requirements mandated by the State. As the owner of the Subject Property, such work is your responsibility.

In that regard, California Government Code (“GC”) section 51182 relates to the maintenance of defensible zones for fuel modification purposes and specifies, in pertinent part, as follows:
(a) A person who owns, leases, controls, operates, or maintains an occupied dwelling or occupied structure in, upon, or
adjoining a mountainous area, forest-covered land, brush-covered land, grass-covered land, or land that is covered with flammable material, which area or land is within a very high fire hazard severity 426 23422 Mill Creek Drive. Suite 140 I Laguna Hills, CA 92653 I Office: 949.600.8422 I Fax: 949.606.0496 I www.lgerWankel.corr American Tower Management, Inc.

August 21, 2020

Page 2 ends

zone designated by the local agency pursuant to Section 51179 , shall at all times do all of the following:
(1) Maintain defensible space of 100 feet from each side and from the front and rear of the structure, but not beyond the property line except as provided in paragraph (2). The amount of fuel modification necessary shall take into account the flammability of the structure as affected by building material, building standards, location, and type of vegetation. Fuels shall be maintained in a condition so that a wildfire burning under average weather conditions would be unlikely to ignite the structure. This paragraph does not apply to single specimens of trees or other vegetation that are wellpruned and maintained so as to effectively manage fuels and not form a means of rapidly transmitting fire from other nearby vegetation to a structure or from a structure to other nearby vegetation. The intensity of fuels management may vary within the 100-foot perimeter of the structure, the most intense being within the first 30 feet around the structure. Consistent with fuels management objectives, steps should be taken to minimize erosion.
(2) A greater distance than that required under paragraph (1) may be required by state law, local ordinance, rule, or regulation. Clearance beyond the property line may only be required if the state law, local ordinance, rule, or regulation includes findings that the clearing is necessary to significantly reduce the risk of transmission of flame or heat sufficient to ignite the structure, and there is no other feasible mitigation measure possible to reduce the risk of ignition or spread of wildfire to the structure. Clearance on adjacent property shall only be conducted following written consent by the adjacent landowner.

Please note that section 4291 of the California Public Resources Code (“PRC”) contains similar language as the GC section referenced above and provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
(a) A person who owns, leases, controls, operates, or maintains a building or structure in, upon, or adjoining a mountainous area, forest-covered lands, brush-covered lands, grass-covered lands, or land that is covered with flammable material, shall at all times do all of the following:
427
American Tower Management, Inc.

August 21, 2020

Page 3 ends

(1) Maintain defensible space of 100 feet from each side and from the front and rear of the structure, but not beyond the property line except as provided in paragraph (2). . .
(2) A greater distance than that required under paragraph (1) may be required by state law, local ordinance, rule, or regulation. Clearance beyond the property line may only be required if the state law, local ordinance, rule, or regulation includes findings that the clearing is necessary to significantly reduce the risk of transmission of flame or heat sufficient to ignite the structure, and there is no other feasible mitigation measure possible to reduce the risk of ignition or spread of wildfire to the structure. Clearance on adjacent property shall only be conducted following written consent by the adjacent landowner.

Based upon the above, it is suggested that you immediately contact OCFA Fire Prevention Specialist Juan Huerta at (714) 573-6116 to discuss what work, if any, may be necessary to comply with applicable City, County and State landscaping and fuel modification requirements. You may also wish to contact your own community association to determine what assistance, if any, it may provide with respect to any required fuel modification work affecting your property.

By this letter, the Association hereby grants you and/or your community association permission to access Association property to conduct any such work pursuant to PRC section 4291(a)(2) and GC section 51182(a)(2).

Your prompt assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

IGER WANKEL & BONKOWSKI, LLP
_______________________________
Christopher J. Bonkowski, Esq.

CJB:js
428
429
Law section Page I of 2
U~ · l ~ IVE INFORMATIO
I
Home I Bill Information I California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites Code: I Select Code v I Section: .._I ___ __, l Search (D ~ « Previous ~ cross-reference chaptered bills mE I ..,_Ad,..d._T..,o';:M:::::y::f::a:::::yo=r=it~es~.....:=-_,.----, Search Phrase:! .. _______ ._H...:ig:...h...:lig:...h_,t j

PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE - PRC
DIVISION 4. FORESTS, FORESTRY AND RANGE AND FORAGE LANDS (4001 -4958) ( Division 4 repealed and added by Stats. 1965, Ch. 1144. )
PART 2. PROTECTION OF FOREST, RANGE AND FORAGE LANDS (4101 -4789.7) ( Part 2 added by Stats. 1965. Ch. 1144. )
CHAPTER 3. Mountainous, Forest-, Brosh- and Grass-Covered Lands (4291 - 4299]1 ( Chapter 3 added by Stats. 1965, Ch. 1144. )
4291. {a) A person who owns, leases, controls, operates, or maintains a building or structure in, upon, or adjoining a mountainous area, forest-covered lands, brush-covered lands, grass-covered lands, or land that is covered with, flammable material, shall at all times do all of the following:
(l) Maintain defensible space of 100 feet from each side and from the front and rear of the structure, but not beyond the property line except as provided in paragraph (2). The amount of fuel modification necessary shall take Into account the flammability of the structure as affected by building material, building standards, location, and type of vegetation. Fuels shall be maintained in a condition so that a wildfire burning under average weather conditions would be unlikely to ignite the structure. This paragraph does not apply to single specimens of trees or other vegetation that are well-pruned and maintained so as to effectively manage fuels and not form a means of rapidly transmitting fire from other nearby vegetation to a structure or from a structure to other nearby vegetation. The intensity of fuels management may vary within the 100-foot perimeter of the structure, the most intense being within the first 30 feet around the structure. Consistent with fuels management objectives, steps should be taken to minimize erosion. For the purposes of this paragraph., "fuel" means any combustible material, including petroleumbased products and wildland fuels. (2) A greater distance than that required under paragraph (1) may be required by state law, local ordinance, rule, or regulation. Clearance beyond the property line may only be required if the state law, local ordinance, rule, or regufatlon includes findings that the clearing Is necessary to significantly reduce the risk of transmission of flame or heat sufficient to ignite the structure, and there is no other feasible mitigation measure possib1e to reduce the risk of Ignition or spread of wildfire to the structure. Clearance on adjacent property shall only be conducted following written consent by the adjacent landowner.
(3) An insurance company that insures an occupied dwelling or occupied structure may require a greater distance than that required under paragraph (1) if a fire expert, designated by the director, provides findings that the clearing is necessary to significantly reduce the risk of transmission of flame or heat sufficient to ignite the structure, and there is no other feasible mitigation measure possible to reduce the risk of ignition or spread of wildfire to the structure. The greater distance may not be beyond the property line unless allowed by state law, local ordinance, rule, or regulation.
(4) Remove that portion of a tree that extends within 10 feet of the outlet of a chimney or stovepipe. (5) Maintain a tree, shrub, or other plant adjacent to or overhanging a building free of dead or dying wood . (6) Maintain the roof of a structure free of leaves, ne~dles, or other vegetative materials . (7) Prior to constructing a new building or structure or rebuilding a building or structure damaged by a fire in an area subject to this section, the construction or rebuilding of which requires a building permit, the owner shall obtain a certification from the local building official that the dwelling or structure, as proposed to be built, complies with all applicable state and local building standards, including those described in subdivision (b) of Section 51189 of the Government Code, and shall provide a copy of the certification, upon request, to the insurer providing course of construction insurance coverage for the building or structure. Upon completion of the construction or rebuilding, the http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes _ displaySection.xhtml ?lawCode=PRC&section... 9/16/2019 430
Law section Page 2 of2
owner shall obtain from the local building official, a copy of the final Inspection report that demonstrates that the dwelling or structure was constructed In compliance with all applicable state and local building standards, Including those described In subdivision (b) of Section 51189 of the Government Code, and shall provide a copy of the report, upon request, to the property Insurance carrier that insures the dwelling or structure. (b) A person Is not required under this section to manage fuels on land If that person does not have the legal right to manage fuels, nor Is a person required to enter upon or to alter property that is owned by any other person without the consent of the owner of the property.
(c) (1) Except as provided In Section 18930 of the Health and Safety Code, the director may adopt regulations exempting a structure with an exterior constructed entirely of nonflammable materials, or, conditioned upon the contents and composition of the structure, the director may vary the requirements respecting the removing or clearing away of flammable vegetation or other combustible growth with respect to the area surrounding those structures.
(2) An exemption or variance under paragraph (1) shall not apply unless and until the occupant of the structure, or If there is not an occupant, the owner of the structure, files with the department, In a form as the director shall prescribe, a written consent to the Inspection of the interior and contents of the structure to ascertain whether this section and the regulations adopted under this section are complied with at all times. (d) The director may authorize the removal of vegetation that Is not consistent with the standards of this section.

The director may prescribe a procedure for the removal of that vegetation and make the expense a lien upon the building, structure, or grounds, In the same manner that is applicable to a legislative body under Section 51186 of the Government Code.
(e) The department shall develop, periodically update, and post on its Internet Web site a guidance document on fuels management pursuant to this chapter. Guidance shall Include, but not be limited to, regionally appropriate vegetation management suggestions that preserve and restore native species that are fire resistant or drought tolerant, or both, minimize erosion, minimize water consumption, and permit trees near homes for shade, aesthetics, and habitat; and suggestions to minimize or eliminate the risk of flammability of nonvegetatlve sources of combustion such as woodpiles, propane tanks, decks, and outdoor lawn furniture. • (f) As used In this section, "person" means a private Individual, organization, partnership, limited liability company, or corporation.
(Amended by Stats. 2018, Ch. 641, Sec. 7. (AB 2911) Effective January 1, 2019.) httn•//lP.oinfn lP.oislRt11rP. .cR .onv/faces/codes rlisnlavSection.xhtml?lawCode=PRC&section ... 9/16/2019 #
Ā
Ā
Ā
!"(ĀȀ&$'$()$Ā ")#%Ā
Ā
##!'!$"$%Ā

Ā

9>LĀ:GHLA>JĀBGKMJ:G<>ĀIJHNB=>JĀBKĀIMEEBG@ĀHMLĀH?Ā+:EB?HJGB:ĀBGĀ :ĀFHN>Ā:??><LBG@ĀL>GKĀH?ĀLAHMK:G= H?Ā<MKLHF>JKĀ
.:JF>JKĀ,BJ><LĀ3JHI>JLQĀ:G=Ā+:KM:ELQĀ0GKMJ:G<>Ā+H!ĀKLHII>=ĀBKKM BG@ĀG>OĀIHEBKĀ:KĀH?Ā5>IL!Ā#& BGĀLA>ĀKL:L>ȀĀ,BJ><LHJĀH?Ā-PL>JG:EĀ+HFFMGB<:LBHGĀ2MBKĀ5:A:@MGĀK :B=ĀBGĀ:GĀ>F:BEȀĀ<BLBG@ĀR:GĀ HG@HBG@ĀBGBLB:LBN>ĀLHĀBG<J>:K>ĀHI>J:LBHG:EĀ>??BG<QĀ:G=ĀFBLB@ :L>ĀJBKDĀ>PIHKMJ>!SĀ 6A>Ā<HFI:GQĀA:KĀKL:JL>=ĀK>G=BG@ĀGHG J>G>O:EĀGHLB<>KĀLHĀBLKĀ+:EB ?HJGB:Ā<MKLHF>JKȀĀOBLAĀIHEBK K>LĀLHĀ;>@BGĀ>PIBJBG@Ā,><!Ā#'ȀĀ.:JF>JKĀ,BJ><LĀK:B=ĀBGĀ:ĀKL:L>Ā? BEBG@!Ā 6A>ĀIJHNB=>JĀBGKMJ>KĀFHJ>ĀLA:GĀ#""Ȁ"""ĀIHEBKȀĀBG<EM=BG@ĀG>:J EQĀ&(Ȁ"""Ā?HJĀ=JBN>JKĀ:G=Ā:EFHKLĀ $"Ȁ"""Ā?HJĀAHF>HOG>JKȀĀ:<<HJ=BG@ĀLHĀLA>Ā?BEBG@!Ā
R.HJĀLA>ĀN:KLĀF:CHJBLQĀH?Ā:??><L>=Ā<MKLHF>JKȀĀO>ĀOBEEĀIJHNB=>Ā: GĀH??>JĀLHĀLJ:GKBLBHGĀLA>FĀLHĀ:Ā =B??>J>GLĀ.:JF>JK J>E:L>=ĀBGKMJ>JȀSĀ5:A:@MGĀK:B=ȀĀGHLBG@Ā<MKLHF >JKĀ<HN>J>=Ā;QĀ.:JF>JKĀ>GLBLB>KĀ KM<AĀ:KĀ*JBKLHEĀ8>KLȀĀ$#KLĀ+>GLMJQĀ:G=Ā.HJ>FHKLĀOBEEĀGHLĀ;>Ā:?? ><L>=!Ā .:JF>JKĀ,BJ><LTKĀFHN>ĀLHĀ>PBLĀLA>ĀKL:L>Ā ?HEEHOKĀKBFBE:JĀ:<LBHGK Ā;QĀ;B@ĀG:F>KĀ KM<AĀ:KĀ)EEKL:L>Ā:G=Ā 5L:L>Ā.:JFȀĀ:KĀO>EEĀ:KĀKF:EE>JĀIJHNB=>JK ĀEBD>Ā)F/7)4,Ā0GKMJ:G<>ȀĀ.:EEKĀ2:D>Ā0GKMJ:G<>Ā:G=Ā N:JBHMKĀ1>FI>JĀ+HJI!ĀKM;KB=B:JB>KȀĀFMELBIE>ĀHMLE>LKĀA:N>ĀJ>IHJL >=ȀĀGHLBG@ĀLA>ĀBFI:<LĀH?ĀOBE=?B HGĀAHF>HOG>JKĀ:G=ĀBGKMJ>JKĀ:EBD>!Ā
6A>ĀKL:L>Ā=H>KĀH??>JĀBLKĀ.)04Ā3E:GȀĀ:ĀE:KL J>KHJLĀHILBHGĀLA:LĀI JHNB=>KĀ;:KB<Ā?BJ>Ā<HN>J:@>Ā?HJĀAB@ JBKDĀIJHI>JLB>K!Ā)KĀH?ĀKIJBG@Ā$"$%ȀĀFHJ>ĀLA:GĀ#""ĀAHF>ĀBGKMJ>JK ĀJ>F:BG>=ĀBGĀ+:EB?HJGB:!Ā Ā
/>LĀFHJ>ĀEH<:EĀG>OKĀ=>EBN>J>=ĀKLJ:B@ALĀLHĀQHMJĀBG;HP!Ā 5B@GĀMIĀ?HJĀ?J>>Ā3:L<AĀG>OKE>LL>JKĀ:G=Ā :E>JLK! Ā
Ā
Ā
431
From: Vonne Barnes
To: Lightfoot, Jonathan
Cc: Atamian, Adam; Hall, Andy; Planning Mail; Knoblock Steve; Loeffler, Rick; Enmeier, Mark; Levesquet Bert; O"Toole Lyndie; Morrow Kortney Subject: Tower• 1962 Conditional Use Permit• Incomplete Document Date: Thursday, November 09, 2023 4:13:10 PM
Attachments: 1962 CUP.pdf
1962 County CUP text.pdf
Wireless Update . Shot Clocks.pdf
PR-1239-2023 .png
1962 Conditional Use Permit• Incomplete Document (attached) Jonathan Lightfoot,
Will you please run this by the Planning Commission and City Attorney as a means of tolling the Shot Clock? ATC appears to be unable to adhere to the Use Permit as stated in the Voluntary Agreement because the 1962 Use Permit is missing Attachment A, the Plot Plan; and the city was unable to produce the Plot Plan re Public Request. 432
----------
• Chase, Jason <ChaseJ@san-cle... E:l Pub rec Req November 1, 2023 at 12:00 PM Public Records Act request PR-1239-2023
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Siri Found a Contact
Chase Jason
[email protected]
RE: Public Records Act request PR-1239-2023- No Responsive Records Dear Ms. Barnes,
Add X
This letter provides an update on City staff members' efforts to locate responsive documents for your records request dated October 19, 2023, in which you requested the following:
"Please send the entirety of the County 1962 CUP 1021 that includes Attachment "A", Plot Plan."
City of San Clemente staff have been unable to locate records responsive to your request.

You may want to contact the Orange County Clerk Recorders Office for any records. For your convenience, I have included a link below that may be of assistance:

ProP-ertv. Documents I OC Clerk Recorder Department (ocrecorder.com) Please contact this office if you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter.

Jason Chase I Records Management Coordinator
City of San Clemente
910 Calle Negocio I San Clemente, CA 92673
II' (949) 361-83451 ~ (949) 361-8309 mailto:[email protected] The 1962 Use Permit states:
"All in accordance with the attached plot plan which is hereby made a part hereof. In any area of conflict between the language of this Application and the plot plan, the plot plan shall prevail. See attached Sheet." As the Plot Plan is the prevailing document of the 1962 Use Permit, and missing, it is not possible to ascertain that the language is consistent with the Plot Plan.

How to toll the Shot Clock:

The "Wireless Update Shot Clocks, League of CA Cities, B, How Wireless Shot Clocks Function and Ways to Stop Them, Special Requirements for Denials” states:

Under federal law, the denial of a wireless application must be “in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record” 24.

