Agenda packet — Fontana City Council, June 27, 2023 (part 6 of 7)

8. THIRD PARTY LITIGATION.

8.1 General Plan Litigation. CITY has determined that this Agreement is consistent with its Comprehensive General Plan, as such General Plan existed as of the Effective Date of this Agreement (“General Plan”), and that the General Plan meets all requirements of law. OWNER has reviewed the General Plan and concurs with CITY’s determination.

CITY shall have no liability in damages under this Agreement for any failure of CITY to perform under this Agreement or the inability of OWNER to develop the Property as contemplated by the Development Plan of this Agreement as the result of a judicial determination that on the Effective Date, or at any time thereafter, the General Plan, or portions thereof, are invalid or inadequate or not in compliance with law.

8.2 Third Party Litigation Concerning Agreement. OWNER shall defend, at its expense, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, indemnify, and hold harmless CITY, its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against CITY, its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Agreement or the approval of any permit granted pursuant to this Agreement. CITY shall 160 974
Exhibit A
promptly notify OWNER of any such claim, action or proceeding, and CITY shall cooperate in the defense. If CITY fails to promptly notify OWNER of any such claim, action or proceeding, or if CITY fails to cooperate in the defense, OWNER shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless CITY. CITY may in its discretion participate in the defense of any such claim, action or proceeding. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, City acknowledges that OWNER shall have no obligation under this provision if it intends to abandon the Project.

8.3 Indemnity. In addition to the provisions of 8.2 above, OWNER shall indemnify and hold CITY, its officers, agents, employees and independent contractors free and harmless from any liability whatsoever, based or asserted upon any act or omission of OWNER, its officers, agents, employees, subcontractors and independent contractors, for property damage, bodily injury, or death (OWNER’s employees included) or any other element of damage of any kind or nature, relating to or in any way connected with or arising from the activities contemplated hereunder, including, but not limited to, the study, design, engineering, construction, completion, failure and conveyance of the public improvements, save and except claims for damages arising through the sole active negligence or sole willful misconduct of CITY. OWNER shall defend, at its expense, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, CITY, its officers, agents, employees and independent contractors in any legal action based upon such alleged acts or omissions.

CITY may in its discretion participate in the defense of any such legal action.

8.4 Environmental Assurances. OWNER shall indemnify and hold CITY, its officers, agents, and employees free and harmless from any liability, based or asserted, upon any act or omission of OWNER, its officers, agents, employees, subcontractors, and independent contractors for any violation of any federal, state or local law, ordinance or regulation relating to industrial hygiene or to environmental conditions on, under or about the Property, including, but not limited to, soil and groundwater conditions, and OWNER shall defend, at its expense, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, CITY, its officers, agents and employees in any action based or asserted upon any such alleged act or omission. CITY may in its discretion participate in the defense of any such action.

8.5 Reservation of Rights. With respect to Sections 8.2, 8.3 and 8.4 herein, CITY reserves the right to either (1) approve the attorney(s) which OWNER selects, hires or otherwise engages to defend CITY hereunder, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, or (2) conduct its own defense, provided, however, that OWNER shall reimburse CITY forthwith for any and all reasonable expenses incurred for such defense, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, upon billing and accounting therefor.

8.6 Survival. The provisions of this Sections 8.1 through 8.6, inclusive, shall survive the termination of this Agreement.

9. MORTGAGEE PROTECTION.

The parties hereto agree that this Agreement shall not prevent or limit OWNER, in any manner, at OWNER’s sole discretion, from encumbering the Property or any portion thereof or any improvement thereon by any mortgage, deed of trust or other security 161 975
Exhibit A
device securing financing with respect to the Property. CITY acknowledges that the lenders providing such financing may require certain Agreement interpretations and modifications and agrees upon request, from time to time, to meet with OWNER and representatives of such lenders to negotiate in good faith any such request for interpretation or modification. CITY will not unreasonably withhold its consent to any such requested interpretation or modification provided such interpretation or modification is consistent with the intent and purposes of this Agreement. Any Mortgagee of the Property shall be entitled to the following rights and privileges:
(a) Neither entering into this Agreement nor a breach of this Agreement shall defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any mortgage on the Property made in good faith and for value, unless otherwise required by law. (b) The Mortgagee of any mortgage or deed of trust encumbering the Property, or any part thereof, which Mortgagee, has submitted a request in writing to the CITY in the manner specified herein for giving notices, shall be entitled to receive written notification from CITY of any default by OWNER in the performance of OWNER’s obligations under this Agreement.
(c) If CITY timely receives a request from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any notice of default given to OWNER under the terms of this Agreement, CITY shall provide a copy of that notice to the Mortgagee within ten (10) days of sending the notice of default to OWNER. The Mortgagee shall have the right, but not the obligation, to cure the default during the remaining cure period allowed such party under this Agreement. (d) Any Mortgagee who comes into possession of the Property, or any part thereof, pursuant to foreclosure of the mortgage or deed of trust, or deed in lieu of such foreclosure, shall take the Property, or part thereof, subject to the terms of this Agreement.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement to the contrary, no Mortgagee shall have an obligation or duty under this Agreement to perform any of OWNER’s obligations or other affirmative covenants of OWNER hereunder, or to guarantee such performance; provided, however, that to the extent that any covenant to be performed by OWNER is a condition precedent to the performance of a covenant by CITY , the performance thereof shall continue to be a condition precedent to CITY’s performance hereunder, and further provided that any sale, transfer or assignment by any Mortgagee in possession shall be subject to the provisions of Section 2.4 of this Agreement.

10. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.

10.1 Recordation of Agreement. This Agreement and any amendment or cancellation thereof shall be recorded with the San Bernardino County Recorder by the City Clerk within the period required by Section 65868.5 of the Government Code. If the parties to this Agreement or their successors in interest amend or cancel this Agreement as provided for herein and in Government Code Section 65868, or if the CITY terminates or modifies the agreement as provided for herein and in Government Code Section 65865.1 for failure of the applicant to comply in good faith with the terms or conditions of 162 976
Exhibit A
this Agreement, the City Clerk shall have notice of such action recorded with the San Bernardino County Recorder.

10.2 Entire Agreement. This Agreement sets forth and contains the entire understanding and agreement of the parties, and there are no oral or written representations, understandings or ancillary covenants, undertakings or agreements which are not contained or expressly referred to herein. No testimony or evidence of any such representations, understandings or covenants shall be admissible in any proceeding of any kind or nature to interpret or determine the terms or conditions of this Agreement.

10.3 Severability. If any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement shall be determined invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby to the extent such remaining provisions are not rendered impractical to perform taking into consideration the purposes of this Agreement.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the provision of the Public Benefits set forth in Section 4 of this Agreement, including the payment of the fees set forth therein, are essential elements of this Agreement and CITY would not have entered into this Agreement but for such provisions, and therefore in the event such provisions are determined to be invalid, void or unenforceable, this entire Agreement shall be null and void and of no force and effect whatsoever.

10.4 Governing Law; Interpretation. This Agreement and any dispute arising hereunder shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. This Agreement shall be construed as a whole according to its fair language and common meaning to achieve the objectives and purposes of the parties hereto, and the rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be employed in interpreting this Agreement, all parties having been represented by counsel in the negotiation and preparation hereof.

10.5 Section Headings. All section headings and subheadings are inserted for convenience only and shall not affect any construction or interpretation of this Agreement.

10.6 Singular and Plural. As used herein, the singular of any word includes the plural.

10.7 Joint and Several Obligations. If at any time during the term of this Agreement the Property is owned, in whole or in part, by more than one owner, all obligations of such owners under this Agreement shall be joint and several, and the default of any such owner shall be the default of all such owners. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no owner of a single lot which has been finally subdivided and sold to such owner as a member of the general public or otherwise as an ultimate user shall have any obligation under this Agreement except as provided under Section 4 hereof.

10.8 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of .the provisions of this Agreement as to which time is an element.

10.9 Waiver. Failure by a party to insist upon the strict performance of any of the provisions of this Agreement by the other party, or the failure by a party to exercise its 163 977
Exhibit A
rights upon the default of the other party, shall not constitute a waiver of such party’s right to insist and demand strict compliance by the other party with the terms of this Agreement thereafter.

10.10 No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of the parties and their successors and assigns. No other person shall have any right of action based upon any provision of this Agreement.

10.11 Force Majeure. Neither party shall be deemed to be in default where failure or delay in performance of any of its obligations under this Agreement is caused by floods, earthquakes, epidemics, pandemics, other Acts of God, fires, wars, riots or similar hostilities, strikes and other labor difficulties beyond the party’s control, (including the party’s employment force), government regulations, court actions (such as restraining orders or injunctions), or other causes beyond the party’s control. If any such events shall occur, the term of this Agreement and the time for performance by either party of any of its obligations hereunder may be extended by the written agreement of the parties for the period of time that such events prevented such performance, provided that the term of this Agreement shall not be extended under any circumstances for more than five (5) years.

10.12 Mutual Covenants. The covenants contained herein are mutual covenants and also constitute conditions to the concurrent or subsequent performance by the party benefited thereby of the covenants to be performed hereunder by such benefited party.

10.13 Successors in Interest. The burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon, and the benefits of this Agreement shall inure to, all successors in interest to the parties to this Agreement. All provisions of this Agreement shall be enforceable as equitable servitudes and constitute covenants running with the land. Each covenant to do or refrain from doing some act hereunder with regard to development of the Property: (a) is for the benefit of and is a burden upon every portion of the Property; (b) runs with the Property and each portion thereof; and, (c) is binding upon each party and each successor in interest during ownership of the Property or any portion thereof.

10.14 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed by the parties in counterparts, which counterparts shall be construed together and have the same effect as if all of the parties had executed the same instrument.

10.15 Jurisdiction and Venue. Any action at law or in equity arising under this Agreement or brought by a party hereto for the purpose of enforcing, construing or determining the validity of any provision of this Agreement shall be filed and tried in the Superior Court of the County of San Bernardino, State of California, and the parties hereto waive all provisions of law providing for the filing, removal or change of venue to any other court.

10.16 Project as a Private Undertaking. It is specifically understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto that the development of the Project is a private development, that neither party is acting as the agent of the other in any respect 164 978
Exhibit A
hereunder, and that each party is an independent contracting entity with respect to the terms, covenants and conditions contained in this Agreement. No partnership, joint venture or other association of any kind is formed by this Agreement. The only relationship between CITY and OWNER is that of a government entity regulating the development of private property and the owner of such property.

10.17 Further Actions and Instruments. Each of the parties shall cooperate with and provide reasonable assistance to the other to the extent contemplated hereunder in the performance of all obligations under this Agreement and the satisfaction of the conditions of this Agreement. Upon the request of either party at any time, the other party shall promptly execute, with acknowledgment or affidavit if reasonably required, and file or record such required instruments and writings and take any actions as may be reasonably necessary under the terms of this Agreement to carry out the intent and to fulfill the provisions of this Agreement or to evidence or consummate the transactions contemplated by this Agreement. The City Manager may delegate their powers and duties under this Agreement to an Assistant City Manager or other management level employee of the CITY.

10.18 Eminent Domain. No provision of this Agreement shall be construed to limit or restrict the exercise by CITY of its power of eminent domain.

10.19 Agent for Service of Process. In the event OWNER is not a resident of the State of California or it is an association, partnership or joint venture without a member, partner or joint venturer resident of the State of California, or it is a foreign corporation, then in any such event, OWNER shall file with the Planning Director, upon its execution of this Agreement, a designation of a natural person residing in the State of California, giving his or her name, residence and business addresses, as its agent for the purpose of service of process in any court action arising out of or based upon this Agreement, and the delivery to such agent of a copy of any process in any such action shall constitute valid service upon OWNER. If for any reason service of such process upon such agent is not feasible, then in such event OWNER may be personally served with such process out of this County and such service shall constitute valid service upon OWNER. OWNER is amenable to the process so served, submits to the jurisdiction of the Court so obtained and waives any and all objections and protests thereto. OWNER for itself, assigns and successors hereby waives the provisions of the Hague Convention (Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extra Judicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, 20 U.S.T. 361, T.I.A.S. No. 6638).

10.20 Estoppel Certificate. Within thirty (30) business days following a written request by any of the parties, the other party shall execute and deliver to the requesting party a statement certifying that (i) either this Agreement is unmodified and in full force and effect or there have been specified (date and nature) modifications to the Agreement, but it remains in full force and effect as modified; and (ii) either there are no known current uncured defaults under this Agreement or that the responding party alleges that specified (date and nature) defaults exist. The statement shall also provide any other reasonable information requested. The failure to timely deliver this statement shall constitute a conclusive presumption that this Agreement is in full force and effect without modification 165 979
Exhibit A
except as may be represented by the requesting party and that there are no uncured defaults in the performance of the requesting party, except as may be represented by the requesting party. OWNER shall pay to CITY all costs incurred by CITY in connection with the issuance of estoppel certificates under this Section 10.20 prior to CITY’s issuance of such certificates.

10.21 Authority to Execute. The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of OWNER warrants and represents that he or she/they have the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of his or her/their corporation, partnership or business entity and warrants and represents that he or she/they has/have the authority to bind OWNER to the performance of its obligations hereunder.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Development Agreement on the last day and year set forth below.

OWNER
ACACIA REAL ESTATE GROUP, INC.,
a California corporation
By:

David Pittman
Its: President
Dated:
166 980
Exhibit A

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A notary public or other officer completing
this certificate verifies only the identity of
the individual who signed the document to
which this certificate is attached, and not
the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that
document.

State of California
County of )
On before me,
______________________________
_______
(insert name and title of the
officer)
personally appeared
_________________________________________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature _________________________________ (Seal)
167 981
Exhibit A
CITY:

CITY OF FONTANA, a California
municipal corporation
By:_____________________________
Acquanetta Warren, Mayor
Dated: __________________
By: ____________________________
Matthew C. Ballantyne, City Manager
ATTEST:

By:_____________________________
Germaine McClellan Key, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
________________________________
City Attorney
168 982
Exhibit A

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature _________________________________ (Seal)
5703203.2
27967-940
169 983

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
TO:_X_ County Clerk, County of FROM: City of Fontana
San Bernardino Planning Department
8353 Sierra Avenue
___ Office of Planning and Research Fontana, CA 92335
SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in Compliance with Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code.

Project Title: Master Case (MCN) No. 20-099: General Plan Amendment No. 21-005, Zone Change No. 21- 007, Development Agreement No. 22-007, Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) No. 20608 (TPM No. 21-022), Design Review No. 21-039, and Development Agreement No. 22-007.

State Clearinghouse Number: N/A
Name of Person or Agency carrying out project: Doug Hinrichs, HPA Inc., 18831 Bardeen Ave., Suite No. 100, Irvine, CA 92612.

Project Location: The project site is located on the east side of Sierra Avenue and south of Duncan Canyon Road (APNs: 0239-151-19, -25, -26, and -36).

Project Description: Master Case No. 21-099, General Plan Amendment No. 21-005, Zone Change No. 21- 007, Tentative Parcel Map No. 20608 (TPM No. 21-022), Design Review No. 21-039 and Development Agreement No. 22-007 - for a land use designation change from General Commercial and Multi Family High Residential to Light Industrial as well as the construction of two (2) commerce center buildings totaling approximately 385,043 square feet on a site of approximately 19.0 gross acres and associated on-site and offsite improvements.

This is to certify that the City of Fontana approved the above described project on April 4, 2023 and made the following determinations:

1. The project __X__ will ___ will not have a significant effect on the environment.

2. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared and fully analyzed the effects of the project. The EIR thoroughly analyzed and discussed all potential environmental impacts.

3. Mitigation measures X were ____ were not made a condition of the approval of the project.

4. A Statement of Overriding Considerations X_ was __ was not adopted for this project.

5. Findings X were ___ were not made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.

6. The location and custodian of the documents which comprise the record of proceedings for the Addenda are specified as follows:

Custodian: City of Fontana, Planning Department
Location: 8353 Sierra Avenue, Fontana, CA 92335
____________________________
DiTanyon Johnson
Principal Planner
Date Received for Filing
ATTACHMENT NO. 9 170 984

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
SI DESEA INFORMACION EN ESPAÑOL REFERENTE A ESTA NOTIFICACION O PROYECTO, FAVOR DE COMUNICARSE AL (909) 350-6728.

In compliance with Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132) and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof, the Agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability. Should you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Department by calling (909) 350-7602. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.

A PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN SCHEDULED BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FONTANA FOR THE FOLLOWING:

Acacia Project: Master Case (MCN) No. 21-099, Design Review Project (DRP) No. 21-039, Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) No. 21-022, General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 21-005, Zone Change Application (ZCA) No. 21-007 and Development Agreement No. 22-007: Request for development of an approximately 19.0‐acre property (APNs 0239‐151‐19, ‐25, ‐26, and ‐36) with two industrial commerce center buildings having maximum sizes of 296,297 square feet (s.f) and 88,746 s.f. (total of 385,043 s.f.), consolidation of 4 parcels into 2 parcels, proposed amendment of the General Plan designation from Multi‐Family High Density Residential (R‐MFH) and General Commercial (C‐G) to Light Industrial (I‐L), and proposed amendment of the zoning designation from Multi‐Family High Density Residential (R‐5) and General Commercial (C‐2) to Light Industrial (M‐1). The industrial commerce center project also includes a proposed truck loading area that will be screened by a 14-foot-high wall along the south side of Building No. 1 and on the west side of Building No. 2, vehicular parking areas, drive aisles, and landscaping. The applicant has also prepared a development agreement.

Environmental
Determination:

This project has been
determined to have a significant
effect on the environment and a
Draft Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) (SCH No.
2022030544) has been
prepared pursuant to Sections
15080 and 15097 of the
California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).

Location of
Property:

The Project Site is located
east of Sierra Avenue and
south of Duncan Canyon
Road (APNs: 0239‐151‐19, ‐
25, ‐26, and ‐36)
Date of
Hearing:

April 18, 2023
Place of
Hearing:

City Hall Council
Chambers
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
ATTACHMENT NO. 10
171 985
Time of
Hearing: 6:00 P.M.

The City of Fontana (City) has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed project. The Draft and Final EIR is available for review at City Hall (8353 Sierra Avenue Fontana, CA 92335) and online at https://www.fontana.org/2137/Environmental-Documents. Should you have any questions concerning this project, please contact Salvador Quintanilla, Senior Planner at (909) 350-6656 or [email protected].

ANY INTERESTED PARTY MAY PROVIDE INFORMATION BY LETTER OR EMAIL WHICH MAY BE OF ASSISTANCE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. A COPY OF THE APPLICATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION IS AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION. PLEASE CONTACT THE PLANNER LISTED ABOVE.

IF YOU CHALLENGE IN COURT ANY ACTION TAKEN CONCERNING A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM, YOU MAY

BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED AT THE PUBLIC

HEARING DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE, OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE TO THE CITY AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE PUBLIC HEARING.

Publish: April 7, 2023
172 986
City of Fontana
Planning Commission
Minutes
Cathline Fort, Chair
Idilio Sanchez, Vice Chair
Ralph Thrasher, Secretary
Raj Sangha, Commissioner
Ricardo Quintana, Commissioner
Tuesday April 18, 2023 6:00 P.M. Grover W. Taylor Council Chambers _________________________________________________________________________ CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL:

A. Call to Order/Roll Call:

A regular meeting of the City of Fontana Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, April 18th, 2023. Chair Fort called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m.

Present: Chair Fort, Vice Chair Sanchez, Secretary Thrasher, Commissioners Sangha and Quintana

Absent: None
INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:

A. Invocation/Pledge of Allegiance:

Following the Invocation by Chair Fort, the Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Sangha.

PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS:

A. Public Communications:

None.
987
Planning Commission Minutes April 18, 2023

Page 2 of 10 ends

CONSENT CALENDAR:

A. Approval of Minutes:

Approve the Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 4 th
, 2023.

B. Master Case Nos. 23-022, -023, -024, -025, -026 and Appeal (APL) Nos. 22-003, -005, -007, -009 and -011 - Appeal of the Director of Planning’s decision approving Administrative Site Plan No. 22-013, for the request to modify an existing Southern California Edison (SCE) transmission tower with new wireless telecommunications equipment consisting of twelve (12) panel antennas, fifteen (15) radio remote units (RRUs) and ground mounted within a new lease area of approximately 200 square feet.

Adopt a Resolution PC No. 2023-015 denying Appeal Nos. 22-003, -005, -007,- 009 and -011, thereby upholding the decision of the Director of Planning approving Administrative Site Plan No. 22-013, a request to modify an existing Southern California Edison transmission tower with wireless telecommunications equipment consisting of twelve (12) panel antenna, fifteen (15) radio remote units (RRUs) and ground mounted equipment within a new lease area of approximately 200 square feet that was reviewed at the April 4, 2023 Planning Commission Hearing.

ACTION: A Motion was made by Secretary Thrasher and seconded by Commissioner Quintana and passed by a vote of 5-0 to approve the Consent Calendar.

The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: Chair Fort, Vice Chair Sanchez, Secretary Thrasher, and Commissioners Sangha and Quintana.

Abstain: None
PH-A Master Case No. 22-089: Tentative Parcel Map No. 20560 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 22-046) and Design Review No. 22-046. A proposal for a tentative parcel map to consolidate two parcels into one and site and architectural review for the construction of an industrial commerce center building totaling approximately 100,256 square feet on 4.89 adjusted gross acres.

Chair Fort opened Public Hearing
No one spoke in favor or opposition of this item.

Chair Fort requested that this item be continued to the next Planning Commission Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, May 2, 2023.
988
Planning Commission Minutes April 18, 2023

Page 3 of 10 ends

ACTION: Motion was made by Vice Chair Sanchez and seconded by Secretary Thrasher and passed by a vote of 5-0 to continue this item to the next Planning Commission Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, May 2, 2023.

The motion carried by the following vote:

AYES: Sanchez, Thrasher, Fort, Sangha and Quintana; NOES: None; ABSTAIN:

None.

ABSENT: None
PH-B Master Case No. 22-108; Conditional Use Permit No. 22-027 - A request for approval to upgrade an existing Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) License Type 41 (On-Sale Beer & Wine- Eating Place) to an ABC License Type 47 (On-Sale GeneralEating Place) for an existing restaurant El Sinaloense Tacos and Beer.

Chair Fort opened Public Hearing.

Mai Thao, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report.

The Commission and staff briefly discussed the difference between the existing Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) License Type 41 and License Type 47.

The applicant Eliseo Haro stated that he read and agreed to the Conditions of Approval.