In a 2015 case before the U.S. Supreme Court, the majority held the federal requirement that the locality’s denial decision supported by substantial evidence necessarily implied that local authorities had to state reasons for denial clearly enough to allow judicial review, and although the denial and reasoning need not be in the same document, they must be essentially ” contemporaneous.’ 25 . In that instance, the city had provied its reasons for denil in an acceptable form ( detailed minutes of a city council meting) but those minutes were provided 26 days of the written denial. The majority found the reasons were therefore not provided essentially contemporaneously with the denial, in violation of federal law, and remanded the case to thelower court for further proceedings. Other cases have probed the various forms that the “writing’ can take 26 and whether there is any delivery requirement in the federal statute (pages attached).

The substantial evidence is that the prevailing section of the 1962 Use Permit, the Plot Plan, Attachment A is missing. Therefore the timely notice on incompleteness ( NOI), although issued past the 10 day limit, may be agreed upon by the applicant (Dish) and the City.

Respectfully,
Vonne Barnes
RSCCA Board President
433
1 Atamian, Adam
From: Vonne Barnes
Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2023 11:53 AM
To: Hall, Andy; Lightfoot, Jonathan; Planning Mail; CityCouncil Mail Cc: Sharp Sheryl
Subject: American Tower• 1962 CUP Permitted Access• Non-compliance American Tower• 1962 CUP Permitted Access• NonͲcompliance The 1962 CUP provision on slide one Permits Access from the reservoir along the Ridgeline Trail.

It does not permit access from Del Dios or along RSCCA’s private property trail.

Slide 9 is a city map that identifies Del Dios as a "Private Trail" The Voluntary Agreement provision on slide onesigned by Emily Murray, attorney for ATC, states that ATC agrees to adhere to the 1962 CUP, but ATC has not done so.
For weeks ATC’s contractors have been accessing the tower via Del Diosand RSCCA’s Private Trail ATC contractors have not used the Ridgeline Trail from the Reservoir as permitted inthe 1962 CUP.

ATC has engage police services to escort ATC contractors up the unpermitted access to the tower.

ATC did not respond to RSCCA’s certified letter requesting that they provide documentation of any easements across RSCCA property, and ATC did not reply.There appear to be no easements across RSCCA’s proporty.

Andy,
Would you be so kind as to provide this to Emily Murray Esq. and to the Dish representative (Norman ?) so that Dish may be informed that their landlord is not adhering to the 1962 CUP?Black eye for Dish.

Would you also contact the police to advise them they need to escort ATC contractors along the permitted access in accordance with 1962 CUP?
1—Map showing permitted accessvia Ridgeline from the Reservoir @ 721 Salvador.

The Ridgeline Trail is to the east (right side)t the RSCCA’sprivateͲowned trail, whichATC contractors are using.The text from the 1962 CUP and ATC Agreement to adhere to the CUPis included below the map.
434
2 2—Photo1962 CUPPermitted entryaccess on Salvador by reservoir.ATC contractors are not using the permitted access.
435
"Access to the site will be via an existing private road running northeasterlry approximately 2 miles from the City of San Clemente Reservoir site" (1962 Conditional Permit P.2}. ''ATG Agrees tht once the height of the tower is reduced, ATC wil comply with the i 962 CUP" (Agreement P. 7, Signed by all parties including Emiliy Murray ATC Counsel, June 29, 2023, P: 1.2}. 3 3—CloseͲup of permitted access gate
436
4 437
5 4— Text 1962 CUP p..1• Underlined Description of Permitted Access 438
6 439
San Clemente B;
11 CP 1021
.................. 5
PERMIT
......... Nov. 27, 1962
..... ,,. Dec .. 12, 1962
•• • M• , .ll)1pd
.W: 2'6-8-7 (None)
Barnes B:

I
Application for a CONDITIONAL PERMIT
I J.

C:
....................... evia an exitng provate road running northeasterly approximately 2 miles :
of San Clemente Reservoir site.approzimately
County of Orange ............. .

American Telephone & Telegraph Company c/o Dr & r 1475 6th Avenue, San Diego 1, Room 401 235-6129
W.H. Watts 1475 6th Avenue, Room 401, San Diego 1 235-6129 TO PERMIT the establishment of a microwave relay station in connection with a public telephone service in the Al General Agricultural District.

Said station will consist of an approximate 28 ft. by 56 ft. building and a 70 ft. antenna tower all located substantially as indicated on the attached plot plan.

Access to the site will be via an existing private road running northeaste:
approximately 2 miles from the City of San Clemente Reservoir site.

The structure will be enclosed by a 6 ft. chain link fence with locked gate.

There will be no employees on the premises except for periodic maintenance.

Height Variance for Antenna: From 35 ft. to a maximum of70 ft.

All in accordance with the attached plot plan which is hereby made a part hereof. In conflict between the language of this Application and the plot plan, the plot plan sha See attached Sheet.

LEGAL .... ........ . See attached sheet
7 5— textPage 2 of19162 CUP
440
8 441
Letter of Consent.

CP 1021
The Orange County Planning Commission at a regular meeting held December 12,1962, authorized the issuance of Conditional Permit No C-1021 upon the following conditions:

I. THE SITE SHALL BE FENCED AS INDICATED ON EXHIBIT "A" OF THIS

APPLCATION

2. THE ENTIRE FENCE-IN AREA SHALL BE COVERED WITH CRUSHED RO

3. THE ACCESS ROAD LEADING THE SITE SHALL BE OIL SURF ACED OR TREATED SO AS TO ELIMINATE DUST.

The Superintendent of Building and Safety of Orange County hereby issues such permit pursuant to the provisions of Title 7, Division B, Article 2 of the Codified Ordinance of the County of Orange.

C.WDONOHUE
Superintendent of Building and Safet
(signature)
ALBERT B. NELSON
Land Use Administrator
9 6— Paragraph 4 Page 2,f Underlined •f ATC’s Voluntary Agreement to comply with the 1962 CUP provisions 442
10 443

5. Accordingly, because no records of any County or City approvals authorizing the expansion of the tower from 70 ft. to its current height have been located, A TC voluntarily agrees to reduce the height of the existing tower to the 70 ft. maximum identified in the 1962 CCP.

6. To the best of the City's information and knowledge, the only known violation of the 1962 CUP or applicable law with respect to the Wireless Communications Facility is the tower's height.

7. The City and ATC desire to resolve this matter.

AGREEMENT
In consideration of and in return for the promises, covenants, and agreements made herein by the Parties, the sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:

1. The above recitals are incorporated into the terms of this Agreement.

2. The height of the existing tower component of the Wireless Communications Facility will be reduced to a maximum of 70 ft. , when the height is measured from the existing adjacent grade to the highest appurtenance affixed to the tower.

3. All work required to reduce the height of the tower to a maximum of 70 ft. shall be performed and completed by ATC, at its sole cost and expense, within 12 months from the date that a building permit is issued by the City in accordance with Section 5, below. ATC shall submit a complete application for a building permit within two (2) months of the Effective Date.

4. A TC agrees that once the height of the tower is reduced, A TC will comply with the 1962 CUP and maintain the Wireless Communications Facility in compliance with all applicable --~□ laws, including, but not limited to, the San Clemente Municipal Code and the California Building Code. This includes, but is not limited to, obtaining any necessary permits and other approvals for construction, modifications and/or uses prior to any such changes, to ensure continued compliance -2-
~533i!i029£U.3' W3 538.2
11 7— Page 12 , Voluntary Agreement to adhere to 1962 CUPsigned by ATC’s attorney, Emily Murray, June 29, 2023. 444
12 445

19. Signatures. By signing below, the Parties acknowledge that they have read, understood, and agree to all of the terms of this Agreement.

Dated: June 29, 2023 By:

Dated: June JL_, 2023 By :

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Dated: July~' 2023 By:

Dated: June _S_, 2023 By:
-7-

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE

AMERICAN TOWER MANAGEMENT,
LL4 --
Margaret R binson
Vice President, Legal Operations UST
American Tower Management, LLC
Elizabeth A. Mitchell
City Attorney for the City of San
Clemente
Emily L. Murr~y
Counsel to Anleriea
LLC
12 13
8— Map of Accessway to Ridgeline Recreational/ Utility Access Road 446
14 447
Accessways to Ri ~ - ~
15 9— City Map designates the entry access fromm Del Dios as a Private Trail 448
16 449
17 Respectfully,
Vonne Barnes
RSCCA Board President
450
1 Atamian, Adam
From: Vonne Barnes
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2023 11:52 AM
To: Sharp Sheryl
Subject: AT&T Tower • City Council Meeting Nov 8• Please Attend or email Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Interested Parties,
AT&T Tower• City Council & Planning Commission• Nov 8 @ 6:30p.m. Council Chambers Please ask the Council and Planning Commission to deny a Permit to allow ATC to install antennas on the tower @ 616 Del Dios.
451
2 Please ask the Council and Planning Commission to approve installation of antennas for Dish Cellular at an alternate site such as the cityͲowned property along the Ridgeline @ APN 690Ͳ502Ͳ16.

Please attend and/or email comments to the City Council and Planning Commission: City Council:CityCouncil@sanͲclemente.org
Planning Commission:Planning@sanͲclemente.org
AT&T Tower— Severe Fire Hazard & Safety Liability Risk! In 1962, the County of Orange granted AT&T a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to build a radio frequency (RF) transmission tower in an Agricultural District along the Ridgeline Trail above Harbor View Estates in Rancho San Clemente.Approval of the CUP required adherence to the following provisions: •The tower could not exceed a maximum height of 70 Ft; •A 6 Ft. high, locked, chainͲlink fence had to be secured around the tower structure; • Crushed rock had to be maintained on the ground surface inside the fenced area; • The surface of the access road had to be treated with protective materials to eliminate dust.

AT&T constructed a gigantic 138 Ft. high tower and ignored maintenance obligations regarding conditions of approval.

Ownership was transferred, maintenance ceased and the tower was abandoned.

In fact, for 61 years, the tower site, adjacent to Cal Fire’s Very Severe High Fire Zone, has been an increasingly dangerous Attractive Nuisance which includes:
failing to maintain 100ͲFt. defensible fire zones around the tower (PRC 4291a); camping; partying (smoking grass, drug use, and/or alcohol on the tower); riding dirt bikes and eBikes through the site; dumping trash, vandalism, and engaging in other high risk, unsafe, unlawful activities.
The tower is owned and managed by American Tower Corporation (ATC), a Fortune 500 conglomerate that leases space on tower structures for installation of cellular antennas on thousands of towers across the nation and other countries.ATC recently submitted application(s) to the city to install three 5 G antennas on the tower for Dish Cellular.

A review of the 1962 County CUP Permit indicated that the tower was twice the approved height.OnͲsite photos showed openings cut out of the rusty chain link fence as well as graffiti smeared all over the building inside.There was also a robust overgrowth of dry brush, trash, and dirt bikeways circling the tower. The roadways did not appear to ever have been maintained, and crushed rock was missing from the ground inside the fence.The height and all of the Conditions of Approval appeared to be in nonͲcompliance.

Seeking Permit approval, ATC entered into a Voluntary Compliance Agreement with the City to reduce the tower height to 70 Ft. and comply with the Conditions of Approval.

With no notice to homeowners or to Harbor View Estates HOA, residents were startled when a noisy caravan of big rig trailers, backhoes, cherry pickers, and dumpsters suddenly appeared to park in front of their homes for weeks on the privateͲowned street.The heavy commercial vehicles made sharp turns driving uphill over private property to the 452
3 tower site, grinding and eroding dirt trails; and, as the work site was not fenced in, dirt and eBikes zoomed freely thoughout the construction zone.

ATC reduced the height to 75 Ft. (not 70 ‘Ft.), and painted over the graffiti, but not much else. Notice(s) from the Rancho San Clemente Master Association to comply with PRC 4291a have been ignored; and the dry brush in the 100 Ft. fire zone remains overgrown, much in excess of 20 Ft. height. The lack of maintenance of the fire zone continues to threaten the lives and property of nearby residents, many of whom have been denied renewal of Homeowners Insurance.

Vandalism has returnedͲstarting by hoisting pumpkins into the fenced area. Empty beer cans litter the grounds.

Partygoers will most likely make new openings through the skimpy fence, climb the builtͲin ladders to tower platforms, and resume unsafe activities such as smoking grass, drug use, and/or alcohol consumption. Chapter 17.28.240 MC include “Design and Development Standards” that regulate Small Cell Facilities re Ordinance 1690 as mandated in Resolution 20Ͳ07 which states that
Small Cell Facilities are prohibited within Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (Section 2.h); and also prohibited within 500 feet of residences (Section 2.f).

Google Earth images show that the100 Ft. Fire Zone has not been maintained; and that the average distance from the tower to 16 homes in Harbor View Estates is only 377 Ft.

These mandates along with decades of nonͲcompliance with all of the above, should be enough to deny approval of a Permit for ATC.Allowing ATC to profit at this site to increase risks of fire and safety, property values, and quality of life of our residents, is not a fair or equitable tradeͲoff for the residents of San Clemente.
Respectfully,
Respectfully,
Vonne Barnes
RSCCA Board President
453
1 Atamian, Adam
From: Vonne Barnes
Sent: Thursday, November 9, 2023 12:52 PM
To: Lightfoot, Jonathan
Cc: Hall, Andy; Blackwell, Michael; Crandell, Barton; Kuczynski, Chris; Planning Mail Subject: Photos• American Tower• Fire Zone Clearance• Police• 11.9.2023 Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Photos• American Tower• Fire Zone Clearance• Police• 11.9.2023 ~ 10 am. 1— American Tower entry —Contractors clearing brush up to 20 feet in height.Contractors would not allow entry or identify themselves.Told me to leave.No safety chain or signage across entry during work. 2— Further into entry.Bulldozer, trailer truck w/trimmings. 454
2 3— Looking south from entry. Worker on south slope clearing brush. 455
3 4— Next series of photos taken from Crown Castle site • abuts American Tower property on north side.

Gate open to fence around tower building.Trailer and tools inside. 456
4 5—Truck loaded with trimmings.Small chipper machine on back of trailer section distal to shrub heap.. 457
5 6—Crew inside fenced area by tools and long bed trailer 458
6 7— 4 man crew.Close up of truck, & chipper machine. 459
7 8— Close up clearing of brush in fire zone on south slope 460
8 9ͲJonathan LIghtfoot meets with homeowners
461
9 Police answered call from Lyndie OͲtoole . Contractor's truck going up access by Lyndie revved engine and Lyndie lost balance and fell into VͲDitch oneast (left) side of access.

Police did not file a report.Barnes said the contractors trespassed on RSCCA Property driving up to the tower.Police said with outRSCCA property owership papers, they could not file a report. 462
10 463
ocsb. oRG

ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
0 P.O. Box 449, Santa Ana, 92702
D 11 Journey, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
0 111 00 Cedar St., Stanton, CA 90680
~ 910 Colle Negocio, San Clemente, CA 92673
□ 20994 Yorba Linda Blvd., Yorba Lindo, CA 92887
D 20202 Windrow Drive, Lake Forest, CA 92630
Should additional information develop concerning your case, please send this information, in writing, to the address indicated above.

If this case involves property loss, there is additional information that con assist us in recovering your possessions. Please submit a detailed description to include the following infomotion: item, quantity, serial and model numbers, color, special identifying marks or chorocteristics, and the value. Please include your name, address and case number.

DON BARNES, SHERIFF.CORONER
Case# 2 3 l/o9 - 0,)-11
? #106 9 ~
s ·. /:w~ __J
BY---=---------------
* ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

VICTIM ASSISTANCE INFORMATION
For quick access to the Orange County Sheriff's Deportment victim assistance information on our website, please scan the QR code to the right with your phone camera and the link will take you to the location on the OCSD website
where these forms con be found. These materials are
designed to assist you with resources as well as inform you of your rights.

Use your phone camera
to scan for link
11 Respectfully,
Vonne Barnes
RSCCA Board President
464
ORANGE COUNrTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
Q -riG-.n.

UISMSUililtstAUmQliZAliGH -
_____ C#'P __ ._·_• ___________ 11111 ~ l, 2'023
-·- L, 'M
1 Atamian, Adam
From: Vonne Barnes
Sent: Thursday, November 9, 2023 4:03 PM
To: Lightfoot, Jonathan
Cc: Atamian, Adam; Hall, Andy; Planning Mail; Knoblock Steve; Loeffler, Rick; Enmeier, Mark; Levesquet Bert; O'Toole Lyndie; Morrow Kortney
Subject: Tower• 1962 Conditional Use Permit• Incomplete Document Attachments: 1962 CUP.pdf; 1962 County CUP text.pdf; Wireless Update . Shot Clocks.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
465
Chas,e., Jason <Chas,eJ1@san ... cle,... IE:I P b rec Req ave b1 Pubhc Records Act r,eques,t PR-123'9-·2023
To: vo n ebarnes1@g ma· .com c::vonn e ba rnes1@g ma itco rn> Siiri F o,und a 1C,ontact
C ase Jaso
chase·@sa -c eme • e.org
IR:E: Public R•ecords Act 1re,quest PR ... 1239 ... 2023 - No Respons'iive Recon Dear Mis. Barnes,
This letter provides an updaite, on City sta1ff m,embers' ,efforts • do,cuments for your records, request dat,ed October 19,, 2023,, in whi fo·l llowing:
''Ple,as·e .send ·the e.n:tirety ,of th·e ,County 1962 CUP 1021 that incliJ Plot .Plan' .. 11
City ,o,f San Cle.mente, staff have been una1ble to locate rec,ords respo, You may want to co:ntact the, Orange Coun1ty Clerk Re,corders O1ffice your ,convenience, I have included a link below that m,ay be of assista r 2 1962 Conditional Use Permit• Incomplete Document (attached) Jonathan Lightfoot,
Will you please run this by the Planning Commission and City Attorney as a means of tolling the Shot Clock? ATC appears to beunable to adhere to the Use Permit as stated in the Voluntary Agreement because the 1962 Use Permit is missing Attachment A, the Plot Plan; and the city was unable to produce the Plot Plan re Public Request.