The Public Hearing was closed.

RECOMMENDATION:

Based on the information in the staff report and subject to the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PC No. 2023-016; and:

1. Determine that the project is Categorially Exempt pursuant to Section No. 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Section No. 3.22 (Categorical Exemption) of the 2019 Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act; and direct staff to file a notice of Exemption; and,

2. Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 22-027
ACTION: Motion was made by Vice Chair Sanchez and seconded by Commissioner Sangha and passed by a vote of 5-0 to; adopt Resolution PC No. 2023-016 and approve Conditional Use Permit No. 22-027.

The motion carried by the following vote:
989
Planning Commission Minutes April 18, 2023

Page 4 of 10 ends

AYES: Sanchez, Sangha, Fort, Thrasher and Quintana; NOES: None; ABSTAIN:

None.

ABSENT: None
PH-C Master Case No. 21-090: General Plan Amendment No. 21-004, Zone Change No. 21-006, Tentative Parcel Map No. 20523 (TPM No. 21-018), Design Review No. 21-034, and Development Agreement No. 22-006 - for the development of a 199,999 square foot Industrial Commerce Building.

Chair Fort opened Public Hearing.

Salvador Quintanilla, Senior Planner, presented the staff report.

The Commission and staff discussed the Existing and Proposed General Plan Land Use and Zoning of the project.

Another discussion took place regarding the availability of the residential units and if they would be listed as available to other developers.

The applicant, Jason Karengold, on behalf of Shea Properties stated that he read and agreed to the Conditions of Approval; commented on the traffic route along Sierra Avenue and spoke briefly regarding job creation a what this project would bring to the city.

The commission and applicant discussed potential clients/tenants for the project; net fiscal differentiation; queuing of trucks and signage along Duncan Canyon Road.

The following individuals spoke in favor:
• Danielle Holley
• Thomas Ruiz
• Eddie Campos
• Matt Slowik
• Artina McIntosh
No one spoke in opposition of this item.

The Public Hearing was closed.

Additionally, the commission and staff discussed the queuing and the availability to queue on property site.
990
Planning Commission Minutes April 18, 2023

Page 5 of 10 ends

RECOMMENDATION:

Based on the information contained in this staff report, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. PC 2023-017, and forward a recommendation to the City Council to:

1. Adopt a resolution to certify the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), adopt a Statement of Overriding Consideration, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and a Statement of Facts and Findings, and direct staff to file a Notice of Determination;

2. Adopt an ordinance approving Zone Change No. 21-006; and,

3. Adopt an ordinance approving Development Agreement No. 22-006; and,

4. Adopt a resolution approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 20523 (TPM No. 21- 018); and,

5. Adopt a resolution approving Design Review No. 21-034, subject to the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval.

ACTION: Motion was made by Vice Chair Sanchez and seconded by Secretary Thrasher and passed by a vote of 5-0 to; adopt Resolution PC No. 2023-017 and approve Master Case No. 21-090; General Plan Amendment No. 21-004; Zone Change No. 21-006; Tentative Parcel Map No. 20523 (TPM No. 21-018); Design Review No. 21-034, and Development Agreement No. 22-006.

The motion carried by the following vote:

AYES: Sanchez, Thrasher, Fort, Sangha and Quintana; NOES: None; ABSTAIN:

None.

ABSENT: None
PH-D Master Case No. 21-099: General Plan Amendment No. 21-005, Zoning Change No. 21-007, Tentative Parcel Map No. 20608 (TPM No. 21-022), Design Review No. 21-039, and Development Agreement No. 22-007 - for the development of two (2) industrial commerce center buildings totaling approximately 385,043 square feet on a site of approximately 19.0 gross acres.

Chair Fort opened Public Hearing.

Salvador Quintanilla, Senior Planner presented the staff report.

The Commission and staff discussed trucks not being allowed to use Duncan Canyon Road; signage will be place on street light, property, and along Duncan Canyon Road. 991
Planning Commission Minutes April 18, 2023

Page 6 of 10 ends

The applicant David Pittman stated that he read and agreed to the Conditions of Approval.

The Commission and applicant discussed potential tenants for the project and the applicant’s decision to use Labor Union; queuing of trucks as it related to the projects entrance.

The following individuals spoke in favor:
• Amanda Morales
• Luis Echeverria
• Matt Slowik
• Juan Olmedo
No one spoke in opposition of this item.

The Public Hearing was closed.

RECOMMENDATION:

Based on the information contained in this staff report, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. PC 2023-018, and forward a recommendation to the City Council to:

1. Adopt a resolution to certify the EIR, adopt a Statement of Overriding Consideration, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and a Statement of Facts and Findings, and direct staff to file a Notice of Determination; and,

2. Adopt a resolution approving General Plan Amendment No. 21-005; and,

3. Adopt an ordinance approving Zone Change No. 21-007; and,

4. Adopt an ordinance approving Development Agreement No. 22-007; and,

5. Adopt a resolution approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 20608 (TPM No. 21- 022); and,

6. Adopt a resolution approving Design Review No. 21-039.

ACTION: Motion was made by Secretary Thrasher and seconded by Commissioner Sangha and passed by a vote of 5-0 to; adopt Resolution PC No. 2023-018 and approve General Plan Amendment No. 21-005; Zone Change No. 21-007; 992
Planning Commission Minutes April 18, 2023

Page 7 of 10 ends

Development Agreement No. 22-007; Tentative Parcel Map No. 20608 (TPM No. 21- 022); and Design Review No. 21-039.

The motion carried by the following vote:

AYES: Thrasher, Sangha, Fort, Sanchez, and Quintana; NOES: None; ABSTAIN:

None.

ABSENT: None
PH-E Master Case No. 22-075: Tentative Parcel Map No. 20653 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 22-014) and Design Review No. 22-038. A proposal for a tentative parcel map to combine two parcels into one and the site and architectural review and approval to construct an industrial commerce center building totaling approximately 165,000 square feet on approximately 7.37 acres.

Chair Fort opened Public Hearing.

Candida Neal, Contract Planner presented the staff report.

The Commission and staff discussed the concrete stamping of the project.

The applicant, Benjamin Horning, stated that he read and agreed to the Conditions of Approval.

The following individuals spoke in favor:
• Matt Slowik
No one spoke in opposition of this item.

The Public Hearing was closed.

RECOMMENDATION:

Based on the information in the staff report and subject to the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PC No. 2023-019; and:

1. Adopt the Addendum and Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program to the Southwest Industrial Specific Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH NO. 2009091089) and direct staff to file a Notice of Determination; and,

2. Approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 20653 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 22-014).

3. Approve Design Review No. 22-038.
993
Planning Commission Minutes April 18, 2023

Page 8 of 10 ends

ACTION: Motion was made by Vice Chair Sanchez and seconded by Commissioner Quintana and passed by a vote of 5-0 to; adopt Resolution PC No. 2023-019 and approve Master Case No. 22-075: Tentative Parcel Map No. 20653 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 22-014) and Design Review No. 22-038 with proposed amendments to the Resolution.

The motion carried by the following vote:

AYES: Sanchez, Quintana, Fort, Sangha and Thrasher; NOES: None; ABSTAIN:

None.

ABSENT: None
PH-F Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) Review for Master Case No. 22-053:

General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 22-004, Zone Change Application (ZCA) No. 22-005, Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) No. 22-002 and Development Agreement (DA) No. 23-005, Design Review (DRP) No. 22-029 (Building No. 1), Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) No. 22-009 (Building No. 1), Design Review No. 22-061 (Building No. 2), Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) No. 22-030 (Building No. 2), Design Review No. 22-062 (Building No. 3), Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) No. 22-031 (Building No. 3)- a request to receive comments on the DEIR, State Clearinghouse No. 2022110389 for the development of three (3) industrial commerce buildings totaling approximately 540,849 square feet within three project sites totaling 24.4 acres.

Chair Fort opened Public Hearing.

Salvador Quintanilla, Senior Planner presented the staff report and noted for the record that he had not yet received any comments from the public regarding the draft Environmental Impact Report.

The Commission and Environmental Consultant, Tracy Zinn discussed the cumulative effects analysis of the Environmental Impact Report.

No one spoke in favor or opposition of this item
The Public Hearing was closed.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Open the public hearing on the Draft EIR prepared for the Sierra Business Center to receive comments from the public; and, 2) Review and provide Planning Commission comments on the DEIR; and, 3) Direct staff to address comments received on the Final EIR.

The commission directed staff to accept comments from the public. 994
Planning Commission Minutes April 18, 2023

Page 9 of 10 ends

DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS:

A. Director Communications:

None.

COMMENTS:

A. Public Communication Commission Comments:

Commissioner Sangha thanked both the IT Department and Planning staff for setting up the meeting and for providing the needed information to make necessary decisions; thanked everyone for the opportunity to serve.

Secretary Thrasher echoed comments that were previously mentioned by fellow commissioners and briefly commented on the different designs of the projects.

Commissioner Quintana thanked the IT Department and Planning staff for putting on tonight’s meeting; thanked the Chamber of Commerce and the Carpenters Union for their support and for attending tonight’s meeting.

Vice Chair Sanchez echoed comments that were previously mentioned by fellow commissioners; briefly commented on the projects that were presented and thanked the stakeholders; closed his comments by congratulating his son on his wedding and announcing that his daughter is expecting a grandchild.

Chair Fort echoed comments that were previously mentioned by fellow commissioners; expressed her appreciation towards the public for coming out and speaking at tonight’s meeting.

ADJOURNMENT:

By consensus, the meeting adjourned at 7:42 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission Meeting on Tuesday, May 2, 2023, at 6:00 p.m. in the Grover W. Taylor Council Chambers located at 8353 Sierra Avenue, Fontana, California. ____________________________
Susana Gallardo
Specialist to the Deputy City Clerk

THE FOREGOING MINUTES WERE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THE 2
nd DAY OF MAY 2023.
995
Planning Commission Minutes April 18, 2023

Page 10 of 10 ends

_______________________
Cathline Fort
Chairperson
996

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
SI DESEA INFORMACION EN ESPAÑOL REFERENTE A ESTA NOTIFICACION O PROYECTO, FAVOR DE COMUNICARSE AL (909) 350-6728.

A PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN SCHEDULED BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FONTANA FOR THE FOLLOWING:

Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) State Clearing House No. 2022030544, Master Case (MCN) No. 21-099, Design Review Project (DRP) No. 21-039, Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) No. 21-022, General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 21-005, Zone Change Application (ZCA) No. 21-007 and Development Agreement No. 22- 007: Request for development of an approximately 19.0‐acre property (APNs 0239‐151‐19, ‐25, ‐26, and ‐36) with two industrial commerce center buildings having maximum sizes of 296,297 square feet (s.f) and 88,746 s.f. (total of 385,043 s.f.), consolidation of 4 parcels into 2 parcels, proposed amendment of the General Plan designation from Multi‐Family High Density Residential (R‐MFH) and General Commercial (C‐G) to Light Industrial (I‐L), and proposed amendment of the zoning designation from Multi‐Family High Density Residential (R‐5) and General Commercial (C‐2) to Light Industrial (M‐1). The industrial commerce center project also includes a proposed truck loading area that will be screened by a 14-foot-high wall along the south side of Building No. 1 and on the west side of Building No. 2, vehicular parking areas, drive aisles, and landscaping.

The applicant has also prepared a development agreement.

Environmental
Determination:

Location of
Property:

The Project Site is located
east of Sierra Avenue and
south of Duncan Canyon
Road (APNs: 0239‐151‐19, ‐
25, ‐26, and ‐36)
Date of
Hearing:

May 9, 2023
Place of
Hearing:

City Hall Council
Chambers
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
ATTACHMENT NO. 14 997
Time of
Hearing: 7:00 P.M.

ANY INTERESTED PARTY MAY PROVIDE INFORMATION BY LETTER OR EMAIL WHICH MAY BE OF ASSISTANCE TO THE CITY COUNCIL. A COPY OF THE APPLICATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION IS AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION. PLEASE CONTACT THE PLANNER LISTED ABOVE.

IF YOU CHALLENGE IN COURT ANY ACTION TAKEN CONCERNING A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM, YOU MAY

BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED AT THE PUBLIC

HEARING DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE, OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE TO THE CITY AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE PUBLIC HEARING.

Publish: April 28, 2023
998
City of Fontana
Action Report
City Council Meeting
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
File #: 21-2205 Agenda Date: 6/27/2023
Agenda #: B. Category: Public Hearing
FROM:

Planning Department
TITLE:

Master Case Nos. 23-040 and -041 and Appeal (APL) Nos. 23-013, and -014 - Appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to uphold the Director of Planning’s approval of Administrative Site Plan No. 22-013, for the request to modify an existing Southern California Edison (SCE) transmission tower by adding new wireless telecommunications equipment consisting of twelve (12) panel antennas, fifteen (15) radio remote units (RRUs) and ground mounted equipment within a new lease area of approximately 200 square feet, pursuant to CEQA determinations RECOMMENDATION:

Based on the information in the staff report and subject to the attached Findings, staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Deny Appeal Nos. 23-013, and -014, thereby upholding the decisions of the Planning Commission and Director of Planning approving Administrative Site Plan No. 22-013, for the request to modify an existing Southern California Edison transmission tower by adding new wireless telecommunications equipment consisting of twelve (12) panel antenna, fifteen (15) radio remote units (RRUs) and ground mounted equipment within a new lease area of approximately 200 square feet.

2. Direct staff to prepare, execute, and file a CEQA Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk, as appropriate, within five (5) working days of the Council’s final action on Administrative Site Plan No. 22-013.

APPLELLANT / APPLICANT FOR APPEALS:

Neil Hedtke, 4665 Condor Avenue, Fontana, CA 92336
Nickole Williams, 3828 North Flame Tree Avenue, Rialto, CA 92377 LOCATION:

North of Terra Vista Drive, east of Condor Avenue (APN: 0239-101-17) REQUEST:

City of Fontana Page 1 of 9 Printed on 6/22/2023
powered by Legistar™999
File #: 21-2205 Agenda Date: 6/27/2023
Agenda #: B. Category: Public Hearing
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

Land Use Designation:

General Plan Zoning /Overlay Existing Land Use
Site: Public Utility (P-UC) Public Utility (P-UC) Southern California Edison
(SCE) Easement /
(SCE)
Transmission
Tower
North: City of Rialto Open Space Lytle Creek Ranch
Specific Plan
Vacant
South: Public Utility (P-UC) Public Utility (P-UC) Southern California Edison
(SCE) Easement /
(SCE)
Transmission
Tower
West: Medium Density (R-M)/
Recreational Facilities (P-R)
Medium Density (R-2)
Public Facilities (P-PF)
Single-Family
Homes/Park
East: City of Rialto Single Family
Residential
City of Rialto Single
Family Residential
Single-Family
Residential
ANALYSIS:

Background
Administrative Site Plan (ASP) No. 22-013 consists of a request to modify an existing Southern California Edison (SCE) transmission tower by adding new wireless telecommunications equipment consisting of twelve (12) panel antennas, fifteen (15) radio remote units (RRUs) and ground mounted equipment within a new lease area of approximately 200 square feet. ASP No. 22-013 was approved by the Director of Planning at a scheduled public hearing on February 16, 2023. During and after the approval date, staff received several letters and phone calls from property owners and residents in the vicinity of the project site concerned with the potential negative health effects from the proposed antennas and associated equipment.

Subsequent to approval of the project by the Director of Planning, staff received five (5) applications to appeal the approval of the project to the Planning Commission. Each of the five (5) applications include and rely on the same justification letter citing the same concerns. The grounds for the appeal stated in the applications included: fire/wind hazard and equipment collapse, real estate devaluation and aesthetic issues, noise nuisance, insurance risk, environmental impact, seismic activity, inform to consent, criminal activity, health risks, security risks and worker injury. Finally, the appellants assert that sufficient cell phone coverage exists in this area and an additional wireless facility is not needed.

On April 4, 2023, the Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing on the five (5) appeal City of Fontana Page 2 of 9 Printed on 6/22/2023
powered by Legistar™1000
File #: 21-2205 Agenda Date: 6/27/2023
Agenda #: B. Category: Public Hearing
On April 4, 2023, the Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing on the five (5) appeal applications. After the information was presented and considered, the Planning Commission denied Appeal (APL) No. 23-003, -005, -007, -009 and -011, and upheld the Director of Planning’s decision with two additional conditions of approval requiring: (i) the applicant to submit an annual report to the City certifying its compliance with all federal regulations; and (ii) requiring the applicant to maintain the existing cleared area around the tower and access road. A resolution was returned to the Planning Commission at its meeting on April 18, 2023, at which time the Planning Commission adopted a resolution denying the appeal applications and upholding the approval of ASP 22-013 with the two additional conditions. Staff received two (2) appeal applications of the Planning Commission’s decision. The appeal letter for this appeal is attached for the City Council’s consideration. (Attachment No. 1)
Administrative Site Plan (ASP) No. 22-013
Sonal Thakur, of the Eukon Group representing the American Telephone & Telegraph Company (AT&T), submitted the application for approval of Administrative Site Plan (ASP) No. 22-013 on June 7, 2022, for the installation of a new wireless telecommunications facility on the existing SCE transmission tower; the project was approved by the Director of Planning on February 16, 2023.

According to the information submitted in the ASP 22-013 application, AT&T will be the only wireless carrier on the existing SCE transmission tower. AT&T’s ground-mounted equipment will be placed within an equipment shelter that is approximately 10 feet high and 200 square feet in size and secured with a decorative split face block wall with a gate. The shelter will be accessed via an existing 12-foot wide dirt access road used for maintenance and service for the existing SCE towers.

The existing SCE transmission tower is approximately 133 feet in height and is located within an existing public utility corridor. This utility corridor area is generally located north of Casa Grande Road to North Riverside Avenue in the City of Rialto. The proposed 12 wireless communication antennas will be located 66 feet above the base of the existing SCE transmissions tower.

Both the Director of Planning and the Planning Commission determined that the proposed facility meets the City’s requirements for telecommunication facilities as well as the required findings. The findings for approval are discussed at the end of this staff report.

The Eukon Group, representing AT&T previously provided responses (Attachment No. 4) to the Planning Commission addressing the appellants concerns. The concerns that were raised in the appeal letter to the Planning Commission are the same concerns that are being raised in the appeal letter to the City Council.

Appeal Concerns
The following is a summary of the items raised in the appeal and staff’s response; Attachment No. 1 is a copy of the appeal letter.
1) Fire, Wind, and Equipment Collapse
Response: The project site is located within the Edison Easement with equipment being proposed on an existing SCE tower. Historically the City of Fontana is known to have strong winds and a dry climate especially during certain months of the year. The appellants state that “telecommunications equipment can easily overheat or fail due to surges, equipment failure City of Fontana Page 3 of 9 Printed on 6/22/2023
powered by Legistar™1001
File #: 21-2205 Agenda Date: 6/27/2023
Agenda #: B. Category: Public Hearing
“telecommunications equipment can easily overheat or fail due to surges, equipment failure and extreme weather”. The proposed AT&T equipment on the existing SCE lattice tower has been reviewed by the City of Fontana Building and Safety and Fire Departments and found to be compliant with all applicable building, safety and fire requirements and structural plans would be reviewed prior to issuance of building permits. 2) Real Estate Devaluation and Property Blight (Aesthetic Issues) Response: The project (ASP 22-013 and -014) as proposed will match in style and design to the existing SCE structure. The wireless telecommunications antennas will be metal and match the color of the SCE metal structure. As stated above, the proposed equipment shelter will have a 10’ split face block wall, which screens all of the ground mounted equipment.

Moreover, the concern appears to be tied closely to concerns about RF emissions exposure.

The City may not deny a wireless facility application based on concern about RF emissions exposure if the facility complies with FCC guidelines. 1 3) Noise Nuisance
Response: The equipment at ground level is secured behind a 10’ solid block wall. The equipment is generally located approximately 100’ from the nearest property line. The Edison Easement abuts solid block walls to the east and west which can assist in noise reduction.