The 1962 Use Permit states:
"All in accordance with the attached plot plan which is hereby made a part hereof. In any area of conflict between the language of this Application and the plot plan, the plot plan shall prevail.See attached Sheet."
As the Plot Plan is the prevailing document of the 1962 Use Permit, and missing, it is not possible to ascertain that the language is consistent with the Plot Plan.
How to toll the Shot Clock:

The "Wireless Update Shot Clocks, League of CA Cities, B,How Wireless Shot Clocks Function and Ways to Stop Them,
Special Requirements for Denials”states:
Under federal law, the denial of a wireless application must be “in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record” 24.In a 2015 case before the U.S. Supreme Court, the majority held the federal requirement that the locality’s denial decisionsupported by substantial evidence necessarily implied that local authorities had to state reasons for denial clearly enough to allow judicial review, and although the denial and reasoning need not be in the same document, they must be essentially ” contemporaneous.’ 25 .In that instance, the city had provied its reasons for denil in an acceptable form ( detailed minutes of a city council meting) but those minutes were provided 26 days of the written denial.The majority found the reasons were therefore not provided essentially contemporaneously with the denial, in violation of federal law, and remanded the case to thelower court for further proceedings.Other cases have probed the various forms that the “writing’ can take26and whether there is any delivery requirement in the federal statute (pages attached).

LEAGUE OF

CALIFORNIA
CITIES
Wireless Update: Shot Clocks,
Deemed Granted Remedies and
Fee Challenges

DISCLAIMER
Thursday, September 8, 2022
Gail Karish, Partner, Best Best & Krieger
Lutfi Kharuf, Partner, Best Best & Krieger
Christopher Diaz, City Attorney, Colma and Hillsborough Partner, Best Best & Krieger
This publication is provided for general information only and is not offered or intended as legal advice.

Readers should seek the advice of an attorney when confronted with legal issues and attorneys should perform an independent evaluation of the issues raised in these materials. The League of California Cities does not review these materials for content and has no view one way or another on the analysis contained in the materials.

This paper, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced in any form without express written permission from the League of California Cities. For further information, contact the League of California Cities at 1400 K Street, 4th Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814. Telephone: (916) 658-8200.

League of CalHornla Cities City Attorneys Programing, Annual Conference and Expo Long Beach Convention Center
469
systems how and when applications can be submitted and when they will be considered received.

One control that can't be implemented lawfully is to stop taking in applications altogether. FCC rules ban moratoria on communications infrastructure deployments meaning cities can't pause acceptance and processing of telecom and wireless applications. 21
All Permits and Authorizations and Administrative Appeals FCC rules provide that all permits and authorizations must be issued within the shot clock period. 22 Of course, applicants rarely apply for all permits and authorizations at the same time, so it is advisable to be clear in application forms about which permits and authorizations are being sought and to waive rights to obtain permits not applied for within the same timeframe.

Further, "final action" is required, meaning completion of all administrative appeals.23
For these reasons, it is advisable to review your existing codes, processes and application forms to ensure they are nimble enough to allow a final decision to be made on an application within the applicable shot clock period(s). Though it is possible to get an applicant to agree to toll the shot clock, cities should not count on cooperation.

Special Requirements for Denials
Under federal law, the denial of a wireless application must be "in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record."24 In a 2015 case before the U.S. Supreme Court, the majority held the federal requirement that the locality's denial decision be supported by substantial evidence necessarily implied that local authorities had to state reasons for denial clearly enough to allow judicial review, and although the denial and reasoning need not be in the same document, they must be essentially "contemporaneous."25 In that instance, the city had provided its reasons for denial in an acceptable form (detailed minutes of a city council meeting) but those minutes were provided 26 days after the date of the written denial. The majority found the reasons were therefore not provided essentially contemporaneously with the denial, in violation of federal law, and remanded the case to the lower court for further 21 See Moratoria Order, supra. See also 47 C.F.R. Section 1.6100(c)(3). 22 See Small Cell Order, para. 132-137; 47 CFR Section l.6002(f) definition of "Authorization". 23 Global Tower Assets, LLC v. Town of Rome, 810 F.3d 77 (1st Cir. 2016) 24 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7(B)(iii).
25 T-Mobile South, LLC v. City of Roswell, 135 S.Ct. 808 (2015). 470
proceedings. Other cases have probed the various forms that the "writing" can take, 26 and whether there is any delivery requirement in the federal statute.27 C. Deemed Granted and Other Remedies
The Section 332 shot clocks were established as "rebuttable presumptions" of the reasonable period of time within which to act. That meant they served as a guide as to when an applicant might go to court with a claim for expedited relief under 47 USC 332(c)(7)(B)(v) on the basis that it was adversely affected by a "failure to act." The presumed remedy for inaction is action. A locality faced with a lawsuit could act (mooting the claim), or defend itself against it by attempting to rebut the presumption that it should have acted within the established shot clock period. Of course, what the applicants really want in this instance is an approval, but the FCC declined industry requests to provide a "deemed granted" remedy or adopt a presumption that the court should issue an injunction granting the application. As the FCC reasoned in its 2009 Ruling:
[M]any courts have issued injunctions granting applications upon finding a violation of Section 332(c)(7)(B). However, the case law does not establish that an injunction granting the application is always or presumptively appropriate when a "failure to act" occurs ... . While we agree that injunctions granting applications may be appropriate in many cases, the proposals in personal wireless service facility siting applications and the surrounding circumstances can vary greatly. It is therefore important for courts to consider the specific facts of individual applications and adopt remedies based on those facts. 28 The situation was different for the EFR shot clock. Here, the FCC determined in 2014 that it did have the authority to establish a deemed granted remedy. For EFRs, under federal rules, if the local government fails to take action on the application within the shot clock period, the request is deemed granted effective at the time the applicant notifies the local government in writing that the shot clock has expired and the application has been deemed granted. 29
26 Capital Telecom Holdings II, LLC v. Grove City, Ohio, 403 F. Supp. 3d 643, 652 (S.D. Ohio 2019) (holding that there is "no TCA directive specifying what form the municipality's written decision must take."); GTE Mobilenet of California Limited Partnership v. City of Watsonville, No. 16-cv-03987 NC, 2016 WL 9211684, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2016) (holding that video recording by itself was not enough to satisfy the in writing requirement of the TCA); GTE Mobil net of CA LP v. Carmel-By-The-Sea, No. 5:22-cv-00347 (N.D. Cal. 2022) appeal pending (holding video plus draft resolution ok; signed resolution ok).
27 Roswell 574 U.S. at 306 ("(T]he (TCA] does not use any verb whatsoever to describe the conveying of information from a locality to an applicant; it just says that a denial 'shall be writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record."'); GTE Mobil net of CA LP v. Carmel-By-The-Sea, No. 5:22-cv-00347 (N.D.

Cal. 2022) appeal pending
28 2009 Order at para. 39 (citations omitted).
29 47 C.F.R. Section l.6100(c)(4).

ATTACHMENT 9
December 5, 2023 City Council Meeting Public Comments
471
472

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE
Tuesday, December 5, 2023
City Council
Special and Regular Meeting Minutes
4:30 p.m. - Closed Session
6:00 p.m. - Business Meeting
910 Calle Negocio
2nd Floor
San Clemente, California
www .san-clemente.org
Council Chambers
Mayor Duncan
Mayor Pro T em Knoblock
Councilmember Cabral
Councilmember Enmeier
Councilmember Loeffler
These minutes reflect the order in which items appeared on the meeting agenda and do not necessarily reflect the order in which items were actually considered.

A Special and Regular Meeting of the San Clemente City Council was called to order by Mayor Duncan on December 5, 2023 at 4:33 p.m. in the San Clemente City Council Chambers, located at 910 Calle Negocio, 2nd Floor, San Clemente.

PRESENT: Cabral, Enmeier, Knoblock, Loeffler and Mayor Duncan STAFF PRESENT: Andy Hall, City Manager; Elizabeth Mitchell, City Attorney; Laura Campagnolo, City Clerk; Megan Jimenez, Deputy City Clerk

CLOSED SESSION
Closed Session Item 8(1)
Amanda Q commented on the merit of the demand by the Law Office of Michelle R. Jackson concerning the California Voting Rights Act.

Closed Session Item 8(2)
B Malamud commented on the Joint Powers Insurance Authority (JPIA) denial of coverage for former Councilmember James' legal fees and the related legal representation by the City; spoke in support of the denial.

Closed Session Item C(2)
Leslie Eisner, Camino Real Playhouse, spoke in support of Camino Real Playhouse utilizing the Community Center; opined on the potential benefits to San Clemente with having a community theater.

Amanda Q spoke in support of the Camino Real Playhouse performing at the Community Center.

Motion by Councilmember Loeffler, second by Mayor Pro Tern Knoblock, CARRIED 5-0, to recess to Closed Session at 4:41 p.m. to discuss the following:

Page 1 of 31 ends

DRAFT
!"# $ % $#&'$! #' #!

8 A
6?/
8$60
1
8 A60(/
$/
+
($806)/8(+(!6

8/>
)78! ($()A
1!?$ (/! /=
$(808
(
86/ (/!
(/!8/> )6$?
86/ /6 , *C(/! (/A 6
1) )6$?
86/ 8/

6/0$8

1)=8
1

++"

#+$
%%

!

/

/,

&

3

3
2/
4
&
3

& 4

3
3 & &
57
3

& )
)@
5
2
&

3 & A
-
)&

4
&
&

>)>

&E
&

2/
&>(
--

!
( ;' &

% &
(
;)

E

&'

%
(

:+

#

&
%

1
!;(

#

%&

'
'
(&

%&

%
'&&

#
"

'+

+

#

%&

1
&'

+

+

&%

%&
'
!;& #+

+

#

%&

1
(5

#

%&

-B
; -*C '&

+

"

())8!* +

)

/
, .*-
()6$?
86/60
1

8 A
6?/
8$60
1
8 A60(/
$/
+
($806)/8(+8/8
8(
8/>
(
?$8
1()8/>
6
6/8!) (
1(/> 6) )76
(
86/
6

6/!8
86/($
)8
.,.9.-,:+ =18
1
)8

! ( 8
)6=(7
)$(A
(
86/8/
6//

86/=8
1(
?$8

$
16/)78

(
.!$ !86+ (6)L
()
$ /?) - **, *+
1
76$?/
()A
6
$8(/
(>)/

=/ ()8
(/
6=)

6)
6)(
86/(/!
1
8 AK
?
!6/+6)(6?
+ 4?$A +,,+
(/! =8)$
)/8/> 06) = , ,.+ (/!

8/>
1

,C
%.
473
DRAFT
!"# $ % $#&'$! #' #!

?$8
1()8/>06)4(/?()A.+,,

++"

#+$
%%

!

/

, &

2

3

&@2/

&

&

$

/

#

%

%&

4.+,,

;

%

&

%&

$
%%
+

())8!* +
&

L

&
6

8%

6%% %

+
%%

# @ <

%
%&

++"

#+$
%%

!

/

,

5 &

/
&
&

'& &&

&

'

&

(;

+

@4
+,,

@ 4 +,,*+'& &'
;

'

!?/
(/!

'
#4

()($!

'
#4

/8)!

'
#4

"/6$6
"(4

$600$)!

'
#4

! +

"

#+
())8! * +

4
&!

'
#
%

@4 +,,
4

@4+,,*

++"

#+$
%%

!

,B
%.
474
475
Allen Matkins
Via Electronic Mail
December 5, 2023
Mayor Duncan
Mayor Pro Tern Knoblock
Councilmernber Cabral
Councilrnernber Enrneier
Councilrnernber Loeffler
City of San Clemente
910 Calle Negocio
San Clemente, CA 92673
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800 I Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543 Telephone: 213.622.5555 [ Facsimile: 213.620.8816
www .allenmatkins.com
Emily L. Murray
E-mail: [email protected]
Direct Dial: 213.955.5584 File Number: 374393.00053/4859-2631-8741.2 Re: City Council Consideration of Changes to or Revocation of Conditional Use Permit, Voluntary Compliance Agreement, and/or Wireless Screening Form
Dear Mayor Duncan and Councilrnernbers:

Allen Matkins is counsel to American Tower Management LLC ("American Tower") in relation to American Tower's continuing operation of its existing wireless communication facility (Site No. 89366) (the "Wireless Communications Facility"), located at Rancho San Clemente Trail, Rancho San Clemente, California 92672 (APN: 690-552-05) (the "Property") in the City of San Clemente, CA 92672 (the "City"). This letter addresses the proposed City Council hearing to consider changing or revoking American Tower's Conditional Use Permit ("CUP"), Voluntary Compliance Agreement, and/or Wireless Screening Form 23-231. As set forth in greater detail below, all cited grounds for revocation are invalid, unsubstantiated, and/or conflict with applicable law.

I. Revocation of the CUP would breach the Voluntary Compliance Agreement between the City and American Tower.

In resolution of an alleged violation of the CUP, American Tower and the City negotiated and entered into a Voluntary Compliance Agreement, dated July 6, 2023 (the "Voluntary Compliance Agreement"). As set forth in the Voluntary Compliance Agreement, because no records of any County or City approvals authorizing the expansion of the Wireless Communications Facility from 70 feet to its then-current height of 156 feet had been located, American Tower voluntarily agreed to reduce the height of the existing Wireless Communications Facility to the 70 Los Angeles I Orange County I San Diego I Centul)' City I San Francisco I New York 476
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Mayor Duncan
December 5, 2023

Page 2 ends

foot maximum identified in the 1962 CUP. Voluntary Compliance Agreement, Agreement, Recital 5; § 3.

The City affirmatively represented in the Voluntary Compliance Agreement that "[t]o the best of the City's information and knowledge, the only known violation of the 1962 CUP or applicable law with respect to the Wireless Communications Facility is the tower's height." Voluntary Compliance Agreement, Agreement, Recital 6. The City further agreed as follows:

The City agrees that, following the reduction in the height of the tower, the Wireless Communications Facility will be in
compliance with the 1962 CUP, and specifically that (i) the 1962 CUP is vested; (ii) the 1962 CUP does not contain an expiration date; and (iii) the 1962 CUP permits the current use of the Wireless Communications Facility for wireless telecommunication purposes; and (iv) the 1962 CUP permits a 70' tower. As a result, the City shall not require a discretionary approval, including but not limited to a new CUP or renewal of the 1962 CUP, in connection with the reduction in height and ongoing operation of the Wireless Communications Facility consistent with the 1962 CUP. Voluntary Compliance Agreement, § 6, emphasis added.

The language in the Voluntary Compliance Agreement is clear: after reducing the Wireless Communications Facility's height, the site complies with its CUP. By the City's own admission, the height of the Wireless Communications Facility was American Tower's only violation of the CUP.

Notwithstanding its contractual representations and commitments to the contrary, the City now proposes to consider changing or revoking the CUP and the Voluntary Compliance Agreement based solely upon unsubstantiated public testimony alleging abandonment of the facility, violations of the CUP, and nuisance. See Agenda Report for Item lOB, December 5, 2023 City Council Meeting ("Staff Report"). Notably, the City does not claim to have independently verified- or even attempted to verify- any ofthe allegations made during public testimony. To the contrary, as set forth herein American Tower has provided the City with substantial evidence refuting each of these claims. Id. Yet the City still proposes to continue to pursue revocation of the CUP and Voluntary Compliance Agreement based solely upon claims that the City has neither researched nor confirmed.

The City's actions constitute a breach of the Voluntary Compliance Agreement. That breach has caused and is causing substantial harm to American Tower. American Tower fundamentally changed its position in detrimental reliance on the City's sworn statements in the contract.

American Tower incurred significant costs in reliance on the contract, including the cost to reduce the height of the facility in accordance with the Voluntary Compliance Agreement. And American 477
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Mayor Duncan
December 5, 2023

Page 3 ends

Tower is currently incurring costs responding to the unsubstantiated claims made by the public and the City's actions in response thereto. The City's current actions are so egregious as to suggest that the City may have acted in bad faith in contract negotiations. If the City continues to pursue revocation of the CUP, American Tower intends to pursue litigation, seeking monetary damages, including, among other compensatory damages, payment in full of American Tower's attorneys' fees.

II. American Tower never abandoned use of the Wireless Communications Facility.

The Staff Report refers to San Clemente Municipal Code ("SCMC") section 17.12.150 as potentially applicable to the CUP in this case. However, this section is inapplicable on its face and the evidence provided by American Tower refutes the community's baseless claims of abandonment of the Wireless Communications Facility. SCMC section 17.12.150 provides that "[a]n application approved in accordance with this title shall be deemed to have expired, when either of the following occur: (1) When the activity permitted by the approved application is not commenced, ... (2) When the activity permitted by the approved application has lapsed, as defined in Subsection (C) of this section, Lapse of a Permitted Activity." SCMC § 17.12.150(A). Subsection C in tum provides: "An activity permitted by an approved application shall be deemed to have lapsed at the following times: .. . For an activity that has become operational or opened for business, one year after the date the activity ceases operation and/or the business closes at such location ... ".

SCMC § 17.12.150(C).