Additionally, the applicant is subject to Section 18-63, Section 30-469 and Chapter 11 in the General Plan, Goal 8 adhering to conformance with noise standards during construction and operation of the facility. Additionally, the Eukon Group provided a noise study that verified compliance.
4) Insurance Risk
Response: The Appellants raise concerns about the potential impact of the proposed facility upon their ability to obtain insurance among other coverage and pricing concerns due to RF emissions concerns. The FCC establishes the standards for safe levels of exposure to radio frequency emissions from wireless towers and devices. This site will comply with FCC standards and will operate well below the FCC’s permissible levels. Additionally, this tower complies with Section 32-6, locating towers on existing structures. As such, the antenna does not extend more than 30 feet above the highest point of the structure, does not exceed 75 feet in height for single users, complies with all applicable FCC and FAA regulations and complies with applicable building codes.
1 In AT&T Wireless Servs. v. City of Carlsbad, 308 F. Supp. 2d 1148, 1161 (S.D. Cal. 2003). the city made a finding that the wireless facility would “negatively affect property values of nearby homes based upon the perceived fear of the health effects cause by the RF emissions.” The court held against Carlsbad, ruling that cities may not regulate based on the “direct or indirect concerns over the health effects of RF.” The court explained that a denial could not be based on substantial evidence (as required by law) “…if the fear of property value depreciation is based on concerns over the health effects caused by RF emissions.” City of Fontana Page 4 of 9 Printed on 6/22/2023
powered by Legistar™1002
File #: 21-2205 Agenda Date: 6/27/2023
Agenda #: B. Category: Public Hearing
5) Environmental Impact
Response: This area is dedicated to the utility company where SCE transmission towers are located. A biological study/habitat assessment has been provided by the Eukon Group to demonstrate that the project site has already been previously cleared and maintained and that there are no species affected by the development.
6) Seismic Activity
Response: Similar to fire, wind and equipment collapse (Concern no. 1) this project had been reviewed by both Building and Safety and the Fire department and found to be compliant with all applicable building, safety and fire requirements. Prior to permit issuance, the plans would be reviewed to meet or exceed the criteria outlined in the California Building Code and the California Fire Code.
7) Inform to Consent
Response: Appellants raised concerns about the potential for the proposed facility to be modified in the future. 47 U.S.C. § 332 (“Section 332”) is the principal federal law limiting the City’s authority over placement of wireless facilities. Section 332 recognizes and preserves local zoning authority over the placement, construction and modification of wireless communications facilities, subject to certain restrictions. In 2012, Congress adopted a law codified as 47 U.S.C. section 1455(a) which eliminated any local discretion to deny certain changes to existing wireless facilities. Commonly known as “Section 6409(a),” this law provides in part that “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.” The term “eligible facilities request” refers to “any request for modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that involves…collocation of new transmission equipment;…removal of transmission equipment; or…replacement of transmission equipment.” Generally, any additions or modification of wireless equipment to the proposed wireless facility will require the submittal of a Pre-Application Meeting (PAM) request to be filed with the Planning Department to determine whether entitlement applications are required. Subsequently, Planning Department staff will review and process any required entitlement application in accordance with the City code and all applicable state and federal laws. Upon the completion of Planning’s review, all proposed plans and associated structural calculations will be submitted to the Building and Safety Department for its review prior to the issuance of a building permit. 8) Criminal Activity
Response: The proposed AT&T equipment will be installed on an existing SCE 133’ steel lattice tower. The bottom of the antennas are proposed at a height of 66’. AT&T radios, cabinets and associated equipment are also proposed to be located within a new 10’ tall, 200 square foot, split-face block wall enclosure. Additionally, the enclosure will have an anti-graffiti coating on the split face stone. The Eukon Group has also noted that AT&T equipment and individual cabinets are located with security systems monitored remotely by AT&T’s Network Operations Teams. Further, SCE also monitors their towers and assets. 9) Health and Medical Risks (Increased Radiation)
Response: The Appellants have raised concerns regarding the perceived health and medical risks posed by wireless facilities which range from cancers, DNA damage, cognitive decline, oxidative stress, cognitive effects, cardiovascular effects, electromagnetic sensitivity, fertility, City of Fontana Page 5 of 9 Printed on 6/22/2023
powered by Legistar™1003
File #: 21-2205 Agenda Date: 6/27/2023
Agenda #: B. Category: Public Hearing
oxidative stress, cognitive effects, cardiovascular effects, electromagnetic sensitivity, fertility, among other asserted risks. The health risks associated with the public’s exposure to radio frequency (RF) energy has been an area of public concern particularly in light of the public’s increasing reliance on mobile devices and the proliferation of mobile technology and its supporting infrastructure. Setting the safety standards for RF emissions is exclusively the responsibility of the federal government, and the responsible agency is the Federal Communications Commission. Thus, Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) prohibits the City from denying a wireless facility application based on concerns about RF emissions so long as the applicant has demonstrated that its facilities will comply with FCC standards. The FCC in 1997 issued OET Bulletin 65, which provides technical guidelines for evaluating compliance with the FCC RF safety requirements. The applicant has provided a report prepared by and signed by William Hammett, P.E., of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, a California registered professional engineer that certifies that the proposed wireless facility will comply with the FCC’s standards.

Federal law requires that a local government’s denial of a request for a wireless communications facility installation must be “supported by substantial evidence” (47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii)). To determine whether a local government’s decision is supported by substantial evidence within the meaning of the statute, a reviewing court “must be able to identify the reason or reasons why the locality denied the application.” The rationale behind such a denial need not be “elaborate or even sophisticated”-rather, a local authority must provide a rationale clear enough to “enable judicial review.” Direct or indirect concerns over the health effects of RF emissions may not serve as “substantial evidence” to deny an application if the proposed facilities comply with the FCC’s regulations. See MetroPCS, Inc. v.

City and County of San Francisco, 400 F.3d 715, 736 (9th Cir. 2005) and AT&T Wireless Services of California LLC v. City of Carlsbad, 308 F. Supp. 2d 1148, 1159 (S.D. Cal. 2003). 10) Security Risks, Cybercrime and Fraud
Response: Hacking most often occurs because of phishing attacks through email spamming, downloading or installing illicit apps for individuals who visit and access unsafe pages on the internet that carry viruses, malware and spyware. Hacking can also potentially occur from using free wi-fi, leaving phones and devices unattended in public, using public charging stations, and having weak passwords. Security technology continues to improve. There are now stronger methods of authentication, identity theft protection, and defense against cyber attacks being developed daily. In many cases, cell tower information increases personal safety. These towers with wireless equipment are built and located at safe and federally regulated distances.
11) Worker Deaths, Accidents and Suicides
Response: AT&T advised that they have very strict and stringent standards for the safety of their workers. Only certified and specially trained professionals are authorized to access and perform work on these towers. The property, tower and site will be monitored by AT&T Network Operations. With the installation of the AT&T equipment on the tower, there will be improved coverage, connectivity and ability to contact public safety personnel to respond to the scene and deal with any individuals trespassing, or other emergencies.

City of Fontana Page 6 of 9 Printed on 6/22/2023
powered by Legistar™1004
File #: 21-2205 Agenda Date: 6/27/2023
Agenda #: B. Category: Public Hearing
Findings for Approval for ASP No. 22-013
ASP No. 22-013, as approved on February 16, 2023, meets the mandatory ASP findings required pursuant to Section 32-7.2 - Findings for approval for tower and/or antenna for ASP applications. The original findings below were prepared by staff for the Director of Planning’s consideration:

1. The proposal meets or exceeds the criteria contained in this chapter and is consistent with the general plan and the applicable land use designations.

The project site is located north of Terra Vista Drive and east of Condor Avenue. The General Plan land use designation is Public Utility (P-UC) and is zoned Public Utility (P-UC). The proposed project is to modify an existing Southern California Edison (SCE) tower by adding new wireless telecommunications equipment consisting of twelve (12) new panel antennas, fifteen (15) RRU’s and additional ancillary wireless equipment. Wireless telecommunications facilities are an allowed use under the General Plan subject to approval by the Director of Planning therefore the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, the Development Code and Chapter 32 of the Fontana Municipal Code (FMC) as outlined in the Wireless Telecommunications Towers and Antennas Ordinance. The proposed new telecommunications project has been reviewed by Planning, Building and Safety, Engineering, and Fire Prevention Departments and will meet or exceed all requirements. The proposed project will be built/installed pursuant to all applicable state and federal laws/standards, building, zoning, fire codes, and standards.

2. That the site for the intended use is adequate in size, shape, topography, accessibility, and other physical characteristics to accommodate the use and all the required provisions of this chapter.

The proposed project as identified and referenced in Finding No. 1, above for the installation of new wireless telecommunication equipment on an existing tower along with installation of associated equipment, is located within the existing Southern California Edison (SCE) transmission corridor developed with towers along with an access road. The physical characteristics of the site which is utilized which is utilized as an SCE transmission corridor developed with towers and an access road is sufficient to accommodate the requested wireless telecommunication project. The project site is approximately 20 acres can accommodate the proposed wireless antennas/panels to be mounted on the existing SCE tower along with associated equipment that will be located within the approximately 200 square foot equipment shelter located on the ground. Furthermore, the existing maintenance road on this site can accommodate for the vehicular access needed to maintain this proposed facility.

3. The proposal of the tower and/or antenna is in its design and appearance consistent with the development and design of the surrounding structures and neighborhood.

The proposal and appearance of the wireless telecommunication site as a result from this review will be compatible with other similarly uses in the area; in that, the wireless telecommunication antenna/panels will have metal to match the color of the existing SCE tower. Additionally, the ground mounted equipment will be screened by a 10’ split face block wall enclosure. The proposed project is aesthetically pleasing and will be consist with the built City of Fontana Page 7 of 9 Printed on 6/22/2023
powered by Legistar™1005
File #: 21-2205 Agenda Date: 6/27/2023
Agenda #: B. Category: Public Hearing
environment.

4. That the proposed use will be organized, designed, constructed, operated and maintained so as to be compatible with the character of the area as intended by the general plan.

The General Plan land use designation is Public Utility (P-UC) and is zoned Public Utility (PUC). The proposed project is to modify an existing Southern California Edison (SCE) tower to add new wireless telecommunications equipment at site utilized as a SCE transmission corridor developed with existing towers and maintenance road. Wireless telecommunications facilities are an allowed use under the General Plan and Municipal Code subject to approval by the Director of Planning. Also, the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, the Zoning and Development Code and Chapter 32 of the Fontana Municipal Code (FMC) as outlined in the Wireless Telecommunications Towers and Antennas ordinance. The existing maintenance road on this site can accommodate for the vehicular access needed to maintain this proposed wireless telecommunications facility.

5. That adequate streets and highways exist to carry the type and quantity of traffic anticipated to accommodate access for maintenance and/or service vehicles.

The proposed project would modify an existing Southern California Edison (SCE) tower to add new wireless telecommunications equipment at site utilized as a SCE transmission corridor developed with existing towers and maintenance road. This existing maintenance road will provide access for the proposed project is accessible from Terra Vista Drive is designated as a Collector Street by the Circulation Master Plan able to accommodate for proposed facility that is anticipated to be service approximately once or twice a month.

Environmental
The installation of new wireless telecommunications facility and ancillary equipment as described above associated with Master Case No. (MCN) 22-054 and Administrative Site Plan (ASP) No. 22- 013 is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 Class 1 (Existing Facilities) and Section 15303 Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures), and Section 3.22 of the 2019 City of Fontana Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None
MOTION:

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Uniform Appeal Letter from Appellant(s)

2. Vicinity Map

3. Director’s Action Packet 2-16

4. Responses from the Eukon Group and AT&T

5. Planning Commission Packet 4-4 and 4-18

6. Notice of Public Hearing

7. Correspondence and AT&T Presentation
Attachments Under Separate Cover:

1. Project Plans
City of Fontana Page 9 of 9 Printed on 6/22/2023
powered by Legistar™1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
ATTACHMENT NO. 2

VICINITY MAP
DATE: June 27, 2023
CASE: Master Case No. 23-040 and -041
Appeal No. 23-013 and -014

CITY OF FONTANA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
NORTH
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024

CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER - THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED OUTSIDE OF THE CITY'S EMAIL SYSTEM Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Kevin and Desiree Frederickson
16988 Schneider street
Fontana CA 92336
2/15/2023
RE: Master Case (MCN) No. 22-054 and Administrative Site Plan (ASP) No. 22-013 “The applicant, Eukon Group, is proposing to install wireless telecommunications equipment consisting of twelve (12) panel antennas, fifteen (RRUs) on an existing Southern California Edison transmission tower and ancillary wireless equipment located at ground level within a block wall enclosure.

Dear Mrs. Nevins & Mr. Verlarde,
As residents of Sierra Crest and Las Colinas neighborhoods, we are writing to express our opposition to the above proposal. We do not agree to have harmful telecommunications equipment installed right next to our homes, park, and close to our elementary school. This telecommunications equipment will negatively impact our community: health risks, home devaluation, fire danger, environmental damage, and safety.

You will find the reasons for our opposition to this project below. In addition, there are peer-reviewed, scientific studies, backed by national and international renowned doctors, scientists, and engineers that identify the dangers associated with these technologies. The information will prove why this telecommunications equipment needs to be placed away from our neighborhoods, schools, and parks! Our reasons for opposing this additional telecommunications equipment install are outlined below:

1. Real Estate Devaluation

2. Health and Medical Risks

3. Environmental Harm & Risks

4. Fire Danger & Collapse Risks

5. Insurance Risk

6. Informed Consent

7. Criminal Activity

8. Worker Deaths, Accidents, and Suicides

9. Security Risk, Cyber Crime & Fraud
We request that the City of Fontana deny this installation and that the Eukon Group respectfully find another location for their communications equipment. Eukon Group’s profit will lead to the damage of our neighborhoods, health, environment, and real estate value. 1025
Respectfully,
1026

CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER - THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED OUTSIDE OF THE CITY'S EMAIL SYSTEM Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Date February 15, 2023
Patty Nevins – Director of Planning
cc: George Velarde – Assistant Planner
Planning Department – City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
RE: Master Case (MCN) No. 22-054 and Administrative Site Plan (ASP) No. 22-013 “The applicant, Eukon Group, is proposing to install wireless telecommunications equipment consisting of twelve (12) panel antennas, fifteen (RRUs) on an existing Southern California Edison transmission tower and ancillary wireless equipment located at ground level within a block wall enclosure.

1. Real Estate Devaluation

2. Health and Medical Risks

3. Environmental Harm & Risks

4. Fire Danger & Collapse Risks

5. Insurance Risk

6. Informed Consent
1027

7. Criminal Activity

8. Worker Deaths, Accidents, and Suicides

Respectfully,
Cheryl Derley
1028
From: franciscocaro91 <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 5:05 AM
To: George Velarde

CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER - THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED OUTSIDE OF THE CITY'S EMAIL SYSTEM Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Francisco caro
3841 n sweet leaf ave
Rialto ca
February 13,2023
Patty Nevins – Director of Planning
cc: George Velarde – Assistant Planner
Planning Department – City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
Master Case (MCN) No. 22-054 and Administrative Site Plan (ASP) No. 22-013 “The applicant, Eukon Group, is proposing to install wireless telecommunications equipment consisting of twelve (12) panel antennas, fifteen (RRUs) on an existing Southern California Edison transmission tower and ancillary wireless equipment located at ground level within a block wall enclosure.

1. Real Estate Devaluation

2. Health and Medical Risks
1029

3. Environmental Harm & Risks

4. Fire Danger & Collapse Risks

5. Insurance Risk

6. Informed Consent

7. Criminal Activity

8. Worker Deaths, Accidents, and Suicides

Respectfully,
Francisco caro
1030
From: Jennifer White <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2023 8:45 AM
To: George Velarde
Subject: Master Case (MCN) No. 22-054 and Administrative Site Plan (ASP) No. 22-013 “The applicant, Eukon Group, is proposing to install wireless telecommunications equipment consisting of twelve (12) panel antennas, fifteen (RRUs) on an existing Southern Calif...

CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER - THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED OUTSIDE OF THE CITY'S EMAIL SYSTEM Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Jennifer White
4659 Condor Ave
Fontana, CA 92336
February 15, 2023
Patty Nevins – Director of Planning
cc: George Velarde – Assistant Planner
Planning Department – City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
RE: Master Case (MCN) No. 22-054 and Administrative Site Plan (ASP) No. 22-013 “The applicant, Eukon Group, is proposing to install wireless telecommunications equipment consisting of twelve (12) panel antennas, fifteen (RRUs) on an existing Southern California Edison transmission tower and ancillary wireless equipment located at ground level within a block wall enclosure.

You will find the reasons for our opposition to this project below. In addition, there are peer-reviewed, scientific studies, backed by national and international renowned doctors, scientists, and engineers that identify the dangers associated with these technologies. The information will prove why this telecommunications equipment needs to be placed away from our neighborhoods, schools, and parks! 1031
Our reasons for opposing this additional telecommunications equipment install are outlined below:

1. Real Estate Devaluation

2. Health and Medical Risks

3. Environmental Harm & Risks

4. Fire Danger & Collapse Risks

5. Insurance Risk

6. Informed Consent

7. Criminal Activity

8. Worker Deaths, Accidents, and Suicides

Respectfully,
Jennifer White
Sent from my iPad
1032
From: Daniela Sullivan <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2023 8:37 AM
To: George Velarde
Subject: Master Case (MCN) No. 22-054 and Administrative Site Plan (ASP) No. 22-013

CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER - THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED OUTSIDE OF THE CITY'S EMAIL SYSTEM Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Daniela Hedlund
4678 Condor Ave
Fontana, CA 92336
(February 15, 2023)
Patty Nevins – Director of Planning
cc: George Velarde – Assistant Planner
Planning Department – City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
RE: Master Case (MCN) No. 22-054 and Administrative Site Plan (ASP) No. 22-013 “The applicant, Eukon Group, is proposing to install wireless telecommunications equipment consisting of twelve (12) panel antennas, fifteen (RRUs) on an existing Southern California Edison transmission tower and ancillary wireless equipment located at ground level within a block wall enclosure.

You will find the reasons for our opposition to this project below. In addition, there are peerreviewed, scientific studies, backed by national and international renowned doctors, scientists, and engineers that identify the dangers associated with these technologies. The information will prove why this telecommunications equipment needs to be placed away from our neighborhoods, schools, and parks!
Our reasons for opposing this additional telecommunications equipment install are outlined below:
1033

1. Real Estate Devaluation

2. Health and Medical Risks

3. Environmental Harm & Risks

4. Fire Danger & Collapse Risks

5. Insurance Risk

6. Informed Consent

7. Criminal Activity

8. Worker Deaths, Accidents, and Suicides

Respectfully,
Daniela Hedlund
1034
From: Tammara Ennabi <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2023 9:07 AM
To: George Velarde
Subject: NO CELL TOWERS AROUND OUR KIDS

CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER - THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED OUTSIDE OF THE CITY'S EMAIL SYSTEM Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Tammara Ennabi
4690 Condor Ave
Fontana CA 92336
[Date (February 13, 2023)]
Patty Nevins – Director of Planning
cc: George Velarde – Assistant Planner
Planning Department – City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
RE: Master Case (MCN) No. 22-054 and Administrative Site Plan (ASP) No. 22-013 “The applicant, Eukon Group, is proposing to install wireless telecommunications equipment consisting of twelve (12) panel antennas, fifteen (RRUs) on an existing Southern California Edison transmission tower and ancillary wireless equipment located at ground level within a block wall enclosure.

You will find the reasons for our opposition to this project below. In addition, there are peerreviewed, scientific studies, backed by national and international renowned doctors, scientists, and engineers that identify the dangers associated with these technologies. The information will prove why this telecommunications equipment needs to be placed away from our neighborhoods, schools, and parks!
1035
Our reasons for opposing this additional telecommunications equipment install are outlined below:

1. Real Estate Devaluation

2. Health and Medical Risks

3. Environmental Harm & Risks

4. Fire Danger & Collapse Risks

5. Insurance Risk

6. Informed Consent

7. Criminal Activity

8. Worker Deaths, Accidents, and Suicides

Respectfully,
Tammara Ennabi
1036
From: Janet Rodriguez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 10:06 AM
To: George Velarde
Subject: Cell tower

CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER - THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED OUTSIDE OF THE CITY'S EMAIL SYSTEM Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi i oppose the cell tower. Maybe they can find a new location. I am in the sierra crest community.

Janet Rodriguez
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
1037
From: Aubree McGuire <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 5:15 PM
To: George Velarde
Subject: Cell Tower

CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER - THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED OUTSIDE OF THE CITY'S EMAIL SYSTEM Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Just copy this into your email program and make sure you edit everything in red.

Aubree McGuire
4823 Clarence way
Fontana ca 92336
[Date (February 13, 2023)]
Patty Nevins – Director of Planning
cc: George Velarde – Assistant Planner
Planning Department – City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
RE: Master Case (MCN) No. 22-054 and Administrative Site Plan (ASP) No. 22-013 “The applicant, Eukon Group, is proposing to install wireless telecommunications equipment consisting of twelve (12) panel antennas, fifteen (RRUs) on an existing Southern California Edison transmission tower and ancillary wireless equipment located at ground level within a block wall enclosure.

You will find the reasons for our opposition to this project below. In addition, there are peer-reviewed, scientific studies, backed by national and international renowned doctors, scientists, and engineers that identify the dangers associated with these technologies. The information will prove why this telecommunications equipment needs to be placed away from our neighborhoods, schools, and parks! 1038
We request that the City of Fontana deny this installation and that the Eukon Group respectfully find another location for this equipment. Their profit will lead to the destruction of our neighborhoods, health, environment, and ultimately financial loss of properties.

Our reasons for opposing this additional telecommunications equipment install are outlined below:

1. Real Estate Devaluation – Property values go down when you can see the cell towers (communications equipment). This has been reported by national real estate firms. According to a survey published in *Realtor Magazine, 94% of potential homebuyers and renters do NOT want to live near properties that are located by cell towers, and would pay LESS for a property in close vicinity to cellular antennas & telecommunications equipment. 79% of the respondents said they would NEVER purchase or rent such a property. Real estate organizations show that a price drop between 15 – 20% happens when cell towers & communications equipment are next to homes. According to HUD, Appraisal & Property Requirements, “The appraiser must indicate whether the dwelling or related property improvements is located within the easement serving a high-voltage transmission line, radio/TV transmission tower, cell phone tower, microwave relay dish or tower, or satellite dish (radio, TV cable, etc).” The California Association of Realtors’ Property Sellers Questionnaire specifically “cell towers” listed on the disclosure form for sellers of real estate. The seller must note “neighborhood noise, nuisance or other problems from …” and includes cell towers and high voltage transmission lines on the long list problems.

2. Health and Medical Risks – Studies have shown that people living in close proximity to cell towers and telecommunications equipment have increase risks of many health issues. a. Cancers (leukemia, kidney, liver, brain tumors, blood, etc.) b. DNA Damage & Gene Expression Changes, Lipid Abnormalities (Double DNA strand breaks) c. Cognitive Decline, Developmental Disorders, & Learning Issues in Children d. Oxidative Stress
e. Neurological/Cognitive Effects (Dizziness, Headache/Migraines, Nausea, Memory Loss, & Fatigue)
f. Cardiovascular Effects (Heart Arrhythmia, Palpations, Cardiomyopathy) g. Tinnitus
h. Effects Fetuses
i. Fertility
j. Electromagnetic Sensitivity
k. Implanted Medical Devices Issues
l. ETC.

There is already an existing SCE (Southern California Edison) transmission tower that emits its own radiation and electrical pollutants. We do not need simultaneous exposure to multiple microwave frequencies if this telecommunications equipment is added.

The FCC has not updated safety standards for RF & EMF for over 25 years! We do not truly know the safe distance and true radiation these telecommunications equipment emit without new studies and research. We do not want to be guinea pigs and find out years later the devastating effects this equipment will have on our families and friends. The FCC does not take into account the synergistic 1039
impact of combined toxic exposures, long-term cumulative exposure impacts, and critical windows of development in children.

3. Environmental Harm & Risks – “Science continues to reveal biological harm to ALL living organisms, including animals, plants, trees, insects, and bacteria, from radiofrequency EMR exposure with levels at or below current U.S. safety guidelines.” “Affects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna” in the journal “Reviews on Environmental Health,” points out that the FCC has long ignored studies on the harmful impact of wireless [equipment] on wildlife. The 150 page study of over 1,200 peer reviewed studies finds that birds, insects and animals are uniquely sensitive to wireless radiation. It identifies low-level wireless as a pollutant and warns against escalating radiation levels with 5G technologies. The researchers highlight the FCC’s failure to protect the environment.

In 2013, a group from the Institute of Environmental Sciences in the Netherlands published a thorough review of the ecological effects of RF-EMF, based on 113 published, peer-reviewed studies. They found that wireless radiation had a significant effect on birds, insects, other vertebrates, and multiple organisms and plants in 70% of the studies.

4. Fire Danger & Collapse Risks – Cell towers and telecommunications equipment pose an increase in fire and explosion risk. This equipment will be added to an area that is a SEVERE fire risk.

There have been several fires in the surrounding areas and fields. Malfunctioning equipment will add to our fire risk. Additionally, cell towers and equipment are prone to lightening strikes.

Collapse – High winds can create damage and failure causing falling debris. This area is known for extremely strong winds; this creates added dangers of cell equipment being damaged and potential to cause fires.

5. Insurance Risk – Insurance authorities classify Electromagnetic Radiation and 5G as “High Risk” and basically clarify that damages (medical, property, etc.) will not be covered. Lloyd’s of London excludes any liability coverage for claims; “Directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from or contributed to by electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetism, radio waves or noise.”

After a cell tower is erected, new antennas can be easily added and generally without any (or minimal) public participation in the decision-making process. 5G antennas can be mounted on both shorter socalled “small cells” and larger “macro” towers.”

7. Criminal Activity – Cell towers and telecommunications equipment are known to be vandalized for their expensive copper cable and valuable electronic components. If any of the components are compromised, it could not only lead to an increased fire risk, but also falling equipment.

8. Worker Deaths, Accidents, and Suicides – Workers are at high risk of having accidental falls.

There are documented reports of people climbing these towers in order to jump off.

Additionally, a site’s security fence is only a minor deterrent to would-be intruders. 1040

Sources

1. Real Estate Devaluation:

REALTOR Magazine
”Cell Towers, Antennas Problematic for Buyers” REALTOR Magazine, July 25, 2014 https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/Real-Estate-Seller-Property-Questionaire-reduced-12- 17-1.pdf
HUD – U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Hazards & Nuisances: Overhead High Voltage Transmission Towers and Lines HUD Archives: HOC Reference Guide — Hazards & Nuisances: Overhead High Voltage Transmission Towers and Lines (Page 1-18f)
PA Association of Realtors
Do Neighborhood Cell Towers Impact Property Values?
Do neighborhood cell towers impact property values? – Pennsylvania Association of Realtors® (parealtors.org)

2. Health and Medical Risks:

Physicians for Safe Technology
Cell Tower Radiation Health Effects
Physicians for Safe Technology | Cell Tower Radiation Health Effects (mdsafetech.org) Environmental Health Trust
Peer Reviewed Published Research on Cell Tower Radiation, Base Station Radiation and Heath Effects Compilation of Research Studies on Cell Tower Radiation and Health – Environmental Health Trust (ehtrust.org)
Safer EMR
“Cell Phones, Cell Towers & Wireless Safety” (UC Berkeley) https://www.saferemr.com/2019/03/cellphones-cell-towers-wireless.html ResearchGate
Impact of radiofrequency radiation on DNA damage and antioxidants in peripheral blood lymphocytes of humans residing in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations 1041
(PDF) Impact of radiofrequency radiation on DNA damage and antioxidants in peripheral blood lymphocytes of humans residing in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations (researchgate.net)

3. Environmental Harm & Risks:

PubMed.Gov & NIH (National Library of Medicine
Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, part 1. Rising ambient EMF levels in the environment
Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, part 1. Rising ambient EMF levels in the environment – PubMed (nih.gov)
Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 2 impacts: how species interact with natural and man-made EMF – PubMed (nih.gov)
Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 3. Exposure standards, public policy, laws, and future directions (degruyter.com)

4. Fire Danger & Collapse:

Environmental Health Trust
Cell Tower Safety Risks Fires and Collapse
https://ehtrust.org/cell-tower-safety-risks-fires-and-collapse/

5. Insurance Warning:

Environmental Health Trust
Insurance Authorities Rate 5G and Electromagnetic Radiation as “HIGH RISK” https://ehtrust.org/key-issues/reports-white-papers-insurance-industry/

6. Inform to Consent:

Environmental Health Trust
Top Facts on 5G: What You Need to Know About 5G Wireless and “Small: Cells https://ehtrust.org/key-issues/cell-phoneswireless/5g-internet-everything/20-quick-facts-whatyou-need-to-know-about-5g-wireless-and-small-cells/

7. Criminal Activity:

Environmental Health Trust
Cell Tower Safety Risks Fires and Collapse
https://ehtrust.org/cell-tower-safety-risks-fires-and-collapse/ USA Telecom Insurance Services
Risks for Cell Towers in 2019
https://usatelecomins.com/risks-for-cell-towers-in-2019/

8. Worker Death, Accidents, & Suicides:

Environmental Health Trust
Cell Tower Safety Risks Fires and Collapse
https://ehtrust.org/cell-tower-safety-risks-fires-and-collapse/

9. Security Risk, Cyber Crime & Fraud:

USA Telecom Insurance Services
Risks for Cell Towers in 2019
https://usatelecomins.com/risks-for-cell-towers-in-2019/ 1042
Sent from my iPhone
1043
1044
1045
From: Amanda Kornyei <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 9:45 AM
To: George Velarde
Subject: Cell Tower

CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER - THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED OUTSIDE OF THE CITY'S EMAIL SYSTEM Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Amanda Kornyei
4823 Clarence way
Fontana, CA 92336
February 13, 2023
Patty Nevins – Director of Planning
cc: George Velarde – Assistant Planner
Planning Department – City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
RE: Master Case (MCN) No. 22-054 and Administrative Site Plan (ASP) No. 22-013 “The applicant, Eukon Group, is proposing to install wireless telecommunications equipment consisting of twelve (12) panel antennas, fifteen (RRUs) on an existing Southern California Edison transmission tower and ancillary wireless equipment located at ground level within a block wall enclosure.

You will find the reasons for our opposition to this project below. These peer-reviewed, scientific studies, and backing from national and international renowned doctors, scientists, 1046
and engineers, identify the dangers associated with these technologies. The information will prove why this telecommunications equipment needs to be placed away from our neighborhoods, schools, and parks!
Our reasons for opposing this additional telecommunications equipment install are outlined below:

1. Real Estate Devaluation

2. Health and Medical Risks

3. Environmental Harm & Risks

4. Fire Danger & Collapse Risks

5. Insurance Risk

6. Informed Consent

7. Criminal Activity

8. Worker Deaths, Accidents, and Suicides

Respectfully,
Amanda Kornyei
Sent from my iPhone
1047
From: Denise Cervantes <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2023 10:50 PM
To: George Velarde
Subject: Cell towers

CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER - THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED OUTSIDE OF THE CITY'S EMAIL SYSTEM Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Denise Lopez
3838 N Flame Tree Ave.

Rialto, CA 92377
Date February 15, 2023
Patty Nevins – Director of Planning
cc: George Velarde – Assistant Planner
Planning Department – City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
RE: Master Case (MCN) No. 22-054 and Administrative Site Plan (ASP) No. 22-013 “The applicant, Eukon Group, is proposing to install wireless telecommunications equipment consisting of twelve (12) panel antennas, fifteen (RRUs) on an existing Southern California Edison transmission tower and ancillary wireless equipment located at ground level within a block wall enclosure.

Real Estate Devaluation
Health and Medical Risks
Environmental Harm & Risks
Fire Danger & Collapse Risks
1048
Insurance Risk
Informed Consent
Criminal Activity
Worker Deaths, Accidents, and Suicides
Security Risk, Cyber Crime & Fraud
We request that the City of Fontana deny this installation and that the Eukon Group respectfully find another location for their communications equipment. Eukon Group’s profit will lead to the damage of our neighborhoods, health, environment, and real estate value.

Respectfully,
Denise Lopez
1049
1050
1051
From: Anthony Urias <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2023 7:13 PM
To: George Velarde
Subject: Don't build the towers
Attachments: towers.pdf

CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER - THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED OUTSIDE OF THE CITY'S EMAIL SYSTEM Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. please read for yourself the attached letter from a sierra crest resident. Please do not overlook our concerns. Think of those that voted you into power and not your own pocket book. ask yourself would you want this where you live. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at 626 893 9089 or [email protected]. Thank you for your time again my name is Anthony Urias. Lance corporal united states marines.
1052
From: Irma Clark <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 8:31 AM
To: George Velarde
Subject: Fw: PLEASE STOP CELL TOWER / SIERRA CREST-NORTH RIALTO Attachments: STOP CELL TOWER.docx

CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER - THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED OUTSIDE OF THE CITY'S EMAIL SYSTEM Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Please refer to attached opposition of cell tower build in Sierra Crest-North Rialto area.

Regards,
Irma Clark
909-229-1108
1053
From: Krystal Burton <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2023 10:22 AM
To: George Velarde
Subject: Fwd: Health risk /unsafe for children/Stop Cell Towers

CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER - THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED OUTSIDE OF THE CITY'S EMAIL SYSTEM Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Krystal Burton <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, Feb 15, 2023, 10:19 AM
Subject: Health risk /unsafe for children/Stop Cell Towers To: <[email protected]>
(February 15, 2023)
Patty Nevins – Director of Planning
cc: George Velarde – Assistant Planner
Planning Department – City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
RE: Master Case (MCN) No. 22-054 and Administrative Site Plan (ASP) No. 22-013 “The applicant, Eukon Group, is proposing to install wireless telecommunications equipment consisting of twelve (12) panel antennas, fifteen (RRUs) on an existing Southern California Edison transmission tower and ancillary wireless equipment located at ground level within a block wall enclosure.

You will find the reasons for our opposition to this project below. In addition, there are peer-reviewed, scientific studies, backed by national and international renowned doctors, scientists, and engineers that 1054
identify the dangers associated with these technologies. The information will prove why this telecommunications equipment needs to be placed away from our neighborhoods, schools, and parks! Our reasons for opposing this additional telecommunications equipment install are outlined below:

1. Real Estate Devaluation

2. Health and Medical Risks

3. Environmental Harm & Risks

4. Fire Danger & Collapse Risks

5. Insurance Risk

6. Informed Consent

7. Criminal Activity

8. Worker Deaths, Accidents, and Suicides

Respectfully,
Concerned Mother and resident of Las Colinas Neighborhood Krystal About Us
This website is
1055
From: claudia monroy <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2023 7:19 AM
To: George Velarde
Subject: Las Colinas neighborhood

CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER - THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED OUTSIDE OF THE CITY'S EMAIL SYSTEM Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

As a resident of Las Colinas neighborhood for 17yrs. We say NO to this telecommunications equipment.

NO to Cell Tower Space.

The negative impact that can cause to our children or elders and us is beyond repair.

Stop this wireless equipment. This cell tower is going to cause an outrage for all who are trying to live peaceful lives.

We say NO.

Thank you,
Claudia Monroy
1056
From: armando magana <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2023 5:59 AM
To: George Velarde
Subject: Master Case (MCN) No. 22-054 and Administrative Site Plan (ASP) No. 22-013

CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER - THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED OUTSIDE OF THE CITY'S EMAIL SYSTEM Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Armando Magana
4607 Condor Ave
Fontana, Ca 92336
February 13, 2023
Patty Nevins – Director of Planning
cc: George Velarde – Assistant Planner
Planning Department – City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
RE: Master Case (MCN) No. 22-054 and Administrative Site Plan (ASP) No. 22-013 “The applicant, Eukon Group, is proposing to install wireless telecommunications equipment consisting of twelve (12) panel antennas, fifteen (RRUs) on an existing Southern California Edison transmission tower and ancillary wireless equipment located at ground level within a block wall enclosure.

You will find the reasons for our opposition to this project below. In addition, there are peerreviewed, scientific studies, backed by national and international renowned doctors, scientists, and engineers that identify the dangers associated with these technologies. The information 1057
will prove why this telecommunications equipment needs to be placed away from our neighborhoods, schools, and parks!
Our reasons for opposing this additional telecommunications equipment install are outlined below:

1. Real Estate Devaluation

2. Health and Medical Risks

3. Environmental Harm & Risks

4. Fire Danger & Collapse Risks

5. Insurance Risk

6. Informed Consent

7. Criminal Activity

8. Worker Deaths, Accidents, and Suicides

Respectfully,
Armando Magana
Sent from my iPhone
1058
From: Jonathan Lopez <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2023 10:41 PM
To: George Velarde
Subject: Master Case (MCN) No. 22-054 and Administrative Site Plan (ASP) No. 22-013

CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER - THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED OUTSIDE OF THE CITY'S EMAIL SYSTEM Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Jonathan Lopez
3838 North Flame Tree Ave
Rialto CA 92377
February 15, 2023
Patty Nevins – Director of Planning
cc: George Velarde – Assistant Planner
Planning Department – City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
“The applicant, Eukon Group, is proposing to install wireless telecommunications equipment consisting of twelve (12) panel antennas, fifteen (RRUs) on an existing Southern California Edison transmission tower and ancillary wireless equipment located at ground level within a block wall enclosure.

Real Estate Devaluation
Health and Medical Risks
Environmental Harm & Risks
Fire Danger & Collapse Risks
1059
Insurance Risk
Informed Consent
Criminal Activity
Worker Deaths, Accidents, and Suicides
Security Risk, Cyber Crime & Fraud
We request that the City of Fontana deny this installation and that the Eukon Group respectfully find another location for their communications equipment. Eukon Group’s profit will lead to the damage of our neighborhoods, health, environment, and real estate value.

Respectfully,
Jonathan Lopez
1060
From: Misty Hewko <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 11:33 AM
To: George Velarde
Cc: Patty Nevins
Subject: Master Case (MCN) No. 22-054 and Administrative Site Plan (ASP) No. 22-013 Attachments: Opposition Letter - MHC - City of Fontana 20230213.docx

CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER - THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED OUTSIDE OF THE CITY'S EMAIL SYSTEM Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Good Morning George,
I spoke with you over the phone on February 7th regarding some of my concerns about the proposed installation of telecommunications equipment in my neighborhood [Master Case (MCN) No. 22-054 and Administrative Site Plan (ASP) No. 22-013].

Attached to this email is a letter showing a detailed list of my issues along with links to the sources of scientific information. Please accept this letter as my opposition to this proposal.

I would also like to note that many of my neighbors said that they did not receive the notice of public hearing in the mail.

Please let me know if you require any additional information. Email is the best way to contact me.

Thanks,
Misty Hewko-Chaudhry
[email protected]
(949)357-3119 Cell
1061
From: Amir Chaudhry <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 8:35 PM
To: George Velarde
Subject: Master Case (MCN) No. 22-054 and Administrative Site Plan (ASP) No. 22-013

CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER - THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED OUTSIDE OF THE CITY'S EMAIL SYSTEM Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Amir Chaudhry
4638 Condor Ave
Fontana, CA 92336
February 13, 2023
Patty Nevins – Director of Planning
cc: George Velarde – Assistant Planner
Planning Department – City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
RE: Master Case (MCN) No. 22-054 and Administrative Site Plan (ASP) No. 22-013 “The applicant, Eukon Group, is proposing to install wireless telecommunications equipment consisting of twelve (12) panel antennas, fifteen (RRUs) on an existing Southern California Edison transmission tower and ancillary wireless equipment located at ground level within a block wall enclosure.

You will find the reasons for our opposition to this project below. These peer-reviewed, scientific studies, and backing from national and international renowned doctors, scientists, and engineers, identify the dangers associated with these technologies. The information will prove why this telecommunications equipment needs to be placed away from our neighborhoods, schools, and parks! Our reasons for opposing this additional telecommunications equipment install are outlined below:

1. Real Estate Devaluation

2. Health and Medical Risks

3. Environmental Harm & Risks

4. Fire Danger & Collapse Risks

5. Insurance Risk

6. Informed Consent

7. Criminal Activity
1062

8. Worker Deaths, Accidents, and Suicides

Respectfully,
Amir Chaudhry
1063
From: Idalia Torres <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 10:32 PM
To: George Velarde
Subject: No Cell Tower

CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER - THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED OUTSIDE OF THE CITY'S EMAIL SYSTEM Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Noemi Hernandez
2895 N sandalwood ave
Rialto, CA 92377
February 13, 2023
Patty Nevins – Director of Planning
cc: George Velarde – Assistant Planner
Planning Department – City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
RE: Master Case (MCN) No. 22-054 and Administrative Site Plan (ASP) No. 22-013 “The applicant, Eukon Group, is proposing to install wireless telecommunications equipment consisting of twelve (12) panel antennas, fifteen (RRUs) on an existing Southern California Edison transmission tower and ancillary wireless equipment located at ground level within a block wall enclosure.

1. Real Estate Devaluation
1064

2. Health and Medical Risks

3. Environmental Harm & Risks

4. Fire Danger & Collapse Risks

5. Insurance Risk

6. Informed Consent

7. Criminal Activity

8. Worker Deaths, Accidents, and Suicides

Respectfully,
Noemi Hernandez
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S9+, an AT&T 5G Evolution capable smartphone 1065
From: Idalia Torres <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 10:27 PM
To: George Velarde
Subject: No Celltowers!

CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER - THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED OUTSIDE OF THE CITY'S EMAIL SYSTEM Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Noemi Hernandez
2895 N sandalwood ave
Rialto, ca 92377
February 13, 2023
Patty Nevins – Director of Planning
cc: George Velarde – Assistant Planner
Planning Department – City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
RE: Master Case (MCN) No. 22-054 and Administrative Site Plan (ASP) No. 22-013 “The applicant, Eukon Group, is proposing to install wireless telecommunications equipment consisting of twelve (12) panel antennas, fifteen (RRUs) on an existing Southern California Edison transmission tower and ancillary wireless equipment located at ground level within a block wall enclosure.

1. Real Estate Devaluation

2. Health and Medical Risks
1066

3. Environmental Harm & Risks

4. Fire Danger & Collapse Risks

5. Insurance Risk

6. Informed Consent

7. Criminal Activity

8. Worker Deaths, Accidents, and Suicides

Respectfully,
Noemi Hernandez
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S9+, an AT&T 5G Evolution capable smartphone 1067
From: Amber Clark <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 9:52 PM
To: George Velarde
Subject: OPOSE PROJECT

CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER - THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED OUTSIDE OF THE CITY'S EMAIL SYSTEM Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dennis Craddock
Amber Craddock
4672 Condor Ave
Fontana, CA 92336.

February 13, 2023
Patty Nevins – Director of Planning
cc: George Velarde – Assistant Planner
Planning Department – City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
RE: Master Case (MCN) No. 22-054 and Administrative Site Plan (ASP) No. 22-013 “The applicant, Eukon Group, is proposing to install wireless telecommunications equipment consisting of twelve (12) panel antennas, fifteen (RRUs) on an existing Southern California Edison transmission tower and ancillary wireless equipment located at ground level within a block wall enclosure.

1. Real Estate Devaluation

2. Health and Medical Risks

3. Environmental Harm & Risks

4. Fire Danger & Collapse Risks

5. Insurance Risk

6. Informed Consent

7. Criminal Activity

8. Worker Deaths, Accidents, and Suicides

Respectfully,
Dennis Craddock,
Amber Craddock
1069
From: stef estrada <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 9:01 PM
To: George Velarde
Subject: Oppose cell towers

CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER - THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED OUTSIDE OF THE CITY'S EMAIL SYSTEM Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Mauro Estrada
3609 N Orangewood Ave Rialto ca 92377
(February 13, 2023)
Patty Nevins – Director of Planning
cc: George Velarde – Assistant Planner
Planning Department – City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
RE: Master Case (MCN) No. 22-054 and Administrative Site Plan (ASP) No. 22-013 “The applicant, Eukon Group, is proposing to install wireless telecommunications equipment consisting of twelve (12) panel antennas, fifteen (RRUs) on an existing Southern California Edison transmission tower and ancillary wireless equipment located at ground level within a block wall enclosure.

1. Real Estate Devaluation

2. Health and Medical Risks
1070

3. Environmental Harm & Risks

4. Fire Danger & Collapse Risks

5. Insurance Risk

6. Informed Consent

7. Criminal Activity

8. Worker Deaths, Accidents, and Suicides

Respectfully,
Mauro Estrada
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
1071
From: Olga Figueroa <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 9:03 PM
To: George Velarde
Subject: Oppose cell towers

CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER - THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED OUTSIDE OF THE CITY'S EMAIL SYSTEM Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Olga Figueroa
3434 Laurel Ave Rialto ca 92377
(February 13, 2023)
Patty Nevins – Director of Planning
cc: George Velarde – Assistant Planner
Planning Department – City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
RE: Master Case (MCN) No. 22-054 and Administrative Site Plan (ASP) No. 22-013 “The applicant, Eukon Group, is proposing to install wireless telecommunications equipment consisting of twelve (12) panel antennas, fifteen (RRUs) on an existing Southern California Edison transmission tower and ancillary wireless equipment located at ground level within a block wall enclosure.

1. Real Estate Devaluation

2. Health and Medical Risks
1072

3. Environmental Harm & Risks

4. Fire Danger & Collapse Risks

5. Insurance Risk

6. Informed Consent

7. Criminal Activity

8. Worker Deaths, Accidents, and Suicides

Respectfully,
Olga figueroa
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
1073
From: Mauro and Stephanie Estrada <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 9:00 PM
To: George Velarde
Subject: Oppose cell towers

CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER - THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED OUTSIDE OF THE CITY'S EMAIL SYSTEM Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Stephanie Estrada
3609 N Orangewood Ave Rialto ca 92377
(February 13, 2023)
Patty Nevins – Director of Planning
cc: George Velarde – Assistant Planner
Planning Department – City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
RE: Master Case (MCN) No. 22-054 and Administrative Site Plan (ASP) No. 22-013 “The applicant, Eukon Group, is proposing to install wireless telecommunications equipment consisting of twelve (12) panel antennas, fifteen (RRUs) on an existing Southern California Edison transmission tower and ancillary wireless equipment located at ground level within a block wall enclosure.

1. Real Estate Devaluation
1074

2. Health and Medical Risks

3. Environmental Harm & Risks

4. Fire Danger & Collapse Risks

5. Insurance Risk

6. Informed Consent

7. Criminal Activity

8. Worker Deaths, Accidents, and Suicides

Respectfully,
Stephanie Estrada
1075
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 10:04 PM
To: George Velarde
Subject: Opposing telecommunications project

CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER - THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED OUTSIDE OF THE CITY'S EMAIL SYSTEM Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Jesse Ortega
4655 Condor Ave
Fontana, Ca 92336
February 14, 2023
Patty Nevins – Director of Planning
cc: George Velarde – Assistant Planner
Planning Department – City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
RE: Master Case (MCN) No. 22-054 and Administrative Site Plan (ASP) No. 22-013 “The applicant, Eukon Group, is proposing to install wireless telecommunications equipment consisting of twelve (12) panel antennas, fifteen (RRUs) on an existing Southern California Edison transmission tower and ancillary wireless equipment located at ground level within a block wall enclosure.