Here, this section is inapplicable on its face because the CUP was not approved in accordance with SCMC Title 17, Zoning as required by section 17.12.150(A); the CUP was not approved or issued by the City at all. To the contrary, the CUP was approved and issued by Orange County in 1962, and section 17.12.150 is wholly inapplicable. Moreover, as American Tower has demonstrated through provision of a tenant summary and supporting documentation going back 60 years, the facility has been in continuous operation and the "activity" has never ceased, nor has the "business closed."
Members of the community claim - without any factual support whatsoever - that the Wireless Communications Facility has been inactive for many years. In considering this issue, the City, by its own admission, solely relies on these assertions from public testimony. That public testimony is demonstrably false, based entirely upon speculation, and is lacking a single evidentiary foundation for any of its assertions. Anyone can stand up in a public meeting and fabricate unsubstantiated claims, and that is obviously the case here. By way of example, the Wireless Communications Facility was constructed in the 1960s, while the neighborhood homes were not built until 1994-1996. The community apparently claims that the Wireless Communications Facility was inactive before their homes were even built, demonstrating the baselessness of these allegations.
478
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Mayor Duncan
December 5, 2023
Page4
Meanwhile, American Tower has provided a history of tenant leasing, including documented proof going back to the 1960s. Not only that, but American Tower has,also documented activity above and beyond the active leases. Specifically, the documentation provides shows that American Tower has at all times pursued permits and potential tenants, negotiated leases, and maintained the site. Accordingly, the Wireless Communications Facility has been in continuous operation since 1962 and the "activity" has never ceased, nor has the "business closed." Similarly, the City cannot take the position that the legal non-conforming status of the Wireless Communications Facility has been lost. San Clemente's Code creates a rebuttable presumption that discontinued legal non-conforming uses have been abandoned. SCMC §

17.72.060(B)(l). Specifically, it states that "Nonconforming Uses discontinued for more than oneyear (365 consecutive calendar days) shall be rebuttably presumed to have been abandoned.

Abandoned uses shall be converted to uses that meet zoning requirements." Id. The property owner has the burden to prove how many consecutive days a use has been discontinued and/or prove a use has not been abandoned. SCMC § 17.72.060(B)(3).

In 1996, the California Supreme Court clarified that although "[t]he term 'discontinued' irt a zoning regulation dealing with a nonconforming use is sometimes deemed to be synonymous with 'abandoned,"' that is not the law. Hansen Brothers Enterprises, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors, 12 Cal. 4th 533, 569 (1996). "Cessation of use alone does not constitute abandonment. 'Abandonment of a nonconforming use ordinarily depends upon a concurrence of two factors: (1) An intention to abandon; and (2) an overt act, or failure to act, which carries the implication the owner does not claim or retain any interest in the right to the nonconforming use."' Id. To reiterate: "mere cessation of use does not of itself amount to abandonment." Id.

Hansen Brothers is clear indication from the California Supreme Court that abandonment requires both (1) an intent to abandon and (2) an overt act or failure to act. This means that even if American Tower had ceased its use of the Wireless Communications Facility altogether, which we know it did not from its documented activity and tenant leasing history, it still would need an intent to abandon use of the Wireless Communications Facility. American Tower never had, and indeed community members have no evidence that it ever did have, an intention to abandon the Wireless Communications Facility. Therefore, under both the San Clemente Zoning Code and state law, American Tower never abandoned its use of the site.

III. American Tower has actively cured all potential ongoing violations of the CUP.

The City cites public testimony that indicates American Tower's access to the site through the Harborview Estates neighborhood was without "the legal right to access the site in that manner." When this issue has brought to American Tower's attention, American Tower had a survey of the property prepared. The surveyor plotted the metes and bounds legal description of the access easement from the vesting deed. As shown on the survey, the easement follows the approximate 479
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Mayor Duncan
December 5, 2023
Page5
path of a utility access road before intersecting with Avenida Salvador. American Tower personnel confirmed that this access course to the site is open and accessible by vehicle, and American Tower has secured a lock for its use on the gated access to the utility access road at A venida Salvador.

American Tower has and will instruct all of its contractors and customers to access the site exclusively via A venida Salvador and the utility access road going forward, and not to access the site via Del Dios. Therefore, any non-compliance with the access provisions of the vesting deed or CUP has been cured and is wholly past.

In addition, American Tower has taken aggressive steps to secure the site. This includes repairing the fence, painting over graffiti, and remedying vandalism. American Tower cannot control the actions of community members who continue to trespass, damage and destroy property on the site, but American Tower works diligently to ensure that violations caused by third parties are cured in a timely manner.

The site is also in compliance with the fire code. On Monday, November 27, the Orange County Fire Department surveyed the site and confirmed in writing that they were "satisfied with the work completed." Specifically, the "complete removal of vegetation" went above and beyond the codified brush clearing requirements. Therefore, no fire code violations exist.

IV. Community members are trespassing, inflicting crimes against property, and interfering with activities on the site.

Community members frequently trespass on the site and commit crimes against property.

Among other illegal acts, they have (1) damaged the barbed-wire fence to climb over it so they could trespass, vandalize, and destroy personal property; (2) flattened and inserted ball bearings into the tires of two of American Tower's vendor's trucks when they were conducting brush clearance; (3) stood in front of trucks and refused to move to interfere with and delay contractors; (4) dumped trash at the site; and (5) brought an electrician to the site to assess ifthere was electricity without permission. American Tower alerted the City of these illegal acts, but the City has done nothing to prevent or stop these activities. Thus, the responsibility for the alleged violations of the CUP, such as the damaged fence, are directly attributable to both vandals in the community and the City's failure to prevent and punish these illegal acts.

V. American Tower is not operating the site in a manner that constitutes a public nuisance.

A nuisance is anything which is injurious to health or interferes with the comfortable enjoyment oflife or property. Cal. Civ. Code§ 3479. A public nuisance is one which affects at the same time an entire community or neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons. Id.§ 3480.

In other words, a public nuisance is an "obstruction of public right[s]." Id. § 3490. 480
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Mayor Duncan
December 5, 2023
Page6
Importantly, for an action or inaction to constitute a nuisance, the interference must be "unreasonable." San Diego Gas & Elec. Co. v. Superior Ct., 13 Cal. 4th 893, 938 (1996). When determining this, courts weigh (1) whether the harm to the public outweighs the social utility to it and (2) whether a reasonable person, looking at the whole situation impartially and objectively, is likely to consider the interference unreasonable. Id.; Fash ion 21 v. Coal. for Humane Immigrant Rts. of Los Angeles, 117 Cal. App. 4th 1138, 1154 (2004). The "primary test," however, is the first social utility prong. Wilson v. S. California Edison Co., 21 Cal. App. 5th 786, 802-03 (2018).

A "mere possibility or fear of future injury from a structure, instrumentality, or business" is not sufficient for nuisance. Beck Dev. Co. v. S. Pac. Transportation Co., 44 Cal. App. 4th 1160, 1213 (1996). To succeed on a nuisance claim, the proponent would have to "at a minimum, establish facts to prove that the apprehension of injury is well founded." Id. (quoting Payne v.

McKinley, 54 Cal. 532, 533 (1880)). In other words, the proponent must provide evidence to establish the "magnitude and likelihood of danger and it cannot be enough to merely suggest a danger and assert that it has not been ruled out." Id. at 1214.

In the present case, a court would agree that the Wireless Communications Facility does not constitute a public nuisance. First, there is no "public right" in law or history to reside apart from tall structures. On top of that, the use of the Wireless Communications Facility is reasonable.

Applying the social utility test, the social benefit of the Wireless Communications Facility outweighs potential harm to the public. In an ever-increasing digital age, internet and wireless service is more important than ever as a part of daily life. The harm that the community alleges is a fear of future injury to children who may trespass and physically hurt themselves. Such harm is speculative and would be disregarded by the courts. Finally, with regards to the second prong, any impartial, reasonable person would look at an unmoving, solid building and conclude that there is no active interference that the structure is causing. Legally then, the Wireless Communications Facility does not constitute a public nuisance in California.

Additionally, there are tall towers, including wireless communication facilities, water towers and cell towers, in cities across the state. The mere existence of the structure of the Wireless Communications Facility does not itself invite dangerous conduct in the absence of intervening illegal acts and trespass. It is unfathomable to think that every tall building in the state should have its permits reexamined because community members can trespass and perform illegal acts that put themselves and others in harm's way. Again, the Wireless Communications Facility does not constitute a public nuisance.

VI. American Tower is not operating the site in a manner that constitutes an attractive nuisance.

California abolished the attractive nuisance doctrine almost fifty years ago. Smith v.

Americania Motor Lodge, 39 Cal. App. 3d 1, 7 (Ct. App. 1974) ("The decision of Rowland 481
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Mayor Duncan
December 5, 2023
Page?
[citation], in effect, abolishes the attractive nuisance doctrine in California."); see also Rowland v.

Christian, 69 Cal. 2d 108 (1968); Beard v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 4 Cal. App. 3d 129 (Ct. App. 1970). However, even when attractive nuisance was applicable in the state, the California Supreme Court refused to find that a child climbing a ladder to the top of a building and falling constituted an attractive nuisance. Doyle v. Pac. Elec. Ry. Co. , 6 Cal. 2d 550, 552 (1936).

This is because "there is nothing uncommon about a ladder ... and the danger of falling from them is familiar to children as well as to adults." Id. at 553.

Modem doctrine replaced attractive nuisance with premises liability. See Americania Motor Lodge, 39 Cal. App. 3d at 7. This imposes a duty on private landowners to keep their property safe from hazards. Hoffmann v. Young, 13 Cal. 5th 1257, 1266-67 (2022). There 'are varying degrees of care required, however, and the duty owed to trespassers is the lowest. Id. Specifically, t.he only duty owed to trespassers it to refrain from causing "wanton or willful injury." McDaniel v. Sunset Manor Co., 220 Cal. App. 3d 1, 7 (Ct. App. 1990).

This concept is codified in the recreational use immunity statute. Cal. Civ. Code§ 846. This statute provides that an owner of real property owes no duty of care to keep the premises safe for entry or use by others for recreational purposes unless the landowner "willfully or maliciously" fails to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, or the landowner invites the user onto the premises.

Id. This provision of the law was applied to trespassing children, including cases where children injured themselves climbing electrical towers. Manuel v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 173 Cal. App. 4th 927, 937-38 (2009) (finding that landowner only had a duty to not act willfully and maliciously when a fourteen-year-old girl was electrocuted climbing an electrical transmission tower); Bacon v.

S. Cal. Edison Co., 53 Cal. App. 4th 854,859 (1997) (finding the landowner had the lowest standard of duty owed under the statute when a thirteen-year-old boy shocked himself and fell climbing an electrical transmission tower). In the latter case, the court found that placing barbed wire and a warning sign at the tower was sufficient to meet the landowner's standard of care.

Bacon, 53 Cal. App. 4th at 17-18.

Community members claim that the Wireless Communications Facility operates as an attractive nuisance causing two threats ofham1: (1) children may climb the Wireless Communications Facility and injure themselves or fall off, and (2) children may throw items off the Wireless Communications Facility and hit passing pedestrians. However, neither concern constitutes a nuisance attributable to American Tower.

First, modern statutes and case law are clear that courts apply the lowest standard of care to property owners when children trespass and climb electrical towers. Courts agree that children as young as thirteen-years-old can fully understand the dangers of climbing tall electrical towers. Such acknowledgment from the courts suggests that any potential injuries to children from the existence of buildings is the fault of the parents and children, rather than the existence of the structure.

Additionally, community members can point to no evidence that American Tower "willfully or 482
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Mayor Duncan
December 5, 2023

Page 8 ends

maliciously" failed to guard or warn of the dangers of climbing the Wireless Communications Facility. On the contrary, American Tower has and maintains a fence around the Wireless Communications Facility that prevents access of the site absent criminal acts and trespassing. Thus, the Wireless Communications Facility and its structure cannot be blamed for children climbing it and potentially falling off. This is not grounds for revocation of a CUP.

Additionally, it is not clear how the acts constituting nuisance can be attributable to American Tower. If the conditions presenting the attractive nuisance are a result of frequent and flagrant crime, is it not the responsibility of the City to stop those criminal acts? American Tower has exceeded its duty of care to trespassing children, which again is to refrain from acting willfully or maliciously, by repairing the holes in the fence and otherwise securing the site. Similarly, the second claim, that children will throw items off the Wireless Communications Facility and injure passing pedestrians, surely cannot be attributable to American Tower. A significant and uncontrollable intervening force, namely the children who are trespassing, climbing the Wireless Communications Facility, and throwing items off the Wireless Communications Facility, cuts off any attribution of the potential nuisance to American Tower. Thus, neither of the two attractive nuisance concerns from the community are applicable to American Tower.

VII. The Harbor View Homeowners Association's letter lacks legitimate legal foundation.

On November 8, 2023, the Harbor View Homeowners Association submitted a comment letter in support ofrevocation of American Tower's CUP and building permits. None of the allegations included in that letter are true or founded in valid law. Specifically, the analysis demonstrates a flagrant misunderstanding of the Telecom Act and numerous misunderstandings and misapplications of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and other State laws.

American Tower unequivocally denies any and all allegations in the letter.

VIII. Conclusion
As described above, American Tower is not in violation of its CUP and has consistently rectified all potential violations. All allegations from public testimony claiming that it is in violation are unsubstantiated or legally false. We respectfully request that the City decline initiating a change or revocation hearing.
483
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Mayor Duncan
December 5, 2023

Page 9 ends

Your careful attention to this matter is greatly appreciated. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions or if I can provide any additional information.

Very truly yours,
ELM
cc: Atamian, Adam <[email protected]>
Hall, Andy <[email protected]>
Lightfoot, Jonathan <[email protected]>
Mitchell, Elizabeth A. <[email protected]>
Belair, Bonnie <[email protected]>
484
P: (626) 314-3821
F: (626) 389-5414
E: info@mitcht ailaw.com

VIA E-MAIL
December 5, 2023
Jonathan Lightfoot, City Planner
City of an Clemente
910 Calle N egocio uite 100
San Clemente C 92673
P: (949) 361-8254
R: lightfootj@ an-demente.org
E: [email protected]
E: [email protected]
E: [email protected]
E: knoblocks@san-cl mcnte.org
E: loefflerr@san-cl mente.org
Mitchell M. Tsai
Law Firm
I b f3
139 outh Hudson venue
uite 200
Pasadena California 911 01
RE: Harbor View Estates Homeowners Association's Comments Regarding the December 5, 2023, City Council Hearing to Review the City of San Clemente's 616 Del Dios Wireless Communications Facility (Agenda Item No. 10B).

Mayor Duncan fayor Pro Tern Knoblock, and Councilmembers:

On behalf of the Harbor View states Homeowners . ss ciati.on ("Harbor View HOA"), this office is submitting these commen s ahead of the December 5, 2023, ity Council hearing for the City of San Clemente's ("City") 616 Del Dios Wireless Communication acility Project ("Project") and con ideration of the initiation and scheduling of a public hearing to con ider the alteration or revocation of Conditional Use Permit (CUP o. 1021), Voluntary Compliance greement and Wireless Screening Form S o. 23-231) related to the property located at 616 Del Dios ( P 690-552-05) ("Site").

Th Proj ct, proposed and pursued by global real estate investment trusts (REITs) and independent operator and developer of multi.tenant communications real estate merican Tower Corporation ("Applicant" or "ATC' ), invol e two building 485
City of San Clemente..:. 616 Del Dios Wireless Communications Facility December 5, 2023,

Page 2 of 43 ends

permits-one to decrease the height of the existing tower from 137 feet to 70 feet (permit B23-1495) and another to collocate wireless infrastructure on the tower. 1 (See October 17, 2023, Agenda Report, p. 1 (Exhibit A).) The permit to decrease the height of the existing tower was issued on August 30, 2023, 2 while the permit to collocate new infrastructure is currently under review as permit B23-2265. 3 (Ibid.) The proposed collocation infrastructure on the existing tower includes three panel antennas, three sector mounts, six remote radio units (RRUs), three back-to-back mounts, one overvoltage protector (OVP), and one hybrid cable. (Id., p. 2.) Permit B23-2265 necessitates a "Wireless Communications Facilities" (WCF) application screening form (Application WMS23-231) which was submitted by Tower Engineers Professionals on behalf of Dish Wireless, LLC ("Dish"), and approved by the Planning Division on or about September 5, 2023, for a Dish collocation of three new Dish panel antennas to be affixed to the existing tower. (Ibid.) Pursuant to Section 6409(a) of the Middle-Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (47 U.S.C. § 1455) ("Spectrum Act") for facilities outside of the public right-ofway, the WCF application must be submitted prior to a building permit application to evaluate the proposed collocation. As a part of this process, Applicant also submitted a Radio Frequency (RF) Compliance Analysis that addressed the occupational and public exposure levels of radio frequency signals and ensures that such signals operate within established regulatory standards. According to this analysis, the RF and power levels are not anticipated to exceed the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) established maximum Permissible Exposure Levels (MPE) for the General Public or Occupational environments. (Ibid.)
According to the October 17, 2023, City Council and Planning Commission Joint Study Session Agenda Report and Project plans, the City and/ or Applicant contend that the Project qualifies as an eligible facility for streamlined, ministerial review pursuant to Section 6409 of the Spectrum Act. (See 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100; 47 U.S.C. § 1455.) This contention rests on several criteria-namely, that the facility is an existing wireless facility and that the proposed modification: (1) does not propose a 1 The building permit that originally authorized the installation of the wireless equipment (permit B16-2650) was finalized on August 28, 2017.
2 Note that this permit has not been finalized as work to complete the Project remains underway. (October 17, 2023, Agenda Report, p. 2.) •
3 Given that the first building permit has already been issued, this comment letter's references to "Project" apply primarily to the portion of the Project under review. 486
City of San Clemente - 616 Del Dios Wireless Communications Facility December 5, 2023

Page 3 of 43 ends

height increase of more than 10 percent or 20 feet of the existing height; (2) does not propose more than four new equipment cabinets; (3) complies with prior conditions of approval; and, ( 4) does not defeat concealment elements of the existing facility.

Yet, what the City and Applicant miss is the undisputed fact that there is no existing wireless facility. The Project is located at 616 Del Dios in Rancho San Clemente, known also as Site No. 89366 ("Site"). The Site was previously granted a limited CUP in 1962 by Orange County ("County") and to the American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T) for an establishment of a "microwave relqy station in connection with public telephone service in the Al General Agricultural District." (Exhibit B [1962 CUP].) However, as shown in the agreement signed by the City and Applicant, neither the City, nor AT&T to whom the 1962 CUP was granted, nor Applicant, has any documentation showing that the previously approved microwave relay station for use by AT&T has indeed been continuously used since 1962 and is an existing wireless facility. Per the Voluntary Compliance Agreement signed between the City and Applicant in June 2023, there is no documentation referring or relating to the use of the tower, including its height increase from the approved height of 70 feet under the 1962 CUP to the increased height of the tower which currently stands at roughly 156 feet. (Exhibit C [June 2023 Voluntary Compliance Agreement].) However, the statements in the Voluntary Compliance Agreement as to the existing continuous wireless facility are belied by the inquiry of Applicant to Orange County in 2023 to inquire about the structure for years:

I'm a project design engineer working with DISH Wireless L.L.C. and I'm trying to get the "true" address to a cell tower compound located on a hill. the address I have is: 2M N. of San Clemente. This is not a real address and SDG&E will not accept our application for new power unless we have this. This address has eluded me for over a year. No department, county, city, even other power providers that I have contacted knows the address to this cell tower site. I have called here before last year, to no avail. I'm trying agin [sic] to see maybe someone knows how to locate the address. The GPS coordinates are: 33.443676, -117.588670 and the parcel number is: 690-552-05. Please can someone help me locate the address to this site. Any assistance you can offer would be greatly appreciated. I can be reached at: (404)967-6534 or by
email:[email protected]. Thank you kindly. 487
ity of San Clemente - 616 Del Dios \\7 ireless Communication facility December 5, 2023

Page 4 ends

(Exhibit D, p. 18 [CPRA Production Documents, Email on Feb. 9, 2023], emphases added.)
The statement above from pplicant Dish \Vireles • LLC in February of 2023 about the ite squarely refutes certain statements in the June 2023 Voluntary Compliance greement claimi11g that TC "operates a ,vireless communication facility" at the ite.

That TC or anyone could not have been operating a WCF uncle· the 1962 CUP is also confirmed by the docum ntation that the 1962 CUP was for a microwave relqy .rtmcture, which ha e long been obsolete and either demolished or remain unused:

The microwave relay sy tern was part of the T&T Long Lines network, which included wire and cable connections. 99pi fan and Long Lines aficionado Corey Carlson explain that " the Long Lines ne vork r layed analog data from one horn to another, with polarization or radio waves to expand the signal capacity." Their " -sized 'horn' antennas' \i ere designed to focus radio signals out horizontally toward other towers and be durable 'resistant to the pressure \.Va e from a nuclear bla t." Obsolete in today's world of fiber optic , satellites and wireless internet, many of the tower have been taken down or swapped out for cellular use.

Some, however, erve as emergency back'Ups in rural area . .And others, it would seem, are so built into the aesthetic of their associated building that owners have seen no reason to remove them.
(Exhibit E [Background information about microwave re/cry stmctures and AT&T uses).) 4 ccording to the 1962 CUP, the \"'v'CF ~ as approved for a 28-foot by 58-foot building and a 70-foot antenna tower. (Exhibit B [C P Permit).) Even o, the antenna tower component today actually reaches 156 feet in height when measured from the highest exi ting appurtenance affixed to the tower. (Exhibit C [Voluntary greement).) otabl ·, as stated previously, neither the County, the City, nor pplicant have been able to locate or produce records authorizing the increased heigh beyond the 70 feet originally approved by the Count). (Ibid.) Consequently, the City denied a collocation rcque t before Applicant oluntarily agreed to reduce the height of the exi ting tow r ~ See also -\ T T T.ong I inc- Technology and Equipment (long-lines.net\; Ml -RO\\ AVE ,'ITK fthecentra!o{tice com).
488
City of San Clemente - 616 Del Dias Wireless Communications Facility December 5, 2023

Page 5 of 43 ends

to 70 feet pursuant to the Voluntary Compliance Agreement.

Procedurally, the Project appeared before the City Council as Agenda Item No. 1 0C on October 17, 2023, for a review of the Project's details and of wireless facilities generally, and for the City Council to receive and file the Administrative Report. The Project then appeared before the City Council, Planning Commission, and community during a Joint Study Session on November 8, 2023. The City Council, Planning Commission, and community reviewed and discussed the permitting procedures for WCFs generally. The Project now appears before the City Council to consider setting a public hearing on January 16, 2024, to consider the alteration or revocation of CUP No. 1021, Voluntary Compliance Agreement, and Wireless Screening Form (WSF No. 23-231). (City Council Agenda, p. 20.)
In light of the information contained in this letter, Harbor View HOA strongly urges the City to deny the streamlined review of the proposed Project since, as shown above and further discussed below, it is not an existing wireless facility as contemplated in the Spectrum Act, given the lack of continuous use and consequent abandonment of the WCF, and further because the Spectrum Act does not relieve an agency from consideration of the environmental impacts of any approval-nor does the Spectrum Act expressly or in any way preempt the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or California state law requirements which, in this case, mandate discretionary review.

I. THE EXISTING TOWER FACILITY DOES NOT QUALIFY AS AN
"ELIGIBLE" AND "EXISTING" SUPPORT STRUCTURE TO BE
GRANTED MINISTERIAL REVIEW UNDER 47 U.S.C. § 1455.

Under 47 U.S.C. § 145S(a)(1)-(2), ministerial or streamlined review applies only to existing wireless facilities:
(a) FACILITY MODIFICATIONS.-
(1) IN GENERAL-Notwithstanding section 704 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-104) or any other provision of law, a State or local government may not deny, and shall approve, any eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station or base station. (2) ELIGIBLE FACILITIES REQUEST.- For purposes of this
489
City of San Clemente - 616 Del Dios Wireless Communications Facility December 5, 2023

Page 6 of 43 ends

subsection, the term "eligible facilities request" means any request for modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that involves-
(A) collocation of new transmission equipment;
(B) removal of transmission equipment; or
(C) replacement of transmission equipment.
(Emph. added.)
As amply discussed and shown in the introduction above, there has been no existing wireless facility at the Site until the Applicant filed its application. As such, streamlined review does not apply here.

Additionally, the existing yet abandoned and non-operative tower fails to satisfy certain definitions in Title 47 Section 1.6100 of the Code of Federal Regulations (Wireless Facility Modifications); namely, the tower is not "existing" for purposes of this section, and therefore does not constitute as an "eligible support structure." (See 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100, subds. (b)(4)-(5).) Additionally, the tower was, at one point or another, effectively abandoned and not in use for a period of time-thereby giving rise to issues concerning the applicability of previously issued permits and current FCC licensees and Applicant's ability to utilize those permits and pick up from where prior licensees and operators of the tower left off. According to the Orange County Code of Ordinances:
(m) Abandonment Any permittee or operator who intends to, or does abandon or discontinue use of a wireless communications facility for any reason, shall do all of the following:

1. Except where discontinuance is due to the revocation of a permit, on or before the sixtieth (60th) day before the final day of use, notify the Director in writing, specifying the date of the intended abandonment or discontinuance and the applicable permit number.

2. Within one hundred eighty (180) days after the abandonment or discontinuance, at the permittee's sole expense, remove any wireless communications facility and all its associated equipment in compliance with all applicable health and safety requirements and restore the site to the condition that existed before installation of 490
City of San Clemente - 616 Del Dios Wireless Communications Facility December 5, 2023

Page 7 of 43 ends

the wireless communications facility, or as otherwise required by the Director.

3. At any time after one hundred eighty (180) days following the abandonment or discontinuation, without further notice to the applicant, the Director may remove and store the wireless communications facility, repair any damage to the premises caused by such removal, and restore the premises as the Director deems appropriate. The permittee, and all prior owners and operators of the wireless communications facility, will be jointly and severally liable for the entire cost of such removal, repair, restoration, and storage, and shall remit payment to the County promptly after demand for payment is made. The County may, instead of storing the removed wireless communications facility equipment, convert it to the County's use, sell it, or dispose of it in any manner deemed appropriate by the County.
(Orange County Code,§ 6-6-1, emphases added.)
Further, the facility is deemed abandoned and a new CUP application is mandated according to the San Clemente Municipal Code (SCMC):

Expiration of Approvals.

A. Expiration of an Approved Application. An application approved in accordance with this title shall be deemed to have expired, when either of the following occur:

1. When the activity permitted by the approved application is not commenced, as defined in Subsection (B) of this section, Commencement of a Permitted Activity, within the time period specified in the approval, or within three years if no time is specified. The time period during which a project must be commenced starts on the effective date of a decision approving a project, as defined in Section 17 .12.130, Effective Date of Decision of an Action, of this Chapter.
· 2. When the activity permitted by the approved application has lapsed, as defined in Subsection (C) of this section, Lapse of a Permitted Activity.
491
City of San Clemente - 616 Del Dios Wireless Communications Facility December 5, 2023

Page 8 of 43 ends

B. Commencement of a Permitted Activity. An activity permitted by an approved application shall be deemed to have commenced on the following dates:

1. For an activity requiring the issuance of a building permit, on the date that the building permit is issued for that development;

2. For an activity not requiring the issuance of a building permit, on the date the use becomes operational and/ or opens for business at such location.

C. Lapse of a Permitted Activity. An activity permitted by an approved application shall be deemed to have lapsed at the following times:

1. For an activity for which a building permit has been issued, but construction has not been completed, at such time that the building permit expires in accordance with the applicable sections of the Uniform Building Code as amended and adopted by the City;

2. For an activity that has become operational or opened for business, one year after the date the activity ceases operation and/ or the business closes at such location;

3. For an activity engaged in the sale of alcohol for on- or off-site consumption and conforming to the use requirements of this title (including but not limited to the requirements to obtain such discretionary approvals as indicated in Section 17 .28.040, or per the use tables in Chapters 17.32 through 17.48 of this title) at such time as conforming use has been discontinued for more than 90 consecutive calendar days, and thus is rebuttably presumed to have been abandoned.
a. Where the discontinuance is for the purpose of repair, maintenance and aesthetic improvement, being conducted
pursuant to building permits, the use shall not be considered lapsed until such discontinuance is for a period in excess of 180 days.

D. Renewal of an Expired Application. Any approved application which has been allowed to expire shall be subject to the filing of a new 492
City of San Clemente - 616 Del Dios Wireless Communications Facility December 5, 2023

Page 9 of 43 ends

application pursuant to Chapter 17 .16, Applications, of this title. (SCMC, § 17.12.150.)
It is worth noting that, to date, no records have been produced to show Applicant's or AT&T's compliance with Section 6-6-1. The Site's and tower's non-operational state for more than one year and effective abandonment by AT&T-as witnessed by neighboring residents-began the clock on abandonment under Section 17.12.150 of the SCMC and constitutes yet another reason why the Project should be halted, the current application denied, and Applicant ordered to complete new procedures for issuance of a new CUP.

Further, according to Sections 1.16100(b)(4) and (5):
(b) Definitions. Terms used in this section have the following meanings. ( 4) Eligible support structure. Any tower or base station as defined in this section, provided that it is existing at the time the relevant application is filed with the State or local government under this section.
(5) Existing. A constructed tower or base station is existing for purposes of this section if it has been reviewed and approved under the applicable zoning or siting process, or under another State or local regulatory review process, provided that a tower that has not been reviewed and approved because it was not in a zoned area when it was built, but was lawfully constructed, is existing for purposes of this definition.
(Ibzd., emphases added.)
In essence, the constructed tower, although related to a project that had been reviewed and approved in 1962 (in that they occupy the same Site), is entirely separate and distinct from that approved by the CUP over 60 years ago.

The CUP allowed for the "establishment of a microwave relay station in connection with a public telephone service" which would "consist of an approximate 28 ft. by 56 ft. building and a 70 ft. antenna tower" and be allotted a "height variance for antenna [f]rom 35 ft. to a maximum of 70 ft." (Exhibit B, p. 1 [CUP].) Yet, according to Applicant representatives, "the tower component of the [WCF] is 137.6 ft, but is 493
City of San Clemente - 616 Del Dios Wireless Communications Facility December 5, 2023

Page 10 of 43 ends

further extended to 156 ft. when the height is measured from the highest existing appurtenance affixed to the tower." (Exhibit A, p. 1 [Agenda Report].) And, as admitted by the County, the City, and Applicant, no one has been able to locate any records which authorized the expansion in height of the tower beyond the 70 feet originally allowed. (Ibid.) As such, the height increase was unauthorized.

Recognizing the severity of such noncompliance, Applicant volunteered to, and did, reduce the height of the tower to 70 feet. 5 Nevertheless, the tower, as it stands now, is 75 feet high in violation of the CUP. (Exhibit F [Dish Wireless Destacking Permit]; Exhibit D, pp. 24-25 [Wireless Communications Facilities Application Screening Form ["proposed tower height will decrease from 137' to 75"'].) Further, as it stood at the time of submission of the application for collocation, was not the tower that was approved for development in 1962. As such, the existing facility-whatever it is-as not permitted under the 1962 CUP. Simply put, the 1962 CUP has been long violated and become ineffective.

Consequently, and contrary to the City's position, the application for modification to the tower facility does not qualify under Section 6409 as an "eligible support structure" for streamlined review as the facility was not an "existing" utility tower at the time of submission of the application for collocation as these terms are defined by Title 47 Sections 1.6100(6)(4) and (5) of the Code of Federal Regulations.

II. THE PROJECT SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGES THE EXISTING

TOWER, THEREBY DISQUALIFYING IT FROM MINISTERIAL
REVIEW UNDER SECTION 6409.

The Project fails to satisfy each of the requisite criteria under Section 6409 of the Spectrum Act in order to afford the Project streamlined, ministerial review. This section of the Spectrum Act is understood to be Congress' effort to advance wireless services across the country by expediting and streamlining the efficient deployment of associated network facilities on existing infrastructure. Yet, it does not allow for the unchecked and wanton approval ofWCFs, as attempted here. (See H.R. Rep. No. 112- 5 It is worth noting that the tower, as it stands, is in violation of the CUP given that the Site has not been maintained in accordance with two of the three Conditions of Approval, namely that the fenced-in area be covered with crushed rock and the access road leading to the Site be oil surfaced or treated so as to eliminate dust. (See CUP, p.2.) The unauthorized uses and violations of the 1962 CUP conditions and scope of use precludes the use of such 1962 CUP for any proposed activity.
494
City of San Clemente 616 Del Dios Wireless Communications Facility December 5, 2023

Page 11 of 43 ends

399, 136 (2012).)
Specifically, in relevant part, the Spectrum Act states:
(a) Facility modifications
(1) In General
Notwithstanding section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-104) or any other provision of law, a State or local government may not deny, and shall approve, any eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that does not substantia!!J change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station.
(2) Eligible Facilities Request
For purposes of this subsection, the term "eligible facilities request" means any request for modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that involves-
(A) collocation of new transmission equipment;
(B) removal of transmission equipment; or
(C) replacement of transmission equipment.
(3) Applicability of Environmental Laws
Nothing in paragraph (1) shall be construed to relieve the Commission from the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act [1] or the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
(b) Federal Easements, Rights-of-Way, and Leases
(3) Timely Consideration of Applications
(C) Applicability of Environmental Laws
Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to relieve an executive agency of the requirements of division A of subtitle 495
City of San Clemente - 616 Del Dios Wireless Communications Facility December 5, 2023

Page 12 of 43 ends

III of title 54 or the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
(47 U.S.C. § 1455, emphasis added; accord 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100, subd. (c) ["a State orlocal government may not deny and shall approve any eligible facilities request for modification of an eligible support structure that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such structure"].)
The proposed collocation infrastructure on the tower includes an array of components that together will substantially change the tower. These components include: three panel antennas, three sector mounts, six RRUs, three back-to-back mounts, one OVP, and one hybrid cable. (See Agenda Report, p. 1.) Although the Project does not fit neatly within one of the four prongs of the Nationwide Collocation Agreement promulgated by the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) (see 28 F.C.C.R. 1 Gan. 25, 2013) 28 FCC Red. 1),6 the addition of these 17 components on the existing 70-foot tower constitute a "substantial change" of the physical dimensions of the tower so as to nullify the applicability of Section 6409. This is further the case where, as mentioned and showed above, the existing tower has been inoperative for decades.

Although it may be so that the City generally lacks discretion with respect to certain collocation requests where such request truly involves an existing wireless faciliry and where the proposed collocation facility meets certain relevant requirements, and although federal regulations may limit local agencies' power to control such facilities, such is not the case here.