You will find the reasons for our opposition to this project below. In addition, there are peerreviewed, scientific studies, backed by national and international renowned doctors, scientists, 1076
and engineers that identify the dangers associated with these technologies. The information will prove why this telecommunications equipment needs to be placed away from our neighborhoods, schools, and parks!
Our reasons for opposing this additional telecommunications equipment install are outlined below:

1. Real Estate Devaluation

2. Health and Medical Risks

3. Environmental Harm & Risks

4. Fire Danger & Collapse Risks

5. Insurance Risk

6. Informed Consent

7. Criminal Activity

8. Worker Deaths, Accidents, and Suicides

Respectfully,
Jesse Ortega
Sent from my iPhone
1077
From: Yanie Tan <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2023 10:38 PM
To: George Velarde
Subject: Opposition cell tower

CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER - THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED OUTSIDE OF THE CITY'S EMAIL SYSTEM Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Mario Djaja
17001 Jeanne Lane
Fontana, CA 92336
February 16th, 2023
Patty Nevins – Director of Planning
cc: George Velarde – Assistant Planner
Planning Department – City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
RE: Master Case (MCN) No. 22-054 and Administrative Site Plan (ASP) No. 22-013 “The applicant, Eukon Group, is proposing to install wireless telecommunications equipment consisting of twelve (12) panel antennas, fifteen (RRUs) on an existing Southern California Edison transmission tower and ancillary wireless equipment located at ground level within a block wall enclosure.

You will find the reasons for our opposition to this project below. In addition, there are peerreviewed, scientific studies, backed by national and international renowned doctors, scientists, and engineers that identify the dangers associated with these technologies. The information will prove why this telecommunications equipment needs to be placed away from our neighborhoods, schools, and parks!
1078
Our reasons for opposing this additional telecommunications equipment install are outlined below:

1. Real Estate Devaluation

2. Health and Medical Risks

3. Environmental Harm & Risks

4. Fire Danger & Collapse Risks

5. Insurance Risk

6. Informed Consent

7. Criminal Activity

8. Worker Deaths, Accidents, and Suicides

Respectfully,
Mario Djaja
Sent from my iPhone
1079
From: Diana Cortez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 8:24 AM
To: George Velarde
Subject: Opposition Letter 2023

CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER - THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED OUTSIDE OF THE CITY'S EMAIL SYSTEM Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Sierra Crest & Las Colinas Simple Opposition Letter 2023

Diana Cortez
2723 west Via bello Dr
Rialto Ca 92377
Date (February 14, 2023)
Patty Nevins – Director of Planning
cc: George Velarde – Assistant Planner
Planning Department – City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
RE: Master Case (MCN) No. 22-054 and Administrative Site Plan (ASP) No. 22-013 “The applicant, Eukon Group, is proposing to install wireless telecommunications equipment consisting of twelve (12) panel antennas, fifteen (RRUs) on an existing Southern California Edison transmission tower and ancillary wireless equipment located at ground level within a block wall enclosure.

Dear Mrs. Nevins & Mr. Verlarde,
As residents of Sierra Crest and Las Colinas neighborhoods, weare writing to express our opposition to the above proposal. We do not agree to have harmful telecommunications equipment installed right next to our homes, park, and close to our elementary school. This telecommunications equipment will negatively impact our community: health risks, home devaluation, fire danger, environmental damage, and safety.

We are not against technology, many residents work for technologybased companies and our families enjoy the conveniences it brings to our lives. However, we also agree that responsible and safe technology is important for our community first. We pay a high tax rate in this area and hope that our concerns are heard over the Eukon Group, located in Irvine, and not part of our local community.
1080
You will find the reasons for our opposition to this project below. In addition, there are peer-reviewed, scientific studies, backed by national and international renowned doctors, scientists, and engineers that identify the dangers associated with these technologies. The information will prove why this telecommunications equipment needs to be placed away from our neighborhoods, schools, and parks! Our reasons for opposing this additional telecommunications equipment install are outlined below:

1. Real Estate Devaluation

2. Health and Medical Risks

3. Environmental Harm & Risks

4. Fire Danger & Collapse Risks

5. Insurance Risk

6. Informed Consent

7. Criminal Activity

8. Worker Deaths, Accidents, and Suicides

9. Security Risk, Cyber Crime & Fraud

We request that the City of Fontana deny this installation and that the Eukon Group respectfully find another location for their
communications equipment. Eukon Group’s profit will lead to the damage of our neighborhoods, health, environment, and real estate value.

Respectfully,
Diana, Penelope, Malila and Pedro Jimenez

1081
From: Jata Baylon <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2023 9:48 AM
To: George Velarde
Subject: RE: Master Case (MCN) No. 22-054 and Administrative Site Plan (ASP) No. 22- 013 “The applicant, Eukon Group, is proposing to install wireless telecommunications equipment consisting of twelve (12) panel antennas, fifteen (RRUs) on an existing Southern C...

CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER - THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED OUTSIDE OF THE CITY'S EMAIL SYSTEM Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Jata Baylon
17007 Raven St.

Fontana CA 92336
Feb.16, 2023
Patty Nevins – Director of Planning
cc: George Velarde – Assistant Planner
Planning Department – City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
RE: Master Case (MCN) No. 22-054 and Administrative Site Plan (ASP) No. 22-013 “The applicant, Eukon Group, is proposing to install wireless telecommunications equipment consisting of twelve (12) panel antennas, fifteen (RRUs) on an existing Southern California Edison transmission tower and ancillary wireless equipment located at ground level within a block wall enclosure.

Dear Mrs. Nevins & Mr. Velarde,
As residents of Sierra Crest and Las Colinas neighborhoods, we are writing to express our opposition to the above proposal. We do not agree to have harmful telecommunications equipment installed right next to our homes, park, and close to our elementary school. This telecommunications equipment will negatively impact our community: health risks, home devaluation, fire danger, environmental damage, and safety.

1. Real Estate Devaluation

2. Health and Medical Risks

3. Environmental Harm & Risks

4. Fire Danger & Collapse Risks

5. Insurance Risk
1082

6. Informed Consent

7. Criminal Activity

8. Worker Deaths, Accidents, and Suicides

Respectfully,
Jata Baylon
About Us
This website is deign
1083
From: shaunasse83 <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 4:46 PM
To: George Velarde
Subject: RE: Master Case (MCN) No. 22-054 and Administrative Site Plan (ASP) No. 22- 013

CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER - THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED OUTSIDE OF THE CITY'S EMAIL SYSTEM Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Shaunasse Miller
16960 Rudeen Lane
Fontana, CA 92336
[Date (February 13, 2023)]
Patty Nevins – Director of Planning
cc: George Velarde – Assistant Planner
Planning Department – City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
RE: Master Case (MCN) No. 22-054 and Administrative Site Plan (ASP) No. 22-013 “The applicant, Eukon Group, is proposing to install wireless telecommunications equipment consisting of twelve (12) panel antennas, fifteen (RRUs) on an existing Southern California Edison transmission tower and ancillary wireless equipment located at ground level within a block wall enclosure.

We are not against technology, many residents work for technology-based companies and our families enjoy the conveniences it brings to our lives. However, we also agree that responsible and safe technology is important for our community first. We pay a high tax rate in this area and hope that our voices and concerns are heard over the Eukon Group, located in Irvine, and not part of our local community. 1084
You will find the reasons for our opposition to this project below. In addition, there are peer-reviewed, scientific studies, backed by national and international renowned doctors, scientists, and engineers that identify the dangers associated with these technologies. The information will prove why this telecommunications equipment needs to be placed away from our neighborhoods, schools, and parks! We request that the City of Fontana deny this installation and that the Eukon Group respectfully find another location for this equipment. Their profit will lead to the destruction of our neighborhoods, health, environment, and ultimately financial loss of properties.

Our reasons for opposing this additional telecommunications equipment install are outlined below:

1. Real Estate Devaluation – Property values go down when you can see the cell towers (communications equipment). This has been reported by national real estate firms. According to a survey published in *Realtor Magazine, 94% of potential homebuyers and renters do NOT want to live near properties that are located by cell towers, and would pay LESS for a property in close vicinity to cellular antennas & telecommunications equipment. 79% of the respondents said they would NEVER purchase or rent such a property. Real estate organizations show that a price drop between 15 – 20% happens when cell towers & communications equipment are next to homes. According to HUD, Appraisal & Property Requirements, “The appraiser must indicate whether the dwelling or related property improvements is located within the easement serving a high-voltage transmission line, radio/TV transmission tower, cell phone tower, microwave relay dish or tower, or satellite dish (radio, TV cable, etc).”
The California Association of Realtors’ Property Sellers Questionnaire specifically “cell towers” listed on the disclosure form for sellers of real estate. The seller must note “neighborhood noise, nuisance or other problems from …” and includes cell towers and high voltage transmission lines on the long list problems.

2. Health and Medical Risks – Studies have shown that people living in close proximity to cell towers and telecommunications equipment have increase risks of many health issues.
a. Cancers (leukemia, kidney, liver, brain tumors, blood, etc.) b. DNA Damage & Gene Expression Changes, Lipid Abnormalities (Double DNA strand breaks)
1085
c. Cognitive Decline, Developmental Disorders, & Learning Issues in Children d. Oxidative Stress
e. Neurological/Cognitive Effects (Dizziness, Headache/Migraines, Nausea, Memory Loss, & Fatigue)
f. Cardiovascular Effects (Heart Arrhythmia, Palpations, Cardiomyopathy) g. Tinnitus
h. Effects Fetuses
i. Fertility
j. Electromagnetic Sensitivity
k. Implanted Medical Devices Issues
l. ETC.

The FCC does not take into account the synergistic impact of combined toxic exposures, long-term cumulative exposure impacts, and critical windows of development in children.

3. Environmental Harm & Risks – “Science continues to reveal biological harm to ALL living organisms, including animals, plants, trees, insects, and bacteria, from radiofrequency EMR exposure with levels at or below current U.S. safety guidelines.”
“Affects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna” in the journal “Reviews on Environmental Health,” points out that the FCC has long ignored studies on the harmful impact of wireless [equipment] on wildlife. The 150 page study of over 1,200 peer reviewed studies finds that birds, insects and animals are uniquely sensitive to wireless radiation. It identifies low-level wireless as a pollutant and warns against escalating radiation levels with 5G technologies. The researchers highlight the FCC’s failure to protect the environment.

In 2013, a group from the Institute of Environmental Sciences in the Netherlands published a thorough review of the ecological effects of RF-EMF, based on 113 1086
published, peer-reviewed studies. They found that wireless radiation had a significant effect on birds, insects, other vertebrates, and multiple organisms and plants in 70% of the studies.

4. Fire Danger & Collapse Risks – Cell towers and telecommunications equipment pose an increase in fire and explosion risk. This equipment will be added to an area that is a SEVERE fire risk. There have been several fires in the surrounding areas and fields. Malfunctioning equipment will add to our fire risk. Additionally, cell towers and equipment are prone to lightening strikes.

6. Inform to Consent – Once telecommunications equipment has been installed, additional equipment can be added without resident’s knowledge, or any way to oppose it. Leaving residents vulnerable to unchecked amounts of radiation and property devaluation, and health risks.
“Cell towers have 2G, 3G, and 4G antennas. 5G antennas are being added to base stations worldwide. After a cell tower is erected, new antennas can be easily added and generally without any (or minimal) public participation in the decision-making process. 5G antennas can be mounted on both shorter so-called “small cells” and larger “macro” towers.”

8. Worker Deaths, Accidents, and Suicides – Workers are at high risk of having accidental falls. There are documented reports of people climbing these towers in order to jump off. Additionally, a site’s security fence is only a minor deterrent to would-be intruders.

1. Real Estate Devaluation:

REALTOR Magazine
”Cell Towers, Antennas Problematic for Buyers” REALTOR Magazine, July 25, 2014
https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/Real-Estate-Seller-PropertyQuestionaire-reduced-12-17-1.pdf HUD – U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Hazards & Nuisances: Overhead High Voltage Transmission Towers and Lines HUD Archives: HOC Reference Guide — Hazards & Nuisances: Overhead High Voltage Transmission Towers and Lines (Page 1-18f)
PA Association of Realtors
Do Neighborhood Cell Towers Impact Property Values?
Do neighborhood cell towers impact property values? – Pennsylvania Association of Realtors® (parealtors.org)

2. Health and Medical Risks:

Physicians for Safe Technology
Cell Tower Radiation Health Effects
Physicians for Safe Technology | Cell Tower Radiation Health Effects (mdsafetech.org)
Environmental Health Trust
Peer Reviewed Published Research on Cell Tower Radiation, Base Station Radiation and Heath Effects
Compilation of Research Studies on Cell Tower Radiation and Health – Environmental Health Trust (ehtrust.org)
1088
Safer EMR
“Cell Phones, Cell Towers & Wireless Safety” (UC Berkeley) https://www.saferemr.com/2019/03/cellphones-cell-towers-wireless.html ResearchGate
Impact of radiofrequency radiation on DNA damage and antioxidants in peripheral blood lymphocytes of humans residing in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations (PDF) Impact of radiofrequency radiation on DNA damage and antioxidants in peripheral blood lymphocytes of humans residing in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations (researchgate.net)

3. Environmental Harm & Risks:

PubMed.Gov & NIH (National Library of Medicine
Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, part 1. Rising ambient EMF levels in the environment
Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, part 1. Rising ambient EMF levels in the environment – PubMed (nih.gov) Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 2 impacts: how species interact with natural and man-made EMF – PubMed (nih.gov) Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 3. Exposure standards, public policy, laws, and future directions (degruyter.com)

4. Fire Danger & Collapse:

Environmental Health Trust
Cell Tower Safety Risks Fires and Collapse
https://ehtrust.org/cell-tower-safety-risks-fires-and-collapse/

5. Insurance Warning:

Environmental Health Trust
Insurance Authorities Rate 5G and Electromagnetic Radiation as “HIGH RISK” https://ehtrust.org/key-issues/reports-white-papers-insurance-industry/

6. Inform to Consent:

Environmental Health Trust
Top Facts on 5G: What You Need to Know About 5G Wireless and “Small: Cells https://ehtrust.org/key-issues/cell-phoneswireless/5g-internet-everything/20- quick-facts-what-you-need-to-know-about-5g-wireless-and-small-cells/

7. Criminal Activity:

Environmental Health Trust
1089
Cell Tower Safety Risks Fires and Collapse
https://ehtrust.org/cell-tower-safety-risks-fires-and-collapse/ USA Telecom Insurance Services
Risks for Cell Towers in 2019
https://usatelecomins.com/risks-for-cell-towers-in-2019/

8. Worker Death, Accidents, & Suicides:

Environmental Health Trust
Cell Tower Safety Risks Fires and Collapse
https://ehtrust.org/cell-tower-safety-risks-fires-and-collapse/

9. Security Risk, Cyber Crime & Fraud:

USA Telecom Insurance Services
Risks for Cell Towers in 2019
https://usatelecomins.com/risks-for-cell-towers-in-2019/ About Us
This website is deigned to opposed Master Case (MCN) No. 20-054 and Administrative Site Plan (ASP) No. 22-013
Home
• Letter Template
• Neighborhood Flyer
• Science
• FAQ
• Act Now
Resources
• Resource Links
• News Videos
• Public Hearing Notice
Useful Link
• Real-estate
1090
• Health Risks
• Environmental Risks
• Fire Danger
• Insurance Warning
Contact Information
Sierra Crest and Las Colinas
[email protected]
Copyright © 2023, Vision FSE by Eagle Vision IT
Terms & Conditions
Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device
1091
From: Crystal Miller <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 4:33 PM
To: George Velarde
Subject: Re: opposing wireless telecommunications proposal

CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER - THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED OUTSIDE OF THE CITY'S EMAIL SYSTEM Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Just copy this into your email program and make sure you edit everything in red.

Crystal Miller
16960 Rudeen Lane
Fontana, CA 92336
February 13, 2023
Patty Nevins – Director of Planning
cc: George Velarde – Assistant Planner
Planning Department – City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
RE: Master Case (MCN) No. 22-054 and Administrative Site Plan (ASP) No. 22-013 “The applicant, Eukon Group, is proposing to install wireless telecommunications equipment consisting of twelve (12) panel antennas, fifteen (RRUs) on an existing Southern California Edison transmission tower and ancillary wireless equipment located at ground level within a block wall enclosure.

We are not against technology, many residents work for technology-based companies and our families enjoy the conveniences it brings to our lives. However, we also agree that responsible and safe technology is important for our community first. We pay a high tax rate in this area and hope that our voices and concerns are heard over the Eukon Group, located in Irvine, and not part of our local community. 1092
You will find the reasons for our opposition to this project below. In addition, there are peer-reviewed, scientific studies, backed by national and international renowned doctors, scientists, and engineers that identify the dangers associated with these technologies. The information will prove why this telecommunications equipment needs to be placed away from our neighborhoods, schools, and parks! We request that the City of Fontana deny this installation and that the Eukon Group respectfully find another location for this equipment. Their profit will lead to the destruction of our neighborhoods, health, environment, and ultimately financial loss of properties.

Our reasons for opposing this additional telecommunications equipment install are outlined below:

1. Real Estate Devaluation – Property values go down when you can see the cell towers (communications equipment). This has been reported by national real estate firms. According to a survey published in *Realtor Magazine, 94% of potential homebuyers and renters do NOT want to live near properties that are located by cell towers, and would pay LESS for a property in close vicinity to cellular antennas & telecommunications equipment. 79% of the respondents said they would NEVER purchase or rent such a property. Real estate organizations show that a price drop between 15 – 20% happens when cell towers & communications equipment are next to homes. According to HUD, Appraisal & Property Requirements, “The appraiser must indicate whether the dwelling or related property improvements is located within the easement serving a high-voltage transmission line, radio/TV transmission tower, cell phone tower, microwave relay dish or tower, or satellite dish (radio, TV cable, etc).”
The California Association of Realtors’ Property Sellers Questionnaire specifically “cell towers” listed on the disclosure form for sellers of real estate. The seller must note “neighborhood noise, nuisance or other problems from …” and includes cell towers and high voltage transmission lines on the long list problems.

2. Health and Medical Risks – Studies have shown that people living in close proximity to cell towers and telecommunications equipment have increase risks of many health issues.
a. Cancers (leukemia, kidney, liver, brain tumors, blood, etc.) b. DNA Damage & Gene Expression Changes, Lipid Abnormalities (Double DNA strand breaks)
1093
c. Cognitive Decline, Developmental Disorders, & Learning Issues in Children d. Oxidative Stress
e. Neurological/Cognitive Effects (Dizziness, Headache/Migraines, Nausea, Memory Loss, & Fatigue)
f. Cardiovascular Effects (Heart Arrhythmia, Palpations, Cardiomyopathy) g. Tinnitus
h. Effects Fetuses
i. Fertility
j. Electromagnetic Sensitivity
k. Implanted Medical Devices Issues
l. ETC.

The FCC does not take into account the synergistic impact of combined toxic exposures, long-term cumulative exposure impacts, and critical windows of development in children.

3. Environmental Harm & Risks – “Science continues to reveal biological harm to ALL living organisms, including animals, plants, trees, insects, and bacteria, from radiofrequency EMR exposure with levels at or below current U.S. safety guidelines.”
“Affects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna” in the journal “Reviews on Environmental Health,” points out that the FCC has long ignored studies on the harmful impact of wireless [equipment] on wildlife. The 150 page study of over 1,200 peer reviewed studies finds that birds, insects and animals are uniquely sensitive to wireless radiation. It identifies low-level wireless as a pollutant and warns against escalating radiation levels with 5G technologies. The researchers highlight the FCC’s failure to protect the environment.

In 2013, a group from the Institute of Environmental Sciences in the Netherlands published a thorough review of the ecological effects of RF-EMF, based on 113 1094
published, peer-reviewed studies. They found that wireless radiation had a significant effect on birds, insects, other vertebrates, and multiple organisms and plants in 70% of the studies.

1. Real Estate Devaluation:

2. Health and Medical Risks:

Physicians for Safe Technology
Cell Tower Radiation Health Effects
Physicians for Safe Technology | Cell Tower Radiation Health Effects (mdsafetech.org)
Environmental Health Trust
Peer Reviewed Published Research on Cell Tower Radiation, Base Station Radiation and Heath Effects
Compilation of Research Studies on Cell Tower Radiation and Health – Environmental Health Trust (ehtrust.org)
1096
Safer EMR
“Cell Phones, Cell Towers & Wireless Safety” (UC Berkeley) https://www.saferemr.com/2019/03/cellphones-cell-towers-wireless.html ResearchGate
Impact of radiofrequency radiation on DNA damage and antioxidants in peripheral blood lymphocytes of humans residing in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations (PDF) Impact of radiofrequency radiation on DNA damage and antioxidants in peripheral blood lymphocytes of humans residing in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations (researchgate.net)

3. Environmental Harm & Risks:

PubMed.Gov & NIH (National Library of Medicine
Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, part 1. Rising ambient EMF levels in the environment
Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, part 1. Rising ambient EMF levels in the environment – PubMed (nih.gov) Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 2 impacts: how species interact with natural and man-made EMF – PubMed (nih.gov) Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 3. Exposure standards, public policy, laws, and future directions (degruyter.com)

4. Fire Danger & Collapse:

Environmental Health Trust
Cell Tower Safety Risks Fires and Collapse
https://ehtrust.org/cell-tower-safety-risks-fires-and-collapse/

5. Insurance Warning:

Environmental Health Trust
Insurance Authorities Rate 5G and Electromagnetic Radiation as “HIGH RISK” https://ehtrust.org/key-issues/reports-white-papers-insurance-industry/

6. Inform to Consent:

Environmental Health Trust
Top Facts on 5G: What You Need to Know About 5G Wireless and “Small: Cells https://ehtrust.org/key-issues/cell-phoneswireless/5g-internet-everything/20- quick-facts-what-you-need-to-know-about-5g-wireless-and-small-cells/

7. Criminal Activity:

Environmental Health Trust
1097
Cell Tower Safety Risks Fires and Collapse
https://ehtrust.org/cell-tower-safety-risks-fires-and-collapse/ USA Telecom Insurance Services
Risks for Cell Towers in 2019
https://usatelecomins.com/risks-for-cell-towers-in-2019/

8. Worker Death, Accidents, & Suicides:

Environmental Health Trust
Cell Tower Safety Risks Fires and Collapse
https://ehtrust.org/cell-tower-safety-risks-fires-and-collapse/

9. Security Risk, Cyber Crime & Fraud:

USA Telecom Insurance Services
Risks for Cell Towers in 2019
https://usatelecomins.com/risks-for-cell-towers-in-2019/ About Us
This website is deigned to opposed Master Case (MCN) No. 20-054 and Administrative Site Plan (ASP) No. 22-013
Home
• Letter Template
• Neighborhood Flyer
• Science
• FAQ
• Act Now
Resources
• Resource Links
• News Videos
• Public Hearing Notice
Useful Link
• Real-estate
1098
• Health Risks
• Environmental Risks
• Fire Danger
• Insurance Warning
Contact Information
Sierra Crest and Las Colinas
[email protected]
Copyright © 2023, Vision FSE by Eagle Vision IT
Terms & Conditions
1099
From: Anthony Singh <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 1:00 PM
To: George Velarde
Subject: Sierra Crest & Las Colinas Simple Opposition Letter 2023

CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER - THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED OUTSIDE OF THE CITY'S EMAIL SYSTEM Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Sukhvinder Singh
4805 Clarence Way
Fontana CA, 92336
February 13, 2023
Patty Nevins – Director of Planning
cc: George Velarde – Assistant Planner
Planning Department – City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
RE: Master Case (MCN) No. 22-054 and Administrative Site Plan (ASP) No. 22-013 “The applicant, Eukon Group, is proposing to install wireless telecommunications equipment consisting of twelve (12) panel antennas, fifteen (RRUs) on an existing Southern California Edison transmission tower and ancillary wireless equipment located at ground level within a block wall enclosure.