III. THE PROJECT SHOULD NOT BE APPROVED SINCE THERE IS

SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE PROPOSED

COLLOCATION FACILITY MAY HAVE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS,
6 WI'B states that, although Congress did not adopt the FCC's terminology of "substantial increase in size" in Section 6409(a), WI'B contends that the policy reasons for excluding from Section 6409(a) collocations that substantially change the physical dimensions of a structure are closely analogous to those that animated the FCC in the Nationwide Collocation Agreement and subsequent proceedings. In light of the FCC's prior findings, WTB believes it is appropriate to look to the existing definition of "substantial increase in size" to determine whether the collocation, removal, or replacement of equipment on a wireless tower or base station substantially changes the physical dimensions of the underlying structure within the meaning of Section 6409(a). (28 F.C.C.R. 1 Q"an. 25, 2013) 28 FCC Red. 1, quotations omitted.)
496
Cit) of San Clememe - 616 Dd D10~ \~'irelt:s· Communications Facilir:y December 5, 20'.!3

Page 13 ends

INCL DING FIRE AND OTHER HAZARDS.

Under the Spectrwn Act:
(3) PPLICABILITY OF E VIRO i\i T LA~ .- N othing in
paragraph (1) shall be construed to relieve the Commission from the requirements of the ational Historic Pre en ati.on Act or the N ational Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
(47 .S.C. § 145S(a)(3), emphase add d.)
Here, the Project's documents sho\1 that the Project may have significant impacts on the environment including critically fire impacts. pecifically, the Project is listed as:
- being near an oil well,
- adjacent to a wildland area or non-irrigated native vegetation - located in close proximity from a Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, oil/ gas s ep or landfill (requiring methane work plan), - involving installation or repair of rn1derground piping or fire department connection erving private fire hydrant/ sprinkler/ standpipe systems, - close to a drinking/ dining/ recreation meetings/ training/ religious functions or other gatherings in a room, etc.
xhibit D p. 1.)
All the noted fact upport a finding that the Pr ject may be a significant fire hazard for the environment. Thi , in turn, supports a finding that the Project may also cause s vere adverse impact on human beings .
. .r\. merely an example, the risk of methane exposure and fire risks to human beings have b en well documented in Lo ngeles. Hazards and dang r of methane gas have been acknowledged by the City of Lo Angele 7 including Division 71, Sec 91. 7101 through 91.7109 as well as C \ Building Code, both of\ hich require specific mitigation measur s.

Ba ed on o-Cal's caution:

METHANE AND HEALTH AND SAFETY
7 http;; //w,nv.ladbs.org/docs /Jefottlr-:ource/publ1ca tions/ordinances/mech,ine-cnde- - ordinance-no-!73790.odF-;fu~n=d8eeb;i3 in
497
i of San lemente - 616 Del Dios \":v'irdt:s~ Communications f-acility December S, 2023
Page I-! of 43
1ethane is non-toxic and creates no hazard when inhaled in limited 9uantities; ho\, ever, if large quantities of natural ga or methane is allowed to displace air, lack of oxyg n may result in suffocation.

Methane can be flammable when mi.,xed \vith air between certain concentrations (4.5 percent to 15 percent) and where there is an ignition sourc .

So alGas® conduct xtensivc safety programs to prevent the escape of natural gas from its sy tern; and as a health and safety precaution adds a distinctive odor to narural gas so most p ople can easily notic its presence.

If you smell a natural gas odor, hear the hi ing sound of gas e caping or see other signs of a leak, RE r.A.I calm. D 'T moke or light a match, candle or other flam . D N'T turn electrical applianc s or lights on or off, opera e machin ry, or use any device that could create a spark.

I fMEDL-\TELY E C TE the area and from a saf location, call oCalGas ar 1-800-427-2200, or call 911 if th damage results in a natural gas leak that may endanger life or cause bodily harm or property dama .

Thus, methane gas may be dangerous to public health depending on its concentrations.

In addition, the City's 1ethane rdinance mentions )ire hazards of methane:

HE S, there was a fire in the Fairfax Area of the City of Lo .Angeles in 1985, due to high volume of methane gas seepage through crack in the concrete floor of a building;
WHERE.A , in Council File o. 01 -1305 the City Council directed the City' D partment of Building and Safety, Engineering, and Planning, as well as, the Chief Legi lative \nalyst and Office of Administrative and Re earch S 1-vices, to form a work group and recommend uniform safety requirements regarding methane, for all future de\ elopment throughout the City;
H https: //._,,n,·.-.ncalg. s com / q:ir-,afe I meci1ane-em1sston /methane-and-health -and- , :1 f r,;•tt•-·tcxr= , Ierh;rnc0 ,, "0j,- u,,,,nnon%~Dtoxic% 20and,nxvg:en°,o...,fltrui.v% 10 ·e,ult0·o20in 010,ZOsuifocacion.
498
City of San Clemente - 616 Del Dios Wireless Communications Facility December 5, 2023

Page 15 of 43 ends

WHEREAS, a study by the work group was conducted regarding areas throughout the City of Los Angeles to identify areas where subsurface methane gas may be found[.]
Further, the City of Los Angeles' methane ordinance provides general methane mitigation measures, and specific methane mitigation measures. Thus, under SEC.

91.7103. GENERAL METHANE MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS:

All new buildings and paved areas located in a Methane Zone or Methane Buffer Zone shall comply with these requirements and the Methane Mitigation Standards established by the Superintendent of Building. The Methane Mitigation Standards provide information describing the installation procedures, design parameters and test protocols for the methane gas mitigation system, which are not set forth in the provisions of this division.

Los Angeles' methane ordinance then lists numerous mitigation standards, including methane testing at the project sites, that must be complied with.

Additionally, the Methane Ordinance provides additional remedial measures:

General Remedial Measures.

In the event the concentration of methane gas in any building located in a Methane Zone or Methane Buffer Zone reaches or exceeds 25 percent of the minimum concentration of gas that will form an ignitable mixture with air at ambient temperature and pressure, the owner shall hire an engineer to investigate, recommend and implement mitigating measures. These measures shall be subject to approval of this Department and the Fire Department. 91.7109.2.

Abandoned Oil Well.

Any abandoned oil well encountered during constmction shall be evaluated by the Fire Department and may be required to be reabandoned in accordance with applicable rules and regulations of the Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources of the State of California.

Buildings shall comply with these provisions and the requirements of Section 91.6105 of this Code, whichever is more restrictive. (§ 91.7109.1, emphases added.)
499
City of San Clemente - 616 Del Dias Wireless Communications Facility December 5, 2023

Page 16 of 43 ends

Additionally, the Building Code provides:

SEPARATION FROM OIL WELLS.
(Amended by Ord. No. 186,488, Eff. 12/27 /19.)
No school, hospital, sanitarium or assembly occupancy shall be within 200 feet from the center of the oil well casing.

No public utility fuel manufacturing plant or public utility electrical generating, receiving or distribution plant shall be located within 200 feet from the center of the oil well casing.

No building more than 400 square feet (3 7 m 2 ) in area and taller than 36 feet in height shall be erected within 50 feet from the center of an oil well casing.

A distance separation between the exterior wall of the building and the center of an oil well casing shall be maintained with a horizontal distance equal to 1-1/2 times the building's height, provided however, that that distance need not exceed 200 feet. The building height for this provision shall be measured vertically from the adjacent lowest ground elevation to the ceiling of the top story.

EXCEPTIONS: The distance separation may be reduced to the following:

1. 35 feet separation if a solid 6 inches thick masonry wall and no shorter than 6 feet tall to be constructed within 50 feet from the building in between the oil well and all portions of the building.

2. 26 feet if any portion of the building exterior walls within 50 feet from the center of an oil well casing shall be constructed with no openings and one hour fire resistive construction with a 3 foot high fire rated parapet.

3. 15 feet if any portion of the building exterior walls within 50 feet from the center of an oil well casing shall be constructed with no openings and two-hour fire resistive construction with a 3 foot high fire rated parapet.

The provisions specified within this section shall not apply to oil wells that have been abandoned per LAMC Section 57.5706.3.16 and in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations of the Division of Oil, Gas and 500
City of San Clemente - 616 Del Dios Wireless Communications Facility December 5, 2023

Page 17 of 43 ends

Geothermal Resources of the State of California.
(§ 91.6105, emphases added.)
The combination of methane zone and nearby oil well presents an additional hazard and an unusual circumstance that needs to be properly mitigated and studied. There is no record whether the City of San Clemente here has taken into consideration the above-noted concerns of allowing a high-intensive use wireless facility in an environmentally challenged location which may cause fire and hurt people.

Before approving any wireless facility as proposed by the Applicant, the public and the decisionmakers must receive a full NEPA review, as well as full documentation about the reports that the Applicant is required to submit (including but not limited to fire and methane report as noted in the screening document [Exhibit D, p. 1]), and determine whether the construction and operation of the proposed collocation facility may have significant impacts, what those impacts would be, and whether those impacts can be mitigated to insignificant levels.

In addition, to the extent that the construction of the wireless facility involves installation of underground piping as conceded by the Applicant in the screening materials (Exhibit D, p. 1), this may pose additional hazards impacts. This is because if the Project is located within close proximity to an oil well and in an agriculturally zoned area, it is possible that the soil in the Project Site has been contaminated with various chemicals and pesticides. While such contaminated soil does not pose any impact or hazard to the surrounding environment without the Project, it may present hazard concerns and expose people and the groundwaters to contamination due to the disturbance of contaminated soils. Such hazards impacts may also be present due to the transportation of contaminated soil or debris from the Site durmg construchon.

Based on our review of the documents received in response to public records requests, there is no evidence that such critical impacts to the environment and the public were properly reviewed under NEPA, and there is no record of any NEPA determination made for this case either. As such, the Project's approvals violate NEPA and may not be legally approved or streamlined as proposed without proper NEPA review.

IV. THE PROJECT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE CALIFORNIA
GOVERNMENT CODE COLLOCATION REQUIREMENTS.

California Government Code section 65850.6(a) states:
501
City of San Clemente - 616 Del Dios Wireless Communications Facility December 5, 2023

Page 18 of 43 ends

A colocation facility shall be a permitted use not subject to a city or county discretionary permit if it satisfies the following requirements:
(1) The colocation facility is consistent with requirements for the wireless telecommunications colocation facility pursuant to subdivision (b) on which the colocation facility is proposed. (2) The wireless telecommunications colocation facility on which the colocation facility is proposed was subject to a discretionary permit by the city or county and an environmental impact report was certified, or a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration was adopted for the wireless telecommunications colocation facility in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ... [and] the colocation facility incorporates required mitigation measures specified in that environmental impact report, negative declaration, or mitigated negative declaration. (Gov. Code,§ 65850.6, subds. (a)(1)-(2), emphases added.) Here, there is no documentation about whether the 1962 CUP was ever subject to a discretionary review under CEQA that involved an environmental impact report (EIR) or a mitigated negative declaration (MND) or a negative declaration (ND).

There is no documentation that the existing facility is a colocation facility or that the proposed colocation facility is consistent with the requirements in subdivision (b) of Government Code section 65850.6. To the opposite, the documentation to date shows that the facility in place has not even been authorized or properly permitted under the 1962 CUP, has not been in use for decades until the Applicant's proposed use in 2023.

Further, California Government Code section 65850.6(6) states:
(\X']ireless telecommunications collocation facilities, where a subsequent collocation facility is a permitted use not subject to a city or county discretionary permit pursuant to subdivision (a), must comply with the following:
(1) City or county requirements for a wireless telecommunications colocation facility that specifies types of wireless telecommunications facilities that are allowed to include a colocation facility, or types of wireless telecommunications facilities that are allowed to include 502
City of San Clemente - 616 Del Dios Wireless Communications Facility December 5, 2023

Page 19 of 43 ends

certain types of colocation facilities; height, location, bulk, and size of the wireless telecommunications colocation facility; percentage of the wireless telecommunications colocation facility that may be occupied by colocation facilities; and aesthetic or design requirements for the wireless telecommunications colocation facility.
(2) City or county requirements for a proposed colocation facility, including any types of colocation facilities that may be allowed on a wireless telecommunications colocation facility; height, location, bulk, and size of allowed colocation facilities; and aesthetic or design requirements for a colocation facility.
(3) State and local requirements, including the general plan, any applicable community plan or specific plan, and zoning ordinance. ( 4) The California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) through certification of an environmental impact report, or adoption of a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration.
(Gov. Code,§ 65850.6, subds. (b)(1)-(4), emphases added.) There is no evidence that the Project here complies with subdivision (b) of Government Code section 65850.6, including but not limited to the requirements of CEQA to provide an EIR, MND, or ND here. There is no documentation as to whether the proposed facility complies with the City's general plan, specific plan, zoning, or other ordinances. Based on the Voluntary Compliance Agreement signed by the City and the Applicant, the City appears to have considered solely the consistency of the Project with the height of the long-violated and hence ineffective 1962 CUP issued to a completely different applicant, rather than any other applicable City regulation.

Last, Government Code section 65850.6(c) mandates notice pursuant to Government Code section 65091 and "at least one public hearing on the discretionary permit" required by Section 65850.6(b) for wireless telecommunications colocation facilities.

There has been no such proper notice to date. The City's agenda notice for November 8, 2023, solely provides for a study session, rather than public hearing where evidence will be heard or taken to make a determination on the Project. 503
City of San Clemente - 616 Del Dios Wireless Communications Facility December 5, 2023

Page 20 of 43 ends

Instead, as it appears, the City has been approving various permits for the Project (e.g., three dish antennas) over the past several months and without public review or scrutiny.

Here, Applicant and the City contend that the Project need only comply with Section 6409, yet ignore California's above-noted clear mandates and additional requirements that collocation facilities must comply with.

Notably, federal law does not inhibit the power of state or local agencies to deny an Eligible Facilities Request (EFR) application in all cases-instead, it allows state or local officials to require documentation of and corroborate the contention that no substantial change exists:
(c) Revi.ew of applications. A State or local government may not deny and shall approve any eligible facilities request for modification of an eligible support structure that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such structure.
(1) Documentation requirement for revi.ew. When an applicant asserts in writing that a request for modification is covered by this section, a State or local government may require the applicant to provide documentation or information only to the extent reasonably related.to determining whether the request meets the requirements of this section. A State or local government may not require an applicant to submit any other documentation, including but not limited to documentation intended to illustrate the need for such wireless facilities or to justify the business decision to modify such wireless facilities.
(47 C.F.R. § 1.6100, subd. (c)(l), emphasis added.)
To date, it is unknown whether and to what extent Applicant provided sufficient documentation or information related to the determination of whether its permit applications meet the requirements of Section 1.6100. Instead, Applicant submitted the EFR letter, LOA from the carrier and tower owner, site plans, photosimulations, RF compliance analysis, and the CUP. Applicant has failed to provide documentation concerning the Site's use and permitting history and proof that no substantial change exists especially concerning that the addition of the 17 components will substantially alter the size and aesthetics of the existing structure. 504
City of San Clemente - 616 Del Dias Wireless Communications Facility December 5, 2023

Page 21 of 43 ends

Further, Section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act defines an EFR to include "collocation of new transmission equipment" (47 U.S.C. § 1455, subd. (a)(2)(A)) and that it mandates approval if the EFR meets certain criteria in the FCC regulations. (See 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100.) Section 1455(a)(1) provides:

Notwithstanding section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-104) or any other provision of law, a State or local government may not deny, and shall approve, any eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station.
(47 U.S.C. § 1455, subd. (a)(1).)
Although the C1ty is required to apply the FCC criteria in order to determine whether the Project is a non-substantial change which must be approved, Harbor View HOA contends that the magnitude of the change proposed here sufficiently constitutes a "substantial[] change in the physical dimensions of such tower" as addressed previously-thereby disqualifying it from Section 6409 ministerial review.

Among the relevant EFR criteria, the FCC requires that the modification be to an "existing" tower or base station, and defines the term 'existing' as a tower or base station that "has been reviewed and approved under the applicable zoning or siting process, or under another regulatory review process. (See 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100, subd. (b)(S).)
As mentioned previously, the tower underwent several periods of non-conforming use, non-use, and was approved under peculiar circumstances that may not adequately be corroborated or fact-checked. California collocation provisions apply here and are not expressly preempted by federal law (and, as such, the City must conduct environmental review of any project proposed). Further, the City's compliance with the California Code requirements and CEQA will not frustrate or impede the application of the federal law. To the contrary, such compliance will only further the goals of the federal law, including that nothing in the federal regulations including in the Spectrum Act should be construed as relieving an agency's duty to consider the proposed project's environmental concerns under NEPA.

Therefore, apart from its violations of the federal law, the Project is also violating the applicable state regulations. Consequently, unless and until Applicant complies with 505
City of San Clemente - 616 Del Dios Wireless Communications Facility December 5, 2023

Page 22 of 43 ends

the applicable provisions of the California Government Code, the Project cannot be approved. Instead, its approvals must be halted and all critical documentation must be reviewed with greater scrutiny for the Project's compliance with all relevant codes.