You will find the reasons for our opposition to this project below. In addition, there are peer-reviewed, scientific studies, backed by national and international renowned doctors, scientists, and engineers that identify the dangers associated with these technologies. The information will prove why this telecommunications equipment needs to be placed away from our neighborhoods, schools, and parks! 1100
Our reasons for opposing this additional telecommunications equipment install are outlined below:

1. Real Estate Devaluation

2. Health and Medical Risks

3. Environmental Harm & Risks

4. Fire Danger & Collapse Risks

5. Insurance Risk

6. Informed Consent

7. Criminal Activity

8. Worker Deaths, Accidents, and Suicides

9. Security Risk, Cyber Crime & Fraud

We request that the City of Fontana deny this installation and that the Eukon Group respectfully find another location for their communications equipment. Eukon Group’s profit will lead to the damage of our neighborhoods, health, environment, and real estate value.

Respectfully,
Sukhvinder Singh
1101
1102
From: Nicole Alvarado <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 8:49 PM
To: George Velarde
Subject: Stop the cell tower

CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER - THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED OUTSIDE OF THE CITY'S EMAIL SYSTEM Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Nicole Alvarado
2751 W Montecito Dr
Rialto, CA 92377
February 14,2023
Patty Nevins – Director of Planning
cc: George Velarde – Assistant Planner
Planning Department – City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
RE: Master Case (MCN) No. 22-054 and Administrative Site Plan (ASP) No. 22-013 “The applicant, Eukon Group, is proposing to install wireless telecommunications equipment consisting of twelve (12) panel antennas, fifteen (RRUs) on an existing Southern California Edison transmission tower and ancillary wireless equipment located at ground level within a block wall enclosure.

You will find the reasons for our opposition to this project below. In addition, there are peerreviewed, scientific studies, backed by national and international renowned doctors, scientists, and engineers that identify the dangers associated with these technologies. The information 1103
will prove why this telecommunications equipment needs to be placed away from our neighborhoods, schools, and parks!
We request that the City of Fontana deny this installation and that the Eukon Group respectfully find another location for this equipment. Their profit will lead to the destruction of our neighborhoods, health, environment, and ultimately financial loss of properties.

Our reasons for opposing this additional telecommunications equipment install are outlined below:

1. Real Estate Devaluation – Property values go down when you can see the cell towers (communications equipment). This has been reported by national real estate firms. According to a survey published in *Realtor Magazine, 94% of potential homebuyers and renters do NOT want to live near properties that are located by cell towers, and would pay LESS for a property in close vicinity to cellular antennas & telecommunications equipment. 79% of the respondents said they would NEVER purchase or rent such a property. Real estate organizations show that a price drop between 15 – 20% happens when cell towers & communications equipment are next to homes. According to HUD, Appraisal & Property Requirements, “The appraiser must indicate whether the dwelling or related property improvements is located within the easement serving a high-voltage transmission line, radio/TV transmission tower, cell phone tower, microwave relay dish or tower, or satellite dish (radio, TV cable, etc).”
The California Association of Realtors’ Property Sellers Questionnaire specifically “cell towers” listed on the disclosure form for sellers of real estate. The seller must note “neighborhood noise, nuisance or other problems from …” and includes cell towers and high voltage transmission lines on the long list problems.

2. Health and Medical Risks – Studies have shown that people living in close proximity to cell towers and telecommunications equipment have increase risks of many health issues.
a. Cancers (leukemia, kidney, liver, brain tumors, blood, etc.) b. DNA Damage & Gene Expression Changes, Lipid Abnormalities (Double DNA strand breaks)
c. Cognitive Decline, Developmental Disorders, & Learning Issues in Children d. Oxidative Stress
e. Neurological/Cognitive Effects (Dizziness, Headache/Migraines, Nausea, Memory Loss, & Fatigue)
f. Cardiovascular Effects (Heart Arrhythmia, Palpations, Cardiomyopathy) 1104
g. Tinnitus
h. Effects Fetuses
i. Fertility
j. Electromagnetic Sensitivity
k. Implanted Medical Devices Issues
l. ETC.

The FCC has not updated safety standards for RF & EMF for over 25 years! We do not truly know the safe distance and true radiation these telecommunications equipment emit without new studies and research. We do not want to be guinea pigs and find out years later the devastating effects this equipment will have on our families and friends. The FCC does not take into account the synergistic impact of combined toxic exposures, long-term cumulative exposure impacts, and critical windows of development in children.

3. Environmental Harm & Risks – “Science continues to reveal biological harm to ALL living organisms, including animals, plants, trees, insects, and bacteria, from radiofrequency EMR exposure with levels at or below current U.S. safety guidelines.”
“Affects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna” in the journal “Reviews on Environmental Health,” points out that the FCC has long ignored studies on the harmful impact of wireless [equipment] on wildlife. The 150 page study of over 1,200 peer reviewed studies finds that birds, insects and animals are uniquely sensitive to wireless radiation. It identifies low-level wireless as a pollutant and warns against escalating radiation levels with 5G technologies. The researchers highlight the FCC’s failure to protect the environment.

Collapse – High winds can create damage and failure causing falling debris. This 1105
area is known for extremely strong winds; this creates added dangers of cell equipment being damaged and potential to cause fires.

9. Security Risk, Cyber Crime & Fraud – “The costliest risk, and the one least thought of, is vulnerability to cyber crime and fraud. The base transceiver stations (BTS) of cell towers can be compromised by hackers who break into the code. With monitoring software installed on the BTS, these “bad actors” could monitor cell phones and text messages, as well as any digital traffic that passes through the tower. In other words, the base station can be used by hackers to spy on Internet users, and even to steal personal identification data.” Respectfully,
Nicole Alvarado
1106
Marisa Urias
4428 Condor Ave
Fontana, Ca 92336
February 15, 2023
Patty Nevins – Director of Planning
cc: George Velarde – Assistant Planner
Planning Department – City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
RE: Master Case (MCN) No. 22-054 and Administrative Site Plan (ASP) No. 22-013 “The applicant, Eukon Group, is proposing to install wireless telecommunications equipment consisting of twelve (12) panel antennas, fifteen (RRUs) on an existing Southern California Edison transmission tower and ancillary wireless equipment located at ground level within a block wall enclosure.

You will find the reasons for our opposition to this project below. In addition, there are peer-reviewed, scientific studies, backed by national and international renowned doctors, scientists, and engineers that identify the dangers associated with these technologies. The information will prove why this telecommunications equipment needs to be placed away from our neighborhoods, schools, and parks!
Our reasons for opposing this additional telecommunications equipment install are outlined below:

1. Real Estate Devaluation

2. Health and Medical Risks

3. Environmental Harm & Risks

4. Fire Danger & Collapse Risks

5. Insurance Risk

6. Informed Consent

7. Criminal Activity

8. Worker Deaths, Accidents, and Suicides

Respectfully,
Marisa Urias
1108
From: Juana Zapata <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 9:08 PM
To: George Velarde
Subject: Urgent: needs you’re attention!

CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER - THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED OUTSIDE OF THE CITY'S EMAIL SYSTEM Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Juana Zapata
2309 W. Via Bello Dr.

Rialto, CA 92377
February 13, 2023
Patty Nevins – Director of Planning
cc: George Velarde – Assistant Planner
Planning Department – City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
RE: Master Case (MCN) No. 22-054 and Administrative Site Plan (ASP) No. 22-013 “The applicant, Eukon Group, is proposing to install wireless telecommunications equipment consisting of twelve (12) panel antennas, fifteen (RRUs) on an existing Southern California Edison transmission tower and ancillary wireless equipment located at ground level within a block wall enclosure.

You will find the reasons for our opposition to this project below. In addition, there are peerreviewed, scientific studies, backed by national and international renowned doctors, scientists, and engineers that identify the dangers associated with these technologies. The information will 1109
prove why this telecommunications equipment needs to be placed away from our neighborhoods, schools, and parks!
Our reasons for opposing this additional telecommunications equipment install are outlined below:

1. Real Estate Devaluation

2. Health and Medical Risks

3. Environmental Harm & Risks

4. Fire Danger & Collapse Risks

5. Insurance Risk

6. Informed Consent

7. Criminal Activity

8. Worker Deaths, Accidents, and Suicides

Respectfully,
Juana Zapata
--
Praise Him,
Juana Zapata
1110
Farhad Matin
4598 Condor Ave.

Fontana CA 92336
February 15, 2023
Patty Nevins – Director of Planning
cc: George Velarde – Assistant Planner
Planning Department – City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
RE: Master Case (MCN) No. 22-054 and Administrative Site Plan (ASP) No. 22-013 “The applicant, Eukon Group, is proposing to install wireless telecommunications equipment consisting of twelve (12) panel antennas, fifteen (RRUs) on an existing Southern California Edison transmission tower and ancillary wireless equipment located at ground level within a block wall enclosure.

Dear Mrs. Nevins & Mr. Verlarde,
As residents of Sierra Crest and Las Colinas neighborhoods, we are writing to express our opposition to the above proposal. We do not agree to have harmful telecommunications equipment installed right next to our homes, park, and close to our elementary school. This telecommunications equipment will negatively impact our community:
health risks, home devaluation, fire danger, environmental damage, and safety.

1. Real Estate Devaluation

2. Health and Medical Risks

3. Environmental Harm & Risks

4. Fire Danger & Collapse Risks

5. Insurance Risk

6. Informed Consent

7. Criminal Activity

8. Worker Deaths, Accidents, and Suicides

Respectfully,
Farhad Matin
1111
Sierra Crest & Las Colinas Detailed Opposition Letter 2023 February 13, 2023
Misty Hewko-Chaudhry
4638 Condor Avenue
Fontana, CA 92336
Patty Nevins – Director of Planning
cc: George Velarde – Assistant Planner
Planning Department – City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
RE: Master Case (MCN) No. 22-054 and Administrative Site Plan (ASP) No. 22-013 “The applicant, Eukon Group, is proposing to install wireless telecommunications equipment consisting of twelve (12) panel antennas, fifteen (RRUs) on an existing Southern California Edison transmission tower and ancillary wireless equipment located at ground level within a block wall enclosure.

We are not against technology, many residents work for technology based companies, and our families enjoy the conveniences it brings to our lives. However, we also agree that responsible and safe technology is important for our community first. We pay a high tax rate in this area and hope that our voices and concerns are heard over the Eukon Group, located in Irvine, and not part of our local community.

You will find the reasons for our opposition to this project below. In addition, there are peer-reviewed, scientific studies, backed by national and international renowned doctors, scientists, and engineers that identify the dangers associated with these technologies. The information will prove why this telecommunications equipment needs to be placed away from our neighborhoods, schools, and parks! We request that the City of Fontana deny this installation and that the Eukon Group respectfully find another location for this equipment. Their profit will lead to the destruction of our neighborhoods, health, environment, and ultimately financial loss of properties.

Our reasons for opposing this additional telecommunications equipment install are outlined below:
1112
Sierra Crest & Las Colinas Detailed Opposition Letter 2023

2. Health and Medical Risks – Studies have shown that people living in close proximity to cell towers and telecommunications equipment have increase risks of many health issues. a. Cancers (leukemia, kidney, liver, brain tumors, blood, etc.) b. DNA Damage & Gene Expression Changes, Lipid Abnormalities (Double DNA strand breaks)
c. Cognitive Decline, Developmental Disorders, & Learning Issues in Children d. Oxidative Stress
e. Neurological/Cognitive Effects (Dizziness, Headache/Migraines, Nausea, Memory Loss, & Fatigue)
f. Cardiovascular Effects (Heart Arrhythmia, Palpations, Cardiomyopathy) g. Tinnitus
h. Effects Fetuses
i. Fertility
j. Electromagnetic Sensitivity
k. Implanted Medical Devices Issues
l. ETC.

The FCC has not updated safety standards for RF & EMF for over 25 years! We do not truly know the safe distance and true radiation this telecommunications equipment emits without new studies and research. We do not want to be guinea pigs and find out years later the devastating effects this equipment will have on our families and friends. The FCC does not take into account the synergistic impact of combined toxic exposures, long-term cumulative exposure impacts, 1113
Sierra Crest & Las Colinas Detailed Opposition Letter 2023 and critical windows of development in children.

3. Environmental Harm & Risks – “Science continues to reveal biological harm to ALL living organisms, including animals, plants, trees, insects, and bacteria, from radiofrequency EMR exposure with levels at or below current U.S. safety guidelines.” “Affects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna” in the journal “Reviews on Environmental Health,” points out that the FCC has long ignored studies on the harmful impact of wireless [equipment] on wildlife. The 150 page study of over 1,200 peer reviewed studies finds that birds, insects and animals are uniquely sensitive to wireless radiation. It identifies lowlevel wireless as a pollutant and warns against escalating radiation levels with 5G technologies.

The researchers highlight the FCC’s failure to protect the environment.

4. Fire Danger & Collapse Risks – Cell towers and telecommunications equipment pose an increase in fire and explosion risk. This equipment will be added to an area that is a SEVERE fire risk.

There have been several fires in the surrounding areas and fields. Malfunctioning equipment will add to our fire risk. Additionally, cell towers and equipment are prone to lightning strikes.

6. Inform to Consent – Once telecommunications equipment has been installed, additional equipment can be added without resident’s knowledge, or any way to oppose it. This will leave residents vulnerable to unchecked amounts of radiation and property devaluation, and health risks.
“Cell towers have 2G, 3G, and 4G antennas. 5G antennas are being added to base stations worldwide. After a cell tower is erected, new antennas can be easily added and generally without any (or minimal) public participation in the decision-making process. 5G antennas can be mounted on both shorter so-called “small cells” and larger “macro” towers.”

8. Worker Deaths, Accidents, and Suicides – Workers are at high risk of having accidental falls.

There are documented reports of people climbing these towers in order to jump off.

Additionally, a site’s security fence is only a minor deterrent to would-be intruders.

1. Real Estate Devaluation:

REALTOR Magazine
”Cell Towers, Antennas Problematic for Buyers” REALTOR Magazine, July 25, 2014 https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/Real-Estate-Seller-Property-Questionaire-reduced-12- 17-1.pdf
HUD – U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Hazards & Nuisances: Overhead High Voltage Transmission Towers and Lines HUD Archives: HOC Reference Guide -- Hazards & Nuisances: Overhead High Voltage Transmission Towers and Lines (Page 1-18f)
PA Association of Realtors
Do Neighborhood Cell Towers Impact Property Values?
Do neighborhood cell towers impact property values? - Pennsylvania Association of Realtors® (parealtors.org)

2. Health and Medical Risks:

Physicians for Safe Technology
Cell Tower Radiation Health Effects
Physicians for Safe Technology | Cell Tower Radiation Health Effects (mdsafetech.org) Environmental Health Trust
Peer Reviewed Published Research on Cell Tower Radiation, Base Station Radiation and Heath Effects
Compilation of Research Studies on Cell Tower Radiation and Health - Environmental Health Trust (ehtrust.org)
Safer EMR
"Cell Phones, Cell Towers & Wireless Safety" (UC Berkeley) https://www.saferemr.com/2019/03/cellphones-cell-towers-wireless.html ResearchGate
Impact of radiofrequency radiation on DNA damage and antioxidants in peripheral blood lymphocytes of humans residing in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations (PDF) Impact of radiofrequency radiation on DNA damage and antioxidants in peripheral blood lymphocytes of humans residing in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations (researchgate.net)

3. Environmental Harm & Risks:

PubMed.Gov & NIH (National Library of Medicine
Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, part 1. Rising ambient EMF levels in the environment
1116
Sierra Crest & Las Colinas Detailed Opposition Letter 2023 Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, part 1. Rising ambient EMF levels in the environment - PubMed (nih.gov)
Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 2 impacts: how species interact with natural and man-made EMF - PubMed (nih.gov) Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 3. Exposure standards, public policy, laws, and future directions (degruyter.com)

4. Fire Danger & Collapse:

Environmental Health Trust
Cell Tower Safety Risks Fires and Collapse
https://ehtrust.org/cell-tower-safety-risks-fires-and-collapse/

5. Insurance Warning:

Environmental Health Trust
Insurance Authorities Rate 5G and Electromagnetic Radiation as “HIGH RISK” https://ehtrust.org/key-issues/reports-white-papers-insurance-industry/

6. Inform to Consent:

7. Criminal Activity:

8. Worker Death, Accidents, & Suicides:

Environmental Health Trust
Cell Tower Safety Risks Fires and Collapse
https://ehtrust.org/cell-tower-safety-risks-fires-and-collapse/

9. Security Risk, Cyber Crime & Fraud:

USA Telecom Insurance Services
Risks for Cell Towers in 2019
https://usatelecomins.com/risks-for-cell-towers-in-2019/ 1117
Aaron M. Shank
[email protected]
www.porterwright.com
Porter Wright
Morris & Arthur LLP
41 South High Street
Suites 2800-3200
Columbus, OH 43215
Direct: 614.227.2110
Fax: 614.227.2100
Main: 614.227.2000
www.porterwright.com

CHICAGO

CINCINNATI

CLEVELAND

COLUMBUS
DAYTON
NAPLES

PITTSBURGH
TAMPA

WASHINGTON, DC
March 27, 2023
City of Fontana Planning Commission
([email protected])
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
RE: AT&T’s Response to Appeal from Approval of
Administrative Site Plan No. 22-013
3808 North Flame Tree Avenue, Fontana, CA 92377
AT&T Site ID CSL00192
Dear Chair Fort, Vice Chair Sanchez, Secretary Thrasher, and Commissioners Sangha and Quintana:

I write on behalf of New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC d/b/a AT&T Mobility (AT&T), to respectfully request the Planning Commission uphold the Planning Director’s approval of AT&T’s application to collocate a wireless telecommunications facility (“Proposed Facility”) on an existing Southern California Edison transmission tower located in a public utility corridor in the City of Fontana. In addition to providing more robust and competitive wireless services, including significant improvements to 4G LTE service, the Proposed Facility will provide FirstNet services to support first responder communications.

This carefully sited and well-designed facility will minimize visual impacts and it is the best available and least intrusive means to close AT&T’s significant service coverage gap in this area. The appeal raises general concerns and fears that are not supported by evidence. As discussed in greater detail below, the city’s approval of AT&T’s application also comports with federal law. Thus, AT&T requests the Commission deny the appeal and affirm approval of AT&T’s application for the Proposed Facility.

AT&T’s Proposed Facility
Consistent with Section 32-1 of the Fontana Municipal Code, which encourages minimizing the total number of towers in the city and “strongly encourages the joint use (collocation) of new and existing tower sites as a primary option,” AT&T seeks to collocate its Proposed Facility with a top height of 72 feet above ground on an existing 133- foot tall transmission tower within this public utility corridor. Also consistent with Section 32-1, the Proposed Facility is placed to minimize visual impacts and will enhance AT&T’s ability to provide vital wireless services “to the community quickly, effectively, and 1118
City of Fontana Planning Commission
March 27, 2023

Page 2 of 8 ends

efficiently.” In addition, pursuant to Section 32-6(b)(3) of the Fontana Municipal Code, the Proposed Facility does not increase the height of the existing structure, will comply with applicable FCC and FAA regulations, and will comply with all applicable building codes. In particular, AT&T fully intends to comply with the conditions of approval requiring compliance with the city’s regulations (including building codes and noise regulations) and FCC and FAA regulations.

AT&T Needs the Proposed Facility to Provide and Improve Wireless Services AT&T’s radio frequency engineers have identified a significant gap in service coverage in this large area that is roughly bordered by Interstate 15 to the north, Coyote Canyon Road to the west, Escalon Drive to the south, and North Palmetto Avenue to the east. AT&T’s Radio Frequency Statement (Attachment A) explains that gap area includes hundreds of homes in several neighborhoods, parks, schools, busy roads, and other points of interest in the vicinity.

The Proposed Facility will improve critical wireless services to the area, which are desperately needed especially as customers increasingly use their mobile phones as their primary communication devices. In fact, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention studies the extent of mobile phone use, and recently found that more than 81% of California adults, and more than 98% of Californians under age 18, rely exclusively or primarily on wireless communications in their homes.1
Additionally, customers rely on their mobile phones to do much more than just voice communication, including E911 service, video streaming, GPS, Internet access, and texting.

In fact, the Federal Communications Commission conservatively estimates that 74% of 911 calls are placed by people using wireless phones.2 In addition, the Proposed Facility is a part of AT&T’s commitment to supporting public safety through its partnership with FirstNet, the first-ever nationwide first-responder wireless network.

AT&T’s Analysis of Alternative Sites
AT&T has taken care to select a location to reduce impacts to the community while maintaining a clear line-of-sight for signals to provide adequate service coverage to the gap area.

AT&T thoroughly investigated alternative sites, evaluating numerous properties in the gap area, to make sure the Proposed Facility is the least intrusive means to close AT&T’s significant service coverage gap. AT&T’s Alternative Sites Analysis (see Attachment B), includes two other existing towers and the only three other non-residential properties in the area. In all, AT&T examined five alternative properties and determined that each was either unavailable, unviable, or more intrusive than the Proposed Facility.

1 See Wireless Substitution: State-level Estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, 2019, available at https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/Wireless_state_202108-508.pdf. 2 See, e.g., Thirteenth Annual Report to Congress on State Collection and Distribution of 911 and Enhanced 911 Fees and Charges (Dec. 31, 2021), at 12, available at https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/13th-annual-911-feereport-2021.pdf. 1119
City of Fontana Planning Commission
March 27, 2023

Page 3 of 8 ends

Approval of AT&T’s Proposal Comports with Federal Law
The federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 332 (“Act”) provides rights to wireless service providers and establishes limitations upon state and local zoning authorities with respect to applications for permits to construct personal wireless service facilities. The United States Supreme Court has explained that the Act was enacted in part to prioritize and streamline deployment of wireless technologies on a national basis.3 Indeed, rapid deployment of wireless telecommunications facilities, like the Proposed Facility, is an important national issue, especially given the trend of Americans eliminating traditional landline telephone service in favor of wireless communications.

The Act defines the scope and parameters of the city’s overall review of AT&T’s Application. Under the Act, the city’s review of AT&T’s applications must be based on substantial evidence.4 The “substantial evidence” requirement means that a local government’s decision must be “authorized by applicable local regulations and supported by a reasonable amount of evidence.”5 In other words, a local government must have specific reasons that are both consistent with the local regulations and supported by substantial evidence in the record to deny a permit. Local governments are specifically precluded from considering any alleged effects of radio frequency emissions in making decisions as to the siting of wireless telecommunications facilities “to the extent such facilities comply with the FCC’s regulations concerning such emissions.”6
The Act also prohibits a local government from denying an application for a wireless telecommunications facility where doing so would “prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.”7 Courts have found an “effective prohibition” exists where a wireless provider demonstrates (1) a significant gap in wireless service coverage, and (2) that the proposed facility would provide the “least intrusive means,” in relation to the land use values embodied in local regulations, to provide the service coverage necessary to fill that gap.8 Under this test, when a wireless carrier satisfies both of these requirements, state and local standards that would otherwise be sufficient to permit denial of the facility are preempted and the

3 City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, 544 U.S. 113, 115-16 (2005) (“Congress enacted the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TCA), 110 Stat. 56, to promote competition and higher quality in American telecommunications services and to ‘encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies.’ Ibid. One of the means by which it sought to accomplish these goals was reduction of the impediments imposed by local governments upon the installation of facilities for wireless communications, such as antenna towers.”). 4 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii).
5 Metro PCS, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, 400 F.3d 715, 725 (9th Cir. 2005), abrogated on other grounds, T-Mobile South, LLC v. City of Roswell, 135 S.Ct. 808 (2015). 6 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv).
7 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II).
8 See e.g., Metro PCS, Inc., 400 F.3d at 734-35; Sprint PCS Assets, LLC v. City of Palos Verdes Estates, 583 F.3d 716, 726 (9th Cir. 2009).
1120
City of Fontana Planning Commission
March 27, 2023

Page 4 of 8 ends

municipality must approve the wireless facility.9 When a wireless provider presents evidence of a significant gap and the absence of a less intrusive alternative, the burden shifts to the local government to prove that a less intrusive alternative exists. In order to meet this burden (and overcome the presumption in favor of federal preemption), the local government must show that another alternative is available that fills the significant gap in coverage, that it is technically feasible, and that it is “less intrusive” than the proposed facility.10 More recently, the FCC has confirmed its rulings that an effective prohibition occurs whenever the decision of a local government materially inhibits wireless services,11 and this material inhibition standard was again upheld by the Ninth Circuit.12 The FCC explained that the “effective prohibition analysis focuses on the service the provider wishes to provide, incorporating the capabilities and performance characteristics it wishes to employ, including facilities deployment to provide existing services more robustly, or at a better level of quality, all to offer a more robust and competitive wireless service for the benefit of the public.”13 Thus, a local government “could materially inhibit service in numerous ways – not only by rendering a service provider unable to provide existing service in a new geographic area or by restricting the entry of a new provider in providing service in a particular area, but also by materially inhibiting the introduction of new services or the improvement of existing services.”14 Here, AT&T has demonstrated its significant service coverage gap in the vicinity of the Proposed Facility. AT&T’s radio frequency propagation maps that AT&T has submitted in connection with this application, which are also exhibits to the Radio Frequency Statement (Attachment A) depict the service coverage gap that AT&T is experiencing here. These maps show that AT&T lacks adequate wireless service in this significant area. The proposed service coverage from the Proposed Facility is depicted in the coverage maps. As you can see, placing the Proposed Facility in this location will close AT&T’s significant service coverage gap in this area.

AT&T has also demonstrated that no less intrusive locations are available and feasible to close the gap (see Attachment B). The Proposed Facility is not only the best available and least intrusive means to do so, it is the only way for AT&T bring critical wireless services to the area, including FirstNet services. The Planning Director’s approval thus comports with federal law, and the Planning Commission should likewise approve AT&T’s application and deny the appeal.

9 See T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. City of Anacortes, 572 F.3d 987, 999 (9th Cir. 2009). 10 Id., 572 F.3d at 998-999.
11 See Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order, FCC 18-133 (September 27, 2018) (“Infrastructure Order”) at ¶ 35; see also, In the Matter of California Payphone Association Petition for Preemption, Etc., Opinion and Order, FCC 97-251, 12 FCC Rcd 14191 (July 17, 1997).
12 City of Portland v. United States, 969 F.3d 1020, 1034-35 (9th Cir. 2020). 13 Infrastructure Order at n. 95.
14 Id. at ¶ 37.
1121
City of Fontana Planning Commission
March 27, 2023

Page 5 of 8 ends

Response to Appellant’s Criticisms
The appeal raises several issues that are based on speculation and misplaced fears. But, as described above, even if the Commission could identify a code-based reason to disfavor AT&T’s Proposed Facility, the city is preempted by the Act from taking action that would prohibit or have the effective of prohibiting AT&T from providing and improving wireless services.

Nevertheless, AT&T offers the following responses to the issues raised in the appeal:

Health Effects and Risks. The appeal focuses on concerns about the health effects of radio frequency emissions. Indeed, this issue predominated the public comments during the February 16, 2023 Planning Director’s hearing. But the Act expressly precludes the city from regulating effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent the Proposed Facility complies with the FCC’s applicable regulations. Here, it is beyond dispute that the Proposed Facility will operate well below applicable FCC limits. An RF engineering analysis for the Proposed was provided by Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers (Attachment C). The report confirms that the Proposed Facility will operate well within (and actually far below) all applicable FCC exposure limits. Given the compliance with the FCC standards, AT&T’s application cannot be rejected based on concerns about radio frequency emissions.

Property Values and Aesthetics. The appellant claims that property values in the area will be adversely affected by installation of the Proposed Facility. She also contends the Proposed Facility is a blight and says it will ruin her view. But there is no substantial evidence to support this contention. First, AT&T’s application cannot be rejected whether health concerns are raised explicitly or indirectly through some proxy such as property values. A federal district court in California has held that in light of the federal preemption over radio frequency emissions, “concern over the decrease in property values may not be considered as substantial evidence if the fear of property value depreciation is based on concern over the health effects caused by RF emissions.”15 Citing the Act and its legislative history, the Court explained:

Given this legislative history, the court concludes that concern over the decrease in property values may not be considered as substantial evidence if the fear of property value depreciation is based on concern over the health effects caused by RF emissions.

Thus, direct or indirect concerns over the health effects of RF emissions may not serve as substantial evidence to support the denial of an application.16
Thus, these types of complaints cannot be a proxy for preempted concerns about radio frequency emissions. Because the appeal’s property values claim is premised on concerns over radio frequency emissions, the Planning Commission cannot consider it.

15 AT&T Wireless Services of California LLC v. City of Carlsbad, 308 F.Supp.2d 1148, 1159 (S.D. Cal. 2003) (quoting H.R. Conference Report No. 104-458, 201 (1996)). 16 Id.
1122
City of Fontana Planning Commission
March 27, 2023

Page 6 of 8 ends

Additionally, this claim that property values would decrease by collocation of the Proposed Facility on existing infrastructure (as preferred by the City Code), cannot form the basis of denial because it lacks substantial evidence. The appeal’s aesthetic complaint also lacks substantial evidence, especially since the antennas will be mounted onto the existing structure.

The antennas will be hardly noticeable and will not adversely affect any view that is not already impacted by the existing transmission tower. Courts within the Ninth Circuit and elsewhere have long agreed that “generalized expressions of concern regarding aesthetics or the effect on property values” fail to meet the substantial evidence threshold.17 Rather than any study of market rates, the appellant relies on a 2014 article in Realtor Magazine, which merely summarizes an online survey circulated by email and social media in both the U.S. and abroad. The survey was premised on health concerns and unsurprisingly found that most survey respondents were concerned about health effects of radio frequency emissions.

The primary source for the Realtor Magazine and other publications citing this survey is a short summary on the website for ElectromagneticHealth.org, which is focused on alleging health effects from radiofrequency emissions. The appeal also points to an archived HUD webpage concerning engineered fall distances of transmission towers and cell towers as related to homes located within the utility easement for the tower. This is not relevant to appellant’s claim that the Proposed Facility would somehow cause a decrease in property values hundreds of feet away.

In stark contrast to those surveys, a pair of California realtor associations conducted a datadriven property valuation study of home values.18 Based on market data for more than 1,600 singlefamily home sale in California, the study found no impact on values based on proximity to wireless telecommunications facilities. Because the Commission must make its decision based on substantial evidence, not based on conjecture and fear, you should not rely on speculation that property values might decrease following installation of the Proposed Facility.

Insurance Issues. Appellant raises her “fear” that homeowners may not be able to obtain insurance. She offers no evidence of a relationship between collocating a telecommunications facility on an existing utility tower and insurability of nearby homes. Instead, the appeal explicitly ties this issue to concerns about health effects of RF emissions. Again, the city is preempted from considering this proxy for health concerns because AT&T’s Proposed Facility will comply with applicable FCC rules. Moreover, as to appellant’s concern about AT&T’s coverages, AT&T fully intends to comply with the city’s insurance requirements.

Fire, Wind, and Seismic Issues. Appellant raises a host of concerns about risks of fires and wind and even raises a concern about equipment collapse. The appeal separately raises seismic

17 California RSA No. 4 v. Madera County, 332 F.Supp.2d 1291, 1308-09 (E.D. Cal. 2003) (citing Cellular Telephone Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d 490 (2nd Cir. 1999); Omnipoint Corp. v. Zoning Hearing Bd., 181 F.3d 403, 409 (3d Cir.1999); Telespectrum v. Public Service Com'n. of Kentucky, 227 F.3d 414 (6th Cir. 2000); Preferred Sites, LLC v. Troup County, 296 F.3d 1210, 1219 (11th Cir. 2002)). 18 See Joint Venture Silicon Valley Network, Wireless Communications Initiative Study: Wireless Facilities Impact on Property Values (Nov. 2012) (study analyzed property values for over 1,600 single-family homes over a 9-month period, and concluded “It is quite clear from the data that the distance from a wireless facility has no apparent impact on the value or sale price of a home”).
1123
City of Fontana Planning Commission
March 27, 2023

Page 7 of 8 ends

concerns. The Proposed Facility has been designed and engineered to comply with all applicable safety codes in order to best address and prevent these types of issues. The substantial evidence shows that AT&T has appropriately taken all necessary steps to ensure safety, with particular emphasis on fire and structural safety.

Safety issues are important to any construction and AT&T carefully adheres to applicable building codes, fire codes, electrical codes, etc. Further, the Proposed Facility will be subject to approval conditions that require compliance with all these regulations. Condition of Approval 5, for example, requires the project to “comply with all applicable provisions, regulations, and development standards of the City of Fontana Municipal Code.” In addition, AT&T’s site plans for the Proposed Facility that are part of its application include a sheet labeled “FD-1” and titled “Fire Department Notes and Battery Information.” As you can see on the site plans, Sheet FD-1 incorporates the Fire Department notes as to fire safety.

AT&T also submitted a comprehensive report of structural calculations, signed and sealed by a California registered professional engineer. The report concludes that the Proposed Facility mounted onto the existing transmission tower will adequately resist gravity and lateral loads in compliance with the 2019 California Building Code. The report also shows compliance with wind loads and seismic loads based on local characteristics. And the report shows all load combination results (maximum axial plus bending stress ratios and maximum shear ratios) will pass all applicable structural assessments.

Noise. Without any specific reference to noise from the Proposed Facility, the appeal identifies noise as a possible concern and simply asks whether the project will introduce a noise nuisance to the area. But AT&T’s Proposed Facility is subject to an approval condition to comply with the city’s regulations, which includes its noise ordinance. In addition, AT&T has recently determined that it will be unable to install the proposed generator for the project because Southern California Edison no longer allows generators beneath their transmission towers.

Other Concerns. The appellant points to a ‘parade of horribles’ that she says could happen all because AT&T places a typical wireless facility on existing utility infrastructure. The appeal seeks to stoke fears from supposed increasing criminal activity, cyber fraud, and suicides. Such extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. But the appeal fails to offer any evidence – let alone substantial (or extraordinary) evidence – to support these far-fetched notions.

The appeal suggests the Proposed Facility will be a beacon for criminals, citing a website of a group who focuses primarily on health effects of RF emissions. Citing the same single source, the appeal also makes sensational assertions that the Proposed Facility will result in worker deaths and even suicides. For all these claims, the appeal cites this one webpage that simply collects various internet stories. This is not evidence of anything specific to the Proposed Facility. To the contrary, the Proposed Facility is designed to deter criminal activity. AT&T’s equipment area at the base of the existing tower will be surrounded by a 10-foot high, split-faced stone enclosure with an anti-graffiti coating. As AT&T’s project team previously advised, its equipment will be monitored by a security system and the tower owner – Southern California Edison – also monitors its towers with security.
1124
City of Fontana Planning Commission
March 27, 2023

Page 8 of 8 ends

22253157v1
Notably absent from the appeal is any indication that the substantially similar facility just 1,500 feet away has attracted criminals, facilitated cyberattacks, or resulted in suicides. Scare tactics aside, the appeal does not point to any actual evidence that could be used as a basis to deny the application. The Planning Director got it right, and AT&T asks the Planning Commission to deny the appeal and affirm approval of AT&T’s application.

Conclusion
AT&T is working diligently to upgrade its network to provide and improve wireless services in this area. AT&T has shown that federal law strongly supports (indeed, requires) approval, and there has been no substantial evidence proffered on which the county could deny AT&T’s application. AT&T urges the Planning Commission to deny the appeal and affirm approval of AT&T’s application.

Sincerely,
Aaron M. Shank
Attachment A: Radio Frequency Statement
Attachment B: Alternative Sites Analysis
Attachment C: RF Engineering Analysis by Hammett & Edison, Inc. cc: George Velarde, Assistant Planner ([email protected]) Rina Leung, Senior Planner ([email protected])
Patty Nevins, Planning Director ([email protected])
1125

ATTACHMENT A

1126
AT&T Mobility Radio Frequency Statement
3808 North Flame Tree Avenue, Fontana, CA 92377
AT&T has experienced an unprecedented increase in mobile data use on its network since the release of the iPhone in 2007. AT&T estimates that since introduction of the iPhone in 2007, mobile data usage has increased 470,000% on its network. AT&T forecasts its customers’ growing demand for mobile data services to continue. The increased volume of data travels to and from customers’ wireless devices and AT&T’s wireless infrastructure over limited airwaves — radio frequency spectrum that AT&T licenses from the Federal Communications Commission.

Spectrum is a finite resource and there are a limited number of airwaves capable and available for commercial use. Wireless carriers license those airwaves from the FCC. To ensure that service quality, AT&T must knit together its spectrum assets to address customers’ existing usage and forecasted demand for wireless services, and it must use its limited spectrum in an efficient manner.

AT&T uses high-band (i.e., 6 GHz and higher), mid-band (i.e., C-band, 2300 MHz, 2100 MHz, and 1900 MHz) and low-band (i.e., 850 MHz and 700 MHz) spectrum to provide wireless service. Each spectrum band has different propagation characteristics and signal quality may vary due to noise or interference based on network characteristics at a given location. To address this dynamic environment, AT&T deploys multiple layers of its licensed spectrum and strives to bring its facilities closer to the customer. The proposed wireless communications facility at 3808 North Flame Tree Avenue, Fontana (the “Property”) is needed to close coverage gap in LTE service in an area roughly bordered by Interstate 15 to the north, Coyote Canyon Road to the west, Escalon Drive to the south, and North Palmetto Avenue to the east. This gap area includes hundreds of homes in several neighborhoods, parks, schools, busy roads, and other points of interest in the vicinity.

The service coverage gap is caused by inadequate infrastructure in the area. AT&T currently has existing sites in the broader geographical area surrounding the Property but, as Exhibit 1 illustrates, these existing sites do not provide sufficient 4G LTE service in the gap area.

To meet its coverage objectives, AT&T needs to construct a new wireless communications facility. Wireless telecommunications is a line-of-sight technology, and AT&T’s antennas need 1127
2 to be high enough propagate an effective signal throughout the gap area. To meet its coverage objectives for this gap area, AT&T proposes a new wireless telecommunications facility collocated on an existing electric utility transmission tower. Denial of this proposed facility would materially inhibit AT&T’s ability to provide and improve wireless services in this portion of the city.

The facility at the Property will help close the gap in coverage and help address rapidly increasing data usage driven by smart phone and tablet usage. This site is part of an effort to fully deploy 4G LTE technology in the area. Specifically, the proposed facility will close this service coverage gap and provide reliable 4G LTE service for AT&T customers in the affected area. LTE technology also offers lower latency, or the processing time it takes to move data through a network, such as how long it takes to start downloading a webpage or file once you’ve sent the request. Lower latency helps to improve the quality of personal wireless services.

What’s more, LTE uses spectrum more efficiently than other technologies, creating more space to carry data traffic and services and to deliver a better overall network experience.

It is important to understand that service problems can and do occur for customers even in locations where the coverage maps on AT&T’s “Coverage Viewer” website appear to indicate that coverage is available. As the legend to the Coverage Viewer maps indicates, these maps display approximate coverage. Actual coverage in an area may differ from the website map graphics, and it may be affected by such things as terrain, weather, network changes, foliage, buildings, construction, high-usage periods, customer equipment, and other factors.

It is also important to note that the signal losses, slow data rates, and other service problems can and do occur for customers even at times when certain other customers in the same vicinity may not experience any problems on AT&T’s network. These problems can and do occur even when certain customers’ wireless phones indicate coverage bars of signal strength on the handset. The bars of signal strength that individual customers can see on their wireless phones are an imprecise and slow-to-update estimate of service quality. In other words, a customer’s wireless phone can show coverage bars of signal strength, but that customer will still, at times, be unable to initiate voice calls, complete calls, or download data reliably and without service interruptions due to service quality issues.
1128
3 To determine where equipment needs to be located for the provisioning of reliable service in any area, AT&T’s radio frequency engineers rely on far more complex tools and data sources than just signal strength from individual phones. AT&T uses industry standard propagation tools to identify the areas in its network where signal strength is too weak to provide reliable service quality. This information is developed from many sources including terrain and clutter databases, which simulate the environment, and propagation models that simulate signal propagation in the presence of terrain and clutter variation. AT&T designs and builds its wireless network to ensure customers receive reliable in-building service quality. This level of service is critical as customers increasingly use their mobile phones as their primary communication devices. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), more than 81% of California adults, and more than 98% of Californians under age 18, rely exclusively or primarily on wireless communications in their homes. And California households rely on their mobile phones to do more (E911, video streaming, GPS, web access, text, etc.). In fact, the FCC conservatively estimates that 74% of 911 calls are placed by people using wireless phones.

The proposed facility at the Property is also a part of AT&T’s commitment to supporting public safety through its partnership with FirstNet, the federal First Responder Network Authority. Conceived by the 9/11 Commission Report as necessary for first responder communications, Congress created the federal First Responder Network Authority, which selected AT&T to build and manage FirstNet, the first-ever nationwide first-responder wireless network. The proposed facility will provide new service on Band 14, which is the nationwide high-quality spectrum set aside by the U.S. government for public safety. Deployment of FirstNet in the subject area will improve public safety by putting advanced wireless technologies into the hands of public safety agencies and first responders.

Exhibit 1 to this Statement is a map of the existing 4G LTE service coverage (without the proposed installation at the Property) in the area at issue. It includes 4G LTE service coverage provided by other existing AT&T sites. The green shaded areas of the map depict acceptable inbuilding coverage. In-building coverage means customers are able to place or receive a call on the ground floor of a building. The yellow shaded areas depict areas within a signal strength range that provide acceptable in-vehicle service coverage. In these areas, an AT&T customer should be able to successfully place or receive a call within a vehicle. The pink and white shading depicts areas within a signal strength range in which a customer might have difficulty 1129
4 receiving a consistently acceptable level of service. The quality of service experienced by any individual customer can differ greatly depending on whether that customer is indoors, outdoors, stationary, or in transit. Any area in the yellow, pink, or white category is considered inadequate service coverage and constitutes a service coverage gap.

Exhibit 2 is a map that predicts 4G LTE service coverage based on signal strength in the vicinity of the Property if the proposed facility is constructed as proposed in the application. As shown by this map, constructing the proposed facility at the Property closes this significant service coverage gap.

My conclusions are based on my knowledge of the Property and with AT&T’s wireless network, as well as my review of AT&T’s records with respect to the Property and its wireless telecommunications facilities in the surrounding area. have a Bachelor’s Degree in Electronics and Communication Engineering from the Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Regional Engineering College, Jalandhar, Punjab, India, and have worked as an engineering expert in the wireless communications industry for over 25 years.
__________________________________
Sandeep Mangat
AT&T Mobility Services LLC
Network, Planning & Engineering
RAN Design & RF Engineering
March 2023
1130
Existing 4G LTE Coverage Before site CSL00192
1131
4G LTE Coverage with Site CSL00192 On Air
1132

ATTACHMENT B

1133
AT&T Wireless
Communication
Facility Proposal
• 3808 North Flame Tree Avenue, Fontana
• AT&T Reference: CSL00192 1134
AT&T RF Engineers’
Search Ring Objective
Area
1135
5 ‘Ables’
Zonable
Leasable
RF Engineer-able
Constructable
Regulatory-able
1136
2 Pillars of
Zoning
Significant gap
in coverage
Least visually
obtrusive
means
1137
Brief Zoning Information - Fontana
1138
Brief Zoning Information - Rialto
1139
Alternative Sites Map
1140
Alternative Site Analysis
A majority of this ring is comprised of medium density and single-family residences.
• Condor Park and Sierra Crest Park were not pursued, as there was not sufficient space to accommodate a new wireless tower at grade. • Kordyak Elementary School was not pursued as a candidate. As a policy, AT&T makes all efforts to refrain from proposing wireless sites at elementary schools.
 AT&T has an existing facility (CSL04905-macro site) on an SCE tower, 1,515 feet (0.3 mile) to the north of the subject SCE tower.  Locating on another existing SCE tower, 3,515 feet (0.7 mile) to the north of our proposed SCE tower (north of Riverside Avenue) is not a viable alternative as it is outside of the AT&T search ring, and too far away from the AT&T Engineer’s coverage objective area.
1141
Alternative Site Analysis
 Open space surrounds the area north of Riverside Avenue, and already has coverage provided by AT&T’s existing macro site (CSL04095).  The entire objective of the proposed facility is to provide strengthened signal and coverage (pedestrian, in-vehicle, and in-building) to residents, businesses and visitors to this area of the City.

After researching the entirety of the original search ring, it was determined there were no viable candidates. AT&T chose to locate on the same property as an existing, 133’ tall SCE transmission tower, as Fontana’s municipal code encourages locating wireless facilities on existing infrastructure. (Fontana Municipal Code: Chapter 32, Section 32-4) 1142
Site Photosimulations – Looking North from Terra Vista Drive 1143
View 2 – Looking South from Access Road
1144
View 3 – Looking West from Flame Tree Avenue
1145

Page 13 ends

AT&T is a registered trademark of AT&T Knowledge Ventures.

LTE Coverage Before site CSL00192
1146

Page 14 ends

AT&T is a registered trademark of AT&T Knowledge Ventures.

LTE Coverage After site CSL00192
1147

Page 15 ends

AT&T is a registered trademark of AT&T Knowledge Ventures.

LTE Coverage Standalone Site CSL00192
1148

ATTACHMENT C
1149
AT&T Mobility • Proposed Base Station (Site No. CSL00192) 3808 North Flame Tree Avenue • Fontana, California
AB1513
© Page 1 of 3 2023
Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers The firm of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, has been retained on behalf of AT&T Mobility, a wireless telecommunications carrier, to evaluate the base station (Site No. CSL00192) proposed to be located at 3808 North Flame Tree Avenue in Fontana, California, for compliance with appropriate guidelines limiting human exposure to radio frequency (“RF”) electromagnetic fields.

Executive Summary
AT&T proposes to install directional panel antennas on the tall SCE lattice tower sited near 3808 North Flame Tree Avenue in Fontana. The proposed operation will comply with the FCC guidelines limiting public exposure to RF energy.

Prevailing Exposure Standards
The U.S. Congress requires that the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) evaluate its actions for possible significant impact on the environment. A summary of the FCC’s exposure limits is shown in Figure 1. These limits apply for continuous exposures and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. The most restrictive limit for exposures of unlimited duration at several wireless service bands are as follows:

Transmit “Uncontrolled” Occupational Limit
Wireless Service Band Frequency Public Limit (5 times Public) Microwave (point-to-point) 1–80GHz 1.0 mW/cm2 5.0 mW/cm2 Millimeter-wave 24–47 1.0 5.0
Part 15 (WiFi & other unlicensed) 2–6 1.0 5.0
C-Band 3,700 MHz 1.0 5.0
DoD-Band 3,450 1.0 5.0
WCS (Wireless Communication) 2,305 1.0 5.0
AWS (Advanced Wireless) 2,110 1.0 5.0
PCS (Personal Communication) 1,930 1.0 5.0
Cellular 869 0.58 2.9
FNET (Public Safety Priority) 758 0.50 2.5
Band 17 734 0.49 2.45
Band 29 717 0.48 2.4
600 MHz 617 0.41 2.05
[most restrictive frequency range] 30–300 0.20 1.0
Power line frequencies (60 Hz) are well below the applicable range of these standards, and there is considered to be no compounding effect from simultaneous exposure to power line and radio frequency fields.
1150
AT&T Mobility • Proposed Base Station (Site No. CSL00192) 3808 North Flame Tree Avenue • Fontana, California
AB1513
© Page 2 of 3 2023
General Facility Requirements
Base stations typically consist of two distinct parts: the electronic transceivers (also called “radios”) that are connected to the traditional wired telephone lines, and the passive antennas that send the wireless signals created by the radios out to be received by individual subscriber units. The transceivers are often located at ground level and are connected to the antennas by coaxial cables. A small antenna for reception of GPS signals is also required, mounted with a clear view of the sky. Because of the short wavelength of the frequencies assigned by the FCC for wireless services, the antennas require line-ofsight paths for their signals to propagate well and so are installed at some height above ground. The antennas are designed to concentrate their energy toward the horizon, with very little energy wasted toward the sky or the ground. This means that it is generally not possible for exposure conditions to approach the maximum permissible exposure limits without being physically very near the antennas.

Computer Modeling Method
The FCC provides direction for determining compliance in its Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65, “Evaluating Compliance with FCC-Specified Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Radiation,” dated August 1997. Figure 2 describes the calculation methodologies, reflecting the facts that a directional antenna’s radiation pattern is not fully formed at locations very close by (the “near-field” effect) and that at greater distances the power level from an energy source decreases with the square of the distance from it (the “inverse square law”). This methodology is an industry standard for evaluating RF exposure conditions and has been demonstrated through numerous field tests to be a conservative prediction of exposure levels.

Site and Facility Description
Based upon information provided by AT&T, including zoning drawings by Eukon, dated January 18, 2023, it is proposed to install twelve directional panel antennas – three each CommScope Model NNH4- 65B-R6, Quintel Model QD6612-7, Ericsson Model AIR6419, and Ericsson Model AIR6449 – on the 133-foot SCE lattice tower sited about 300 feet to the northwest of the single-family residence located at 3808 North Flame Tree Avenue in Fontana. The CommScope and Quintel antennas would employ up to 14° downtilt and would be mounted at an effective height of about 69 feet above ground. The Ericsson antennas would employ up to 19° downtilt and would be stacked at effective heights of about 67 and 70½ feet above ground. The twelve antennas would be oriented in identical groups of four toward 100°T, 200°T, and 290°T. The maximum effective radiated power in any direction would be 146,320 watts, representing simultaneous operation 80,000 watts for C-Band, 48,900 watts for 3.45 GHz service, at 3,590 watts for WCS, 3,830 watts for AWS, 3,670 watts for PCS, 1,940 watts for cellular, and 4,390 watts for 700 MHz service. There are reported no other wireless telecommunications base stations at the site or nearby.
1151
AT&T Mobility • Proposed Base Station (Site No. CSL00192) 3808 North Flame Tree Avenue • Fontana, California
AB1513
© Page 3 of 3 2023
Study Results
For a person anywhere at ground, the maximum RF exposure level due to the proposed AT&T operation is calculated to be 0.14 mW/cm2, which is 18% of the applicable public exposure limit. The maximum calculated level at the second-floor elevation of any nearby building* is 22% of the public exposure limit. It should be noted that these results include several “worst-case” assumptions and therefore are expected to overstate actual power density levels from the proposed operation.

No Recommended Mitigation Measures
Due to their mounting locations and height, the AT&T antennas would not be accessible to unauthorized persons, and so no measures are necessary to comply with the FCC public exposure guidelines. It is presumed that SCE already takes adequate precautions to ensure that there is no unauthorized access to its tower and that all personnel receive appropriate training to prevent exposures in excess of the occupational limit.

Conclusion
Based on the information and analysis above, it is the undersigned’s professional opinion that operation of the base station proposed by AT&T Mobility near 3808 North Flame Tree Avenue in Fontana, California, will comply with the prevailing standards for limiting public exposure to radio frequency energy and, therefore, will not for this reason cause a significant impact on the environment. The highest calculated level in publicly accessible areas is much less than the prevailing standards allow for exposures of unlimited duration. This finding is consistent with measurements of actual exposure conditions taken at other operating base stations.

Authorship
The undersigned author of this statement is a qualified Professional Engineer, holding California Registration Nos. E-13026 and M-20676, which expire on June 30, 2023. This work has been carried out under his direction, and all statements are true and correct of his own knowledge except, where noted, when data has been supplied by others, which data he believes to be correct.

William F. Hammett, P.E.
707/996-5200
March 20, 2023
* Including the residences located at least 110 feet away, based on photographs from Google Maps. 1152
FCC Guidelines
Figure 1
1000
100
10 1

0.1 0.1 1 10 100 103 104 105
Occupational Exposure
Public Exposure
PCS
Cell
FM
Power
Density
(mW/cm2
)
FCC Radio Frequency Protection Guide
The U.S. Congress required (1996 Telecom Act) the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) to adopt a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumulatively, have a significant impact on the environment. The FCC adopted the limits from Report No. 86, “Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields,” published in 1986 by the Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (“NCRP”).

Separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions, with the latter limits generally five times more restrictive. The more recent standard, developed by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers IEEE C95.1-, “Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to &MFDUSJD
.BHOFUJD
BOE Electromagnetic Fields, )[ to 300 GHz,” includes similar limits. These limits apply for continuous exposures from all sources and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health.

As shown in the table and chart below, separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions, with the latter limits (in italics and/or dashed) up to five times more restrictive:

Frequency Electromagnetic Fields (f is frequency of emission in MHz) Applicable
Range
(MHz)
Electric
Field Strength
(V/m)
Magnetic
Field Strength
(A/m)
Equivalent Far-Field
Power Density
(mW/cm2
)

0.3 – 1.34 614 614 1.63 1.63 100 100

1.34 – 3.0 614 823.8/ f 1.63 2.19/ f 100 180/ f 2

3.0 – 30 1842/ f 823.8/ f 4.89/ f 2.19/ f 900/ f 2 180/ f 2 30 – 300 61.4 27.5 0.163 0.0729 1.0 0.2
300 – 1,500 3.54 f 1.59 f f /106 f /238 f/300 f/1500
1,500 – 100,000 137 61.4 0.364 0.163 5.0 1.0
Frequency (MHz)
+LJKHU OHYHOV DUH DOORZHG IRU VKRUW SHULRGV RI WLPH VXFK WKDW WRWDO H[SRVXUH OHYHOV DYHUDJHG RYHU VL[ RU WKLUW\ PLQXWHV IRU RFFXSDWLRQDO RU SXEOLF VHWWLQJV UHVSHFWLYHO\ GR QRW H[FHHG WKH OLPLWV DQG KLJKHU OHYHOV DOVR DUH DOORZHG IRU H[SRVXUHV WR VPDOO DUHDV VXFK WKDW WKH VSDWLDOO\ DYHUDJHG OHYHOV GR QRW H[FHHG WKH OLPLWV +DPPHWW (GLVRQ KDV LQFRUSRUDWHG FRQVHUYDWLYH FDOFXODWLRQ IRUPXODV LQ WKH )&& 2IILFH RI (QJLQHHULQJ DQG 7HFKQRORJ\ %XOOHWLQ 1R
$XJXVW

IRUSURMHFWLQJ ILHOG OHYHOV LQ D FRPSXWHU SURJUDP FDSDEOH RI FDOFXODWLQJ DW WKRXVDQGV RI ORFDWLRQV RQ DQ DUELWUDU\ JULG WKH WRWDO H[SHFWHG SRZHU GHQVLW\ IURP DQ\ QXPEHU RI LQGLYLGXDO UDGLR IUHTXHQF\ VRXUFHV 7KH SURJUDP DOORZV IRU WKH LQFOXVLRQ RI XQHYHQ WHUUDLQ LQ WKH YLFLQLW\ DV ZHOO DV DQ\QXPEHU RI QHDUE\ EXLOGLQJVRI YDU\LQJ KHLJKWVWRREWDLQPRUHDFFXUDWHSURMHFWLRQV
©3
1153
RFE.CALCTM Calculation Methodology
Assessment by Calculation of Compliance with FCC Exposure Guidelines Calculation Methodology
Figure 2 ©2023
180
θBW
×

0.1× Pnet
π ×D × h

0.1 x 16 x n x P
x h2

0.1×16 ×η × Pnet
π × h2
net
BW
180 0.1 x Pnet x
180
θBW
×

0.1× Pnet
π ×x DD x ×hh

2.56 x 1.64 x 100 x RFF2
x ERP
4 x x D2
180
θBW
×

0.1× Pnet
π ×D × h S =
q BW
Hammett & Edison has incorporated the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 (“OET-65”) formulas (see Figure 1) in a computer program that calculates, at millions of locations on a grid, the total expected power density from any number of individual radio frequency sources. The program uses the specific antenna patterns from the manufacturers and allows for the inclusion of uneven terrain in the vicinity, as well as any number of nearby buildings of varying heights, to obtain accurate projections of RF exposure levels. The program can account for spatial-averaging when antenna patterns are sufficiently narrow, and timeaveraging is typically considered when operation is in single-frequency bands, which require time-sharing between the base station and the subscriber devices.

OET-65 provides this formula for calculating power density in the far-field from an individual RF source:
power density in mW/cm2
where ERP = total Effective Radiated Power (all polarizations), in kilowatts, RFF = three-dimensional relative field factor toward point of calculation, and D = distance from antenna effective height to point of calculation, in meters.

The factor of 2.56 accounts for the increase in power density due to reflections, assuming a reflection coefficient of 1.6 (1.6 x 1.6 = 2.56). This factor is typically used for all sources unless specific information from FCC filings by the manufacturer indicate that a different reflection coefficient would apply. The factor of 1.64 is the gain of a half-wave dipole relative to an isotropic radiator. The factor of 100 in the numerator converts to the desired units of power density.

Because antennas are not true “point sources,” their signal patterns may not be fully formed at close distances and so exposure levels may be lower than otherwise calculated by the formula above. OET-65 recommends the cylindrical model formula below to account for this “near-field effect”:
power density in mW/cm2 S =
where Pnet = net power input to antenna, in watts,
= half-power beamwidth of antenna, in degrees,
D = distance from antenna effective height to point of calculation, in meters, and h = aperture height of antenna, in meters.

The factor of 0.1 in the numerator converts to the desired units of power density.

OET-65 confirms that the “crossover” point between the near- and far-field regions is best determined by finding where the calculations coincide from the two different formulas, and the program uses both formulas to calculate power density.
180
θBW
×

0.1× Pnet
π ×D × h

0.1 x 16 x n x P
x h2

0.1×16 ×η × Pnet
π × h2
net
BW
180 0.1 x Pnet x
θ
180
θBW
×

0.1× Pnet
π ×x DD x ×hh

2.56 x 1.64 x 100 x RFF2
x ERP
4 x x D2
180
θBW
×

0.1× Pnet
π ×D × h S =
q BW
180
θBW
×

0.1× Pnet
π ×D × h

0.1 x 16 x n x P
x h2

0.1×16 ×η × Pnet
π × h2
net
BW
180 0.1 x Pnet x 0
180
θBW
×

0.1× Pnet
π ×x DD x ×hh

2.56 x 1.64 x 100 x RFF2 x ERP
4 x x D2
180
θBW
×

0.1× Pnet
π ×D × h S =
1154
City of Fontana
Action Report
Planning Commission
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
File #: 21-2089 Agenda Date: 4/4/2023
Agenda #: PH-B Category: Public Hearing
FROM:

Planning Department
TITLE:

Master Case Nos. 23-022, -023, -024, -025, -026 and Appeal (APL) Nos. 22-003, -005, -007, -009 and -011 - Appeal of the Director of Planning’s decision approving Administrative Site Plan No. 22- 013, for the request to modify an existing Southern California Edison (SCE) transmission tower with wireless telecommunications equipment consisting of twelve (12) panel antennas, fifteen (15) radio remote units (RRUs) and ground mounted equipment within a new lease area of approximately 200 square feet.

RECOMMENDATION:

Based on the information in the staff report and subject to the attached Findings, staff recommends that the Planning Commission:

1. Deny Appeal Nos. 22-003, -005, -007,- 009 and -011, thereby upholding the decision of the Director of Planning, for Administrative Site Plan No. 22-013, for the request to modify an existing Southern California Edison transmission tower with wireless telecommunications equipment consisting of twelve (12) panel antenna, fifteen (15) radio remote units (RRUs) and ground mounted equipment within a new lease area of approximately 200 square feet.

APPLICANT:

Tika Dave and Bryant Harris, 4687 Condor Avenue
Neil Hedtke, 4665 Condor Avenue
Yolanda Hedtke, 4665 Condor Avenue
Nicole Williams, 3828 North Flame Tree Avenue
Luis Mexicanos, 4543 Condor Avenue
LOCATION:

North of Terra Vista Drive, east of Condor Avenue (APN: 0239-101-17) REQUEST:

Master Case No. 23-022, -023, -024, -025, -026 and Appeal (APL) No. 22-003, -005, -007, -009 and - 011 - Appeal of the Director of Planning’s decision approving Administrative Site Plan No. 22-013, for the request to modify an existing Southern California Edison (SCE) transmission tower with wireless equipment consisting of twelve (12) panel antennas, fifteen (15) radio remote units (RRUs) and ground mounted equipment within a new lease area of approximately 200 square feet.

PROJECT PLANNER:

George Velarde, Assistant Planner
City of Fontana Printed on 3/29/2023 Page 1 of 8
powered by Legistar™
1155
File #: 21-2089 Agenda Date: 4/4/2023
Agenda #: PH-B Category: Public Hearing
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

Land Use Designation:
*HQHUDO3ODQ =RQLQJ2YHUOD\ ([LVWLQJ/DQG8VH
Site: Public Utility (P-UC) Public Utility (P-UC) Southern California Edison
(SCE) Easement /
(SCE)
Transmission
Tower
North: City of Rialto Open Space Lytle Creek Ranch
Specific Plan
Vacant
South: Public Utility (P-UC) Public Utility (P-UC) Southern California Edison
(SCE) Easement /
(SCE)
Transmission
Tower
West: Medium Density (R-M)/
Recreational Facilities (P-R)
Medium Density (R-2)
Public Facilities (P-PF)
Single-Family
Homes/Park
East: City of Rialto Single Family
Residential
City of Rialto Single
Family Residential
Single-Family
Residential
ANALYSIS:

Background
Administrative Site Plan No. 22-013 to modify an existing Southern California Edison (SCE) transmission tower with wireless telecommunications equipment consisting of twelve (12) panel antennas, fifteen (15) radio remote units (RRUs) and ground mounted equipment within a new lease area of approximately 200 square feet was approved by the Director of Planning at a scheduled public hearing on February 16, 2023. During and after the approval date, staff received several letters and phone calls from property owners and residents in the vicinity of the project site, concerned with the potential negative health effects from the proposed antennas and associated equipment.

The appeal period for the project was fifteen (15) calendar days after a decision had been made on February 16, 2023, therefore the appeal period closed on March 3, 2023. Since the City is closed on Fridays this extended the closing period until Monday March 6, 2023. Staff received five (5) appeal applications in opposition of the project. With the five (5) applications, one (1) justification letter citing the same concerns has been provided (Attachment No. 1). The grounds for the appeal stated in the application included: fire/wind hazard and equipment collapse, real estate devaluation and aesthetic issues, noise nuisance, insurance risk, environmental impact, seismic activity, inform to consent, City of Fontana Printed on 3/29/2023 Page 2 of 8
powered by Legistar™
1156
File #: 21-2089 Agenda Date: 4/4/2023
Agenda #: PH-B Category: Public Hearing
criminal activity, health risks, security risks and worker injury to the residents that are in close proximity to the wireless telecommunication communication facility. Finally, the appellants asserts that sufficient cell phone coverage exists in this area and an additional wireless facility is not needed.

The original appeal letter is attached for the Planning Commission review.

Administrative Site Plan (ASP) No. 22-013
Sonal Thakur, of the Eukon Group representing AT&T submitted the application of Administrative Site Plan (ASP) No. 22-013 on June 7, 2022, for the establishment of a wireless telecommunication facility as approved by the Director of Planning on February 16, 2023. According to the information submitted in the ASP 22-013 application, AT&T will be the only carrier on the existing SCE transmission tower. The equipment shelter is approximately 10 feet high and 200 square feet in size and secured with a decorative split face block wall with a gate. The shelter will be accessed via an existing 12-foot wide dirt access road used for maintenance and service for the existing SCE towers.

The existing series of SCE transmission towers are approximately 133 feet in height and are located within an existing public utility corridor (Attachment Nos 2 and 3). This utility corridor area is generally located north of Casa Grande Road to North Riverside Avenue in the City of Rialto. The proposed 12 wireless communication antennas will be located 66 feet above the base of one of the existing SCE transmissions towers.

Primary antennas for transmitting wireless telephone service, including cellular and Personal Communications Service (PCS), are usually located outdoors on towers, water tanks and other elevated structures like rooftops and sides of buildings. The combination of antenna towers and associated electronic equipment is referred to as a “cellular or PCS cell site” or “base station.” Cellular or PCS cell site towers are typically 50-200 feet high. Antennas are usually arranged in groups of three, with one antenna in each group used to transmit signals to mobile units, and the other two antennas used to receive signals from mobile units.

Wireless communication facilities are regulated by the Federal Communications Committee (FCC) and, accordingly state and local municipalities are limited in their ability to regulate such facilities.

Pursuant to the United States (US) Code Section No. 332(c)(7)(B)(iv):
“No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions.”
Based on this statue and pertinent case law, the City staff has determined that health effects related to radio frequency emissions cannot be considered by the Planning Commission in rendering a decision on this appeal. All wireless facilities shall comply with federal law, as such the RF emissions do not exceed the FCC allowable levels.

The Eukon Group, representing AT&T has provided responses addressing the appellants concerns.

These responses have also been attached for consideration. (Attachment No. 5) Appeal Concerns
The following is a summary of the items raised in the previously referenced appeal; Attachment No.

City of Fontana Printed on 3/29/2023 Page 3 of 8
powered by Legistar™
1157
File #: 21-2089 Agenda Date: 4/4/2023
Agenda #: PH-B Category: Public Hearing
1 is a copy of the appeal letter.
1) Fire, Wind