V. THE PROJECT WOULD BE APPROVED IN VIOLATION OF THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.

A. Background Concerning Environmental Impacts Reports.

CEQA is a California statute designed to inform decision-makers and the public about the potential significant environmental effects of a project. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15002, subd. (a)(l).) 9 At its core, its purpose is to "inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made." (Citizens of Goleta Va/fry v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564.) CEQA directs public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage, when possible, by requiring alternatives or mitigation measures. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15002, subds. (a)(2)-(3); see also Berkelry Keep Jets Over the Bqy Committee v. Board of Port Commissioners of the Ciry of Oakland (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1354 (hereafter, "Berke!J Keep Jets'); Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents ofUniversiry of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 400.) The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) serves to provide public agencies and the public in general with information about the effect that a proposed project is likely to have on the environment and to "identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced." CEQA Guidelines, § 15002, subd. (a)(2). If the project has a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the project only upon finding that it has "eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible" and that any unavoidable significant effects on the environment are "acceptable due to overriding concerns" specified in California Public Resources Code, Section 21081. (See CEQA Guidelines,§§ 15092, subds. (b)(2)(A)-(B).)
While the courts review an EIR using an 'abuse of discretion' standard, the reviewing court is not to uncritical/y rely on every study or analysis presented by a project 9 The CEQA Guidelines, codified in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, section 15000 et seq., are regulatory guidelines promulgated by the state Natural Resources Agency for the implementation of CEQA. (Pub. Res. Code,§ 21083.) The CEQA Guidelines are given "great weight in interpreting CEQA except when ... clearly unauthorized or erroneous." (Center far Biological Diversity v. Dept. efFish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204, 217.)
506
City of San Clemente - 616 Del Dios Wireless Communications Facility December 5, 2023

Page 23 of 43 ends

proponent in support of its position. (Berkelry Keep Jets, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 1355 (quoting Laurel Heights, supra, 47 Cal.3d at pp. 391,409 fn. 12) (internal quotations omitted).) A clearly inadequate or unsupported study is entitled to no judicial deference. (Id.) Drawing this line and determining whether the EIR complies with CEQA's information disclosure requirements presents a question of law subject to independent review by the courts. (Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 51 S; Madera Oversight Coalition, Inc. v. County of Madera (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 48, 102, 131.) As the First District Court of Appeal has previously stated, prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs if the failure to include relevant information precludes informed decision-making and informed public participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process. (Berkelry Keep Jets, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 1355 (internal quotations omitted).)
The preparation and circulation of an EIR is more than a set of technical hurdles for agencies and developers to overcome. ( Communities for a Better Environment v. Richmond (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 80 (quoting VinryardArea Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 449-450).) The EIR's function is to ensure that government officials who decide to build or approve a project do so with a full understanding of the environmental consequences and, equally important, that the public is assured those consequences have been considered. (Id.) For the EIR to serve these goals it must present information so that the foreseeable impacts of pursuing the project can be understood and weighed, and the public must be given an adequate opportunity to comment on that presentation before the decision to go forward is made. (Id.)
A strong presumption in favor of requiring preparation of an EIR is built into CEQA.

This presumption is reflected in what is known as the "fair argument" standard under which an EIR must be prepared whenever substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment. (Quazl Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v. Ciry of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1602; Friends of ''B "St. v. City of Hqyward (1980) 106 Cal.3d 988, 1002.) The fair argument test stems from the statutory mandate that an EIR be prepared for any project that "may have a significant effect on the environment." (Pub. Res. Code, § 21151; see No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.App.3d 68, 75 (hereafter, "No Oil'); accord Jensen v. City of Santa Rosa (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 877, 884 (hereafter, ''Jensen").) Under this test, if a proposed project is not exempt and may cause a 507
City of San Clemente - 616 Del Dias Wireless Communications Facility December 5, 2023

Page 24 of 43 ends

significant effect on the environment, the lead agency must prepare an EIR. (Pub.

Res. Code,§§ 21100, subd. (a), 21151; CEQA Guidelines,§§ 15064, subds. (a)(1), (£)(1).) An EIR may be dispensed with only if the lead agency finds no substantial evidence in the initial study or elsewhere in the record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. (Parker Shattuck Neighbors v. Berkelry Cz!J Council (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 768, 785.) In such a situation, the lead agency must adopt a negative declaration. (Pub. Res. Code,§ 21080, subd. (c)(1); CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15063, subd. (b)(2), 15064, subd. (£)(3).)
"Significant effect upon the environment" is defined as "a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment." (Pub. Res. Code,§ 21068; CEQA Guidelines,§ 15382.) A project may have a significant effect on the environment if there is a reasonable probability that it will result in a significant impact. (No Oil, supra, 13 Cal.App.3d at p. 83 fn. 16; see Sundstrom v. Cnty. of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 309 (hereafter, "Sundstrom").) If any aspect of the project may result in a significant impact on the environment, an EIR must be prepared even if the overall effect of the project is beneficial. (CEQA Guidelines,§ 15063, subd. (b)(1); see Cnty.

Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. Cnty. of Kern (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1580.) This standard sets a "low threshold" for preparation of an EIR. (Consolidated Imgation Dist. v. City of Selma (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 187, 207; Nelson v. Cnty. of Kern (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 252; Pocket Protectors v. Cz!J of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 928; Bowman v. Cz!J ofBerkelry (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 572, 580; Citizen Action to Serve All Students v. Thornlry (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 748, 754; Sundstrom, supra, 202 Cal.App.3d at p. 310.) If substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project may have a significant environmental effect, the lead agency must prepare an EIR even if other substantial evidence before it indicates the project will have no significant effect. (See Jensen, supra, 23 Cal.App.5th at p. 886; Clews Lcmd & Livestock v.

City of San Diego (2017) 19 Cal.App.5th 161, 183; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (199 5) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150; Brentwood Assn. for No Drilling, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 491; Friends of "B "St., 106 Cal.App.3d 988; CEQA Guidelines,§ 15064, subd. (£)(1).)
B. Background Concerning Initial Studies, Negative Declarations, and :Mitigated Negative Declarations.

CEQA and CEQA Guidelines are strict and unambiguous about when an MND may be used. A public agency must prepare an EIR whenever substantial evidence 508
City of San Clemente - 616 Del Dias Wireless Communications Facility December 5, 2023

Page 25 of 43 ends

supports a "fair argument" that a proposed project "may have a significant effect on the environment." (Pub. Res. Code,§§ 21100, 21151; CEQA Guidelines,§§ 15002, subds. (£)(1)-(2), 15063; No Oil, supra, 13 Cal.App.3d at p. 7 5; Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agenry (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 111-112.) Essentially, should a lead agency be presented with a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect. (CEQA Guidelines,§§ 15064, subd. (£)(1)-(2); see No Oil, supra, 13 Cal.App.3d at p. 75 (internal citations and quotations omitted).) Substantial evidence includes "enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached." (CEQA Guidelines,§ 15384, subd. (a).)
The fair argument standard is a "low threshold" test for requiring the preparation of an EIR. (No Oil, supra, 13 Cal.App.3d at p. 84; Cnry. Sanitation, supra, 127 Cal.App.4th at p. 1579.) It "requires the preparation of an EIR where there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the project, either individually or cumulatively, may cause a significant effect on the environment, regardless of whether the overall effect of the project is adverse or beneficial[.]" (Cnry. Sanitation, supra, 127 Cal.App.4th_ at p. 1580 (quoting CEQA Guidelines,§ 15063, subd. (b)(l)).) A lead agency may adopt an 11:ND only if "there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment." (CEQA Guidelines,§ 15074, subd. (b).) Evidence supporting a fair argument of a significant environmental impact triggers preparation of an EIR regardless of whether the record contains contrary evidence. (League for Protection if Oakland's Architectural and Historical Resources v. Cz!J if Oakland (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 896, 904-905.) ''Where the question is the sufficiency of the evidence to support a fair argument, deference to the agency's determination is not appropriate[.]" (Cnry. Sanitation, supra, 127 Cal.App.4th at p. 1579 (quoting Sierra Club v. Counry ef Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1307, 1317-1318).) Further, it is the duty of the lead agency, not the public, to conduct the proper environmental studies. "The agency should not be allowed to hide behind its own failure to gather relevant data." (Sundstrom, supra, 202 Cal.App.3d at p. 311.) "Deficiencies in the record may actually enlarge the scope of fair argument by lending a logical plausibility to a wider range of inferences." (Ibid; see also Gentry v. Cz!J ef 509
City of San Clemente - 616 Del Dios Wireless Communications Facility December 5, 2023

Page 26 of 43 ends

Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1382 Oack of study enlarges the scope of the fair argument wbich may be made based on the limited facts in the record).) Thus, refusal to complete recommended studies lowers the already low threshold to establish a fair argument. The court may not exercise its independent judgment on the omitted material by determining whether the ultimate decision of the lead agency would have been affected had the law been followed. (Environmental Protection Information Center v. Cal. Dept. ef Porestry (2008) 44 Cal.4th 459, 486 (internal citations and quotations omitted).) The remedy for this deficiency would be for the trial court to issue a writ of mandate. (Ibid)
Both the review for failure to follow CEQA's procedures and the fair argument test are questions of law, thus, the de novo standard of review applies. (Vinryard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. Ciry efRancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 435.) "Whether the agency's record contains substantial evidence that would support a fair argument that the project may have a significant effect on the environment is treated as a question oflaw. (Consolidated Imgation Dist., supra, 204 Cal.App.4th at p. 207; Kostka and Zischke, Practice Under the Environmental Quality Act (2017, 2d ed.) at § 6.76.)
In the l\1ND context, courts give no deference to the agency. The agency or the court • should not weigh expert testimony or decide 6n the credibility of such evidence-this is the EIR's responsibility. As stated in Pocket Protectors v. Ciry ef Sacramento (2004):

Unlike the situation where an EIR has been prepared, neither the lead agency nor a court may "weigh" conflicting substantial evidence to determine whether an EIR must be prepared in the first instance.

Guidelines section 15064, subdivision (£)(1) provides in pertinent part: if a lead agency is presented with a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect. Thus, as Claremont itself recognized, [c]onsideration is not to be given contrary evidence supporting the preparation of a negative declaration.
(124 Cal.App.4th 903, 935 (internal citations and quotations omitted).) In cases where it is not clear whether there is substantial evidence of significant environmental impacts, CEQA mandates erring on the side of a "preference for 510
City of San Clemente - 616 Del Dios Wireless Communications Facility December 5, 2023

Page 27 of 43 ends

resolving doubts in favor of environmental review." (Mrgi"a v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322, 332. The foremost principle under CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language. (Friends of Mammoth v. Bd. of Supervisors (1972) 8 Cal.3d 247, 259.) C. Background Concerning CEQA Exemptions.

Where a lead agency chooses to dispose of CEQA by asserting a CEQA exemption, it has a duty to support its CEQA exemption findings by substantial evidence, including evidence that there are no applicable exceptions to exemptions. This duty is imposed by CEQA and related case law. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15020 (lead agency shall not knowingly release a deficient document hoping that public comments will correct the defects); see Citizens for Environmental Responsibility v. State ex rel. 14th Dist. Agriculture Assn. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 555, 568 (lead agency has the burden of demonstrating that a project falls within a categorical exemption and must support the determination with substantial evidence); accord Assn.for Protection etc. Values v. City of Ukiah (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 720, 732 (lead agency is required to consider exemption exceptions where there is evidence in the record that the project might have a significant impact).) The duty to support CEQA and exemption findings with substantial evidence is also required by the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) and case law on administrative or traditional writs. Under the CCP, an abuse of discretion is established if the decision is unsupported by the findings, or the findings are unsupported by the evidence. (CCP, § 1094.5, subd. (b).) In TopangaAssn.fora Scenic Comm. v. Cnty. ofLos Angeles (1977), our Supreme Court held that implicit in CCP section 1094.5 is a requirement that the agency which renders the challenged decision must set forth findings to bridge the analytic gap between the raw evidence and ultimate decision or order. (11 Cal.3d 506, 515 (internal citations and quotations omitted) (hereafter, "Topangd').) The lead agency's findings may be determined to be sufficient if a court has no trouble under the circumstances discerning the analytic route the administrative agency traveled from evidence to action. (West Chandler Blvd. Neighborhood Assn. vs. City of Los Angeles (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1506, 1521-1522 (internal citations and quotations omitted).) However, "mere conclusory findings without reference to the record are inadequate." (Id. at p. 1521 (finding city council findings conclusory in violation of Topanga).) Further, CEQA exemptions must be narrowly construed to accomplish CEQA's environmental objectives. (Cal. Farm Bureau Federation v. Cal. Wildlife Conservat£on 511
City of San Clemente - 616 Del Dios Wireless Communications Facility December 5, 2023

Page 28 of 43 ends

Bd. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 173, 187; accord Save Our Carmel River v. Monterry Peninsula Water Management Dist. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 677, 697 ("These rules ensure that in all but the clearest cases of categorical exemptions, a project will be subject to some level of environmental review.").)
Finally, CEQA procedures reflect a preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review. (See Pub. Res. Code,§ 21080, subd. (c) (an EIR may be disposed of only if there is no substantial evidence, in light of the entire record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment or revisions in the project); CEQA Guidelines,§§ 15061, subd. (b)(3) (common sense exemption only where it can be seen with certainry); 15063, subd. (b)(1) (prepare an EIR if the agency determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the project, either individually or cumulatively, may cause a significant effect on the environment, regardless of whether the overall effect of the project is adverse or beneficial]; 15064, subd. (h) (the agency must consider cumulative impacts of past, current, and probable future projects); 15070 (a negative declaration may be prepared only if there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, or project revisions would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment); No Oil, supra, 13 Cal.App.3d at pp. 83-84 (significant impacts are to be interpreted so as to afford the fullest possible protection).)
D. The Project May Have Significant Environmental Impacts.

1. Applicant or the Ciry Fail to Adequate!J Disclose, Ana/yze, and Mitigate the Pro/·ect's Aesthetics Impacts to Nearqy Residents ef the Harbor View Estates Subdivision.

As it stands, the previously permitted structure comprised a 70-foot-tall, 58 by 28-foot tower located roughly 250 feet from the nearest residences at the end of Del Dios and on El Berro in the Harbor View Estates subdivision. The Harbor View Estates subdivision houses roughly 2,204 residents, 93 percent of whom own their homes. 10 Several of these residents chose to live in this subdivision-and the City of San 10 (Nextdoor, Harbor View Estates, San Clemente (Nov. 7, 2023) https: / / nextdoor.com/ neighborhood/harborviewestatesca--san-clemente--ca/ .) 512
City of San Clemente - 6 l 6 Del D10s \X'ireless Communications Facility December 5, 2023

Page 29 of 43 ends

Clemente- due to its natural setting.

The collocation and addition of 17 new structures proposed by the Project as well as the construction of an, accessory structures needed to support those and operate the proposed Project will reasonably foreseeably cause significant bulk and hence ignificant ae thetic impacts co the surrounding community. They will rea onably foreseeably create an eyesore, as compared with the plain m tal tructure now hown in the screenshot belo',;; . (See Exhibit D, p. 22.):

While we ha e been unable to obtain an image of the proposed facility at the Site, a typical SG facility image is much bulkier than the exi ting facility now, as shown in th image below:
513
City of San Clemence - 616 Del Dios \'\'ireless Communications F11c ili t December 5, 2023

Page 30 of 43 ends

.As such, the proposed collocation facility will reasonably foreseeably have aesthetic impacts on th surrounding environment, including but not limit cl to over 2,400 residents of the nearby residential subdivision. These aesthetic impacts will be further significan for the specific area in light of th nearby ridges, greenei-y, and natural vi ca surrounding the Site.

The visually inm:isive tower and the proposed Project a.re out of character with the surrounding uses and community and therefore will have ignificant aesthetic impact .

Cons quentl_, an EIR mu t b prepared to tudy and mitigate such impacts. 11

2. tpplicant Fails toAdequate!J Disclose, Anafy::;:_e, and Nlitigate the Pro/·ect\ 1T7'ildjire Impacts to earby Residents ef the Harbor View Estates Subdivfrion.

C Q requires that lead agencies thoroughly e aluate and disclose the significant environmental impacts of locating new and propo~ cl deYelopment in areas usceptible to wildfires, and to adopt all feasible mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate tho e impacts.

Wildfire have become a regular occurrence in California and will grow more 11 Based on our review of document in our po e ion, there doe not seem to have been any environmental revi w for the 1962 C P. Jf there was such environmental document, please pecify the type and please provide all documents related to such prior environmental review for the xisting facility, pur uant to California Public Records Ac . 514
City of San Clemente - 616 Del Dias Wireless Communications Facility December 5, 2023

Page 31 of 43 ends

prevalent as the climate crisis continues-an alarming reality considering the magnitude of damage that has already occurred. The state's wildfires have killed roughly 150 people since 2010 and destroyed over 97,000 structures since 2005. [citation.] And in 2022 alone, California experienced a total of 7,667 recorded wildfires and lost an estimated 363,939 acres, 772 structures, nine human lives, and countless wildlife. 12 Nine of the 10 largest wildfires and seven of the 10 most destructive in California's history have occurred in the last decade. 13 What's more, 12 of the top 20 largest and 13 of the most destructive have occurred only in the last five years and burned an area the size of Connecticut. 14 Those fires collectively destroyed 40,000 homes, businesses, and other infrastructure.

The recent rise in frequency, size, and severity of the state's wildfires can be attributed not only to global climate change generally, but also to unusual drought15 and heat (exacerbated by climate change), overgrown forests caused by decades of successful fire suppression, and rapid population growth along the edges of forests, according to U.S. Geological Survey scientist Jon Keeley.

How and where developments are built matters. According to University of Colorado fire ecologist and former Jet Propulsion Laboratory researcher Natasha Stavros, "[t]he intensity of these extreme fires, combined with the frequency and the proximity to 12 (Unknown, 2022 Incident Archive, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, <https://www.fire.ca.gov/incidents/2022/> (as of Jan. 24, 2023).) 13 (Unknown, Top 20 Largest California Wildfires, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, <https://www.fire.ca.gov/media/ 4jandlhh/top20_acres.pdf> (as of Jan. 24, 2023).; Unknown, Top 20 Largest California Wildfires, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, <https://www.fire.ca.gov/ media/ t1rdhizr/ top20_destruction.pdf> (as of Jan. 24, 2023).) 14 (Unknown, What's Behind California's Surge of Large Fires? (Sept. 13, 2021) NASA Earth Observatory <https:/ / earthobservatory.nasa.gov /images/148908/whats-behindcalifornias-surge-of-large-fires> (as of Jan. 24, 2023) ( citing Top 20 Largest California Wildfires, California Department of Fores try and Fire Protection
<https://www.fire.ca.gov/ media/ 4jandlhh/ top20_acres.pdf> ). 15 (According to Keeley, each of the last three decades has had substantially worse drought than any decade over the last 150 years. Drought exacerbates fires by sapping trees and plants of moisture and making them easier to burn, which in turn adds more biomass (i.e., fuel) to the landscape and increases a wildfire's intensity. Unknown, What:r Behind California's Surge of Large Fires? (Sept. 13, 2021) NASA Earth Observatory <https:/ / earthobservatory.nasa.gov /images/ 148908 /whats-behind-californias-surge-oflarge-fires> (as of Jan. 24, 2023).) 515
City of San Clemente - 616 Del Dios Wireless Communications Facility December 5, 2023

Page 32 of 43 ends

people" is extremely worrying. 16 One of the best ways to fight certain wildfires is to ensure new communities are not being built in fire-prone areas. For those projects that are proposed in fire-prone areas, though, there are a number of best practices to abide by and mitigation measures to incorporate.

On October 10, 2022, California Attorney General Rob Bonta (AG) issued the Best Practices for Ana!Jzjng and Mitigating Wildfire Impacts of Development Pro/·ects Under the California Environmental Qualiry Act ("Best Practices")-guidance with best practices and mitigation measures for lead agencies, local governments, and developers to consider when reviewing or proposing projects in wildfire-prone environments in order to comply with CEQA. (See Exhibit G [AG Best Practices].) As previously noted, both the California Government Code for Colocation Facilities and also CEQA require local jurisdictions considering development projects to prepare an EIR or J\1ND if a proposed project may potentially have a significant impact on the environment, and is not otherwise exempt from CEQA compliance.

CEQA's critical process for lead agencies to comprehend the mechanism(s) through which proposed developments will exacerbate existing wildfire risks, allows those agencies to consider project design features, alternatives, and mitigation measures that ensure existing-and new-communities are protected.

The CEQA Guidelines mandate that the EIR or J\1ND provide a baseline of existing environmental conditions-in other words, a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the proposed project-at the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) is published, or otherwise at the time the environmental analysis is published. (See CEQA Guidelines,§ 15125, subd. (a)(1).) The AG advises that lead agencies utilize this point in the environmental review process to include an analysis of open space areas and habitats within and around the proposed project that may be prone to wildfires, the area's wildfire history, the quality and quantity of fuels on or near the project site, and of existing and available water supplies for firefighting efforts. By including certain details about the existing conditions at and around the project site that may exacerbate (or minimize) wildfire impacts, the lead agency ensures that the environmental analysis considers the full 16 (Unknown, A Multi-Dimensional Fire Challenge (Sept. 21, 2021) NASA Earth Observatory <https:/ / earthobservatory.nasa.gov /images/148913 / a-multi-dimensional-fire-challenge> (as of Jan. 24, 2023).)
516
City of San Clemente - 616 Del Dios Wireless Communications Facility December 5, 2023

Page 33 of 43 ends

scope of the project's impacts.

Included in the requirement that proposed projects be accompanied by an analysis of any significant environmental effects a proposed project may cause or exacerbate by being developed in or bringing people into a given area is a study of the potential effects of locating development in wildfire risk areas. (See CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.2.) Appendix G, Section XX of the CEQA Guidelines advises lead agencies to determine whether projects located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection ("CAL FIRE") would:
(Ibid.)
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire;
c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment; or
d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.

Section IX, subsection (g) directs lead agencies to also consider whether a projecteither onsite or offsite-will "expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires." (See CEQA Guidelines,§ 15160 [defining the environment to be considered as "the area in which significant effects would occur either directly or indirectly as a result of the project"].) According to the AG, lead agencies should consider three primary variables in the context of wildfire impacts, though any thorough environmental review will contain additional considerations in its determination of whether and how a proposed project may exacerbate wildfire risks. These variables include project density, location and landscape, and water supply infrastructure.
517
City of San Clemente - 616 Del Dios Wireless Communications Facility December 5, 2023

Page 34 of 43 ends

a. Project Density
A project's density influences how likely a fire is to start or spread, and how likely it is that the development and its occupants will be in danger should a fire start. (Best Practices, p. 7 .) According to Conservation Biology Institute research scientist Alexandra D. Syphard, Ph.D., fire spread and structure loss are more likely to occur in low- to intermediate-density developments given that they are often insufficiently concentrated to disrupt fire spread by removing or substantially fragmenting wildland vegetation.17 Additionally, according to University of California wildlife specialist Max A. Moritz, these "isolated clusters of development and low housing density mean that homes are embedded within, and more exposed to, a matrix of wildland vegetation[,]" 18 which also causes accessibility issues for firefighters. 19 b. Project Location in Landscape
How a development project is planned within a given landscape determines the magnitude by which it will influence fire risk. 20 Wildfire risk is also influenced by project placement in the landscape relative to that location's fire history, topography, the amount of biofuel present, climatic conditions, and fire weather such as low humidity and high winds. (Best Practices, p. 8.) For example, wildfire risk may be 17 (Syphard, Alexandra D., The Relative Iefluence ef Climate and Housing Development on Current and Prqjected Future Fire Patterns and Structure Loss Across Three California Landscapes (2019) Global Environmental Change; Syphard, Alexandra D., et al., Housing Arrangement and Location Determine the Likelihood efHousing Loss Due to Wilc!ftre (Mar. 28, 2012) PLOS ONE <https:/ /journals.plos.org/ plosone/ article?id=10.1371 /journal.pone.0033954> (as of Jan. 24, 2023).; see generally Syphard, Alexandra D., Multiple-Scale Relationships between Vegetation, the Wild/and-Urban Intetface, and Structure Loss to WzJc!ftre in California (Mar. 12, 2021) MDPI Fire 2021.)
18 (Moritz, Max A., et al., Learning to Coexist with Wilc!ftre (2014) Nature, Vol. 515, Issue 7 525, at p. 64; see also Syphard, Alexandra D., Multiple-Scale Relationships between Vegetation, the Wild/and-Urban Intetface, and Structure Loss to TVilc!ftre in California (Mar. 12, 2021) MDPI Fire 2021.)
19 (Syphard, Alexandra D., Wry Are So Ma'!)! Structures Burning in California? (2020) Fremontia, Vol. 47, Issue 2, at p. 31. MDPI Fire 2021
<https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70215982> (as of Jan. 24, 2023).) 20 (See generalfy Moritz, Max, et al., Building to Coexist with Fire: Community Risk Reduction Measures for New Development in California (Apr. 2020) University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources, Publication 8680 <https:/ / escholarship.org/uc/item/6n12m6pn>; Syphard, Alexandra D., Wry Are So Ma'!)! Structures Burning in California? (2020) Fremontia, vol. 47, issue 2, pp. 28-35. MDPI Fire 2021 <https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70215982> (as of Jan. 24, 2023).)
518
City of San Clemente - 616 Del Dios Wireless Communications Facility December 5, 2023

Page 35 of 43 ends

exacerbated by locating a development in a wind corridor, in rugged terrain, or atop steep hills. (Ibid.) On the other hand, incorporating into the development or strategically locating it among certain landscape features such as a lake, irrigated golf course, or other buffer zone, could curb wildfire risk. 21 The Conservation Biology Institute, in its Paradise Nature-Based Fire Resilience Report, offered a scientific justification for a "defensible space" zone (i.e., Wildfire Risk Reduction Buffers (WRRBs)) 22 around a community to reduce certain impacts, and cited to certain Sierra Nevada foothill homes' siting and greenbelts as having offered fire protection during the Camp Fire of 2018. 23
c. Water Supply Infrastructure
Apart from analyzing project density and location, a project's environmental analysis should also include a determination of whether the water supplies and infrastructure in a given area are sufficient to address firefighting efforts. 24 d. Other Considerations
Fire modeling and other spatial and statistical analyses are imperative in quantifying wildfire risks resulting from a development that adds more people to wildfire prone areas. (Best Practices, p. 9.) According to the AG, expert analysts should employ fire models to account for each project's nuances in terms of siting (i.e., topography) and design elements, and to account for an array of fire scenarios, including those fires:
• Ignited by lightening or other act of God,
• Ignited by different climatic conditions,
21 (Moritz, Max, et al., Building to Coexist with Fire: Communi!J Risk Reduction Measures for New Development in California (Apr. 2020) University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources, Publication 8680 <https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6n12m6pn>.) 22 The Conservation Biology Institute defined WRRBs as zones comprised of green land uses (a.k.a., greenbelts) of parkland, orchards, and other low ignition-risk land uses, combined with wildland properties managed for fire risk reduction. 23 (Paradise Nature-Based Fire Resilience Project Final Report Gune 2020) Conservation Biology Institute
<https:/ / d2k78bk4kdhbpr.cloudfront.net/ media/ reports/ files/ CBI_Paradise_Final_Repor t_for_Posting_ Online. pdf> .)
24 (Moritz, Max, et al., Building to Coexist with Fire: Communi!J Risk Reduction Measures for New Development in California (Apr. 2020) University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources, Publication 8680, p. 19 and appen. B
<https:/ / escholarship.org/uc/item/ 6n12m6pn> .)
519
City of San Clemente - 616 Del Dios Wireless Communications Facility December 5, 2023

Page 36 of 43 ends

• Ignited by unnatural means (accident and arson),
• Originating from every conceivable direction,
• Originating within the project site,
• Originating near and far from the project site,
• Spread with and without WRRBs,
• Spread with an array of different WRRB types and locations, and • Exacerbated by extreme weather conditions.

This list is illustrative and non-exhaustive and should include additional characteristics and data points as lead agencies and expert analysts deem appropriate and necessary such that the project's environmental review is thorough, well-reasoned, and based on substantial evidence.

In addition to modeling various scenarios to quantify risks, the AG now encourages lead agencies to develop certain thresholds of significance that identify the increase in wildfire risk sufficient to constitute the impact as a significant; or to determine, based on substantial evidence, at what threshold an increase in wildfire risk is not considered a significant impact. Appropriate factors to consider in this analysis include, among others, the project's impact on ignition risk, the likelihood of fire spread, and the extent of exposure for existing and new residents based on various fire scenarios. e. The Project's Fire Hazards Impacts
Here, the Project is located at 616 Del Dios, in an area that has been designated by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection's Fire and Resource Assessment Program as a ''Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone" (VHFHSZ)-the highest of the three levels of hazard in the Local Responsibility Areas (LRA). 25 (See Map of CAL FIRE's Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA - Orange (Exhibit H [San Clemente Very High Severity Zones Map]); see also Gov. Code, §§ 5117 5-89; accord Pub. Res. Code, § 4202.) These maps evaluate hazard, not risk, and thus address a location's physical conditions that contribute to a likelihood and expectation of fire behavior over a certain period. Notably, these maps do not 25 An LRA is an incorporated city, urban region, agriculture land, or portion of the desert where the local government is responsible for wildfire protection. 520
City of San Clemente - 616 Del Dias Wireless Communications Facility December 5, 2023

Page 37 of 43 ends

measure mitigation-as such, it is the responsibility of, in this case, the City and/ or County, to mandate the implementation of measures to ensure that the likelihood of the Project contributing to fire hazards remains low. Consequently, any development or modification of the Project Site must be accompanied by a thorough analysis of the Project's potential fire hazards impacts. As it stands now, and based on the information available, the Project's fire hazards impacts have not been analyzed.

E. The Project May Contribute to Cumulative Impacts.

While the Los Angeles County Draft 2045 Climate Action Plan (2045 CAP) is not operative in the Orange County, it is informative. Considering the 2045 CAP as such, it is worth noting its acknowledgement that the relocation and construction of new structures associated with telecommunication device projects may have cumulative impacts. According to the 2045 CAP EIR:

Future utility-grade solar and electrical transmission infrastructure projects that could be facilitated by the Draft 2045 CAP measures and actions may also affect communication signals due to EMF in two ways: (1) solar panels and their associated transmission lines may generate electromagnetic noise, which could interfere with telecommunications services such as radar, microwave, television, and radio transmissions; or, more commonly, (2) solar panels would create physical obstructions that distort communications signals. The types of communications systems that may be affected include microwave systems, off-air television broadcast signals, land mobile radio operations, and mobile telephone services.

Projects facilitated by the Draft 2045 CAP would cause or contribute a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Implementation of the identified mitigation measures would reduce related impacts, but not to a less-than-significant level.
521
City of San Clemente - 616 Del Dios Wireless Communications Facility December 5, 2023

Page 38 of 43 ends

Telecommunications infrastructure includes small cell facilities and macro towers. Small cell facilities are located on existing or proposed vertical infrastructure, such as streetlights, utility poles, and traffic signal poles in the public right-of-way. Macro towers are large independent structures with the
single purpose of supporting telecommunications. These tend to be large mono-towers that are either in the public right-of-way or are on private or public property. Numerous telecommunications providers operate within Los Angeles County and either share infrastructure or own their own facilities to provide cellular service Countywide. (2045 CAP EIR, Impacts 3.10-32, 3.17-5, 3.17-12.)
As such, a Project-specific EIR must be prepared before the Project in its entirety may be approved. Further, such EIR must study the impacts of all the approvals and work permits granted to date for the Project, as well as the cumulative impact of the Project along with related similar projects. To ignore these mandates undercuts the Legislature's promulgation (and courts' expansion) of and reasoning for CEQA.

F. The Project Is Improperly Piecemealed in Violation of CEQA.

CEQA forbids "piecemeal" review of the significant environmental impacts of a project an:d mandates that ''the lead agency must consider the whole of an action, not simply its constituent parts, when determining whether it will have a significant environmental effect." (CEQA Guidelines§§ 15003, subd. (h), 15378, subd. (a); see Lighthouse Field Beach Rescue v. Cz!y of Santa Cruz (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1170, 1208. ["The prohibition against piecemeal review is the flip side of the requirement that the whole of a project be reviewed under CEQA."]; see also CEQA Guidelines,§ 15378, subd. (a).) Rather, CEQA mandates 'that environmental considerations do not become submerged by chopping a large project into many little ones-each with a minimal potential impact on the environment-which cumulatively may have disastrous consequences. (McCann v. Cz!y of San Diego (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 51, internal citation and quotations omitted.) Different projects "may properly undergo separate environmental review (i.e., no piecemealing) when the projects ... can be implemented independently." (Id. at p. 85 [quoting Banning Ranch Conservanry v. Cz!y of Newport Beach (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1209].) Additionally, the question of whether and which actions constitute the 'whole of an action' for purposes of CEQA is one of law, which the courts review de novo based on the undisputed facts in the record." 522
City of San Clemente - 616 Del Dios Wireless Communications Facility December 5, 2023

Page 39 of 43 ends

( Communities for a Better Environment v. Ci!J of Richmond (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 98.) The California Supreme Court has concluded that to avoid piecemealing, an agency's environmental review of a project under CEQA must address all aspects of a project - that are a "reasonably foreseeable consequence" of the project and would be "significant" such that "it will likely change the scope or nature of the initial project or its environmental effects." (Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 396.) Furthermore, some courts have concluded that a proposed project is part of a larger project for CEQA purposes if the proposed project is a "crucial functional element of the larger project such that, without it, the larger project could not proceed." (Communities for a Better Environment v.

Ci!J of Richmond (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 98, 99.)
CEQA's piecemealing prohibition stems from two sources-a public agency's duty to define the project being evaluated by the whole of an action, and its duty to consider the effects, both individual and collective, of all activities involved in the project. (Pub. Res. Code,§ 21002.1, subd. (d); CEQA Guidelines,§ 15378, subds. (a), (c).) Moreover, CEQA's piecemealing prohibition stems from its requirement to consider the cumulative impacts of all phased or multiple projects which are part of the same general undertaking. (CEQA Guidelines,§ 15165.) For purposes of cumulative impacts analysis, CEQA mandates to consider the impacts of the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. (CEQA Guidelines,§§ 15063, subd. (b)(l) [prepare an EIR "if the agency determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the project, either individually or cumulatively, may cause a significant effect on the environment, regardless of whether the overall effect of the project is adverse or beneficial"]; 15064, subd. (h) Uead agencies must consider cumulative impacts of past, other current and "probable future" projects].) Even if the Project's impacts are significant, its incremental effects, when added to other past, present, and probable future projects, can be cumulatively significant. (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15065, subd. (a)(3), 15130, subd. (b)(l)(A), 15355, subd. (b).)
The California Supreme Court has defined piecemealing as chopping a large project into many little ones, each with a minimal potential impact on the environment - which cumulatively may have disastrous consequences. (BoZ?4ng v. Local Agenry Formation Comm. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263, 283-284 (quotations omitted).) Thus, identifying and studying the "whole of the project" is crucial to attainment of CEQA's goals of properly disclosing and mitigating environmental impacts. 'Project' is given a 523
City of San Clemente - 616 Del Dios Wireless Communications Facility December 5, 2023

Page 40 of 43 ends

San Clemente City CouncilJanuary 16, 2024

San Clemente City Council
January 16, 2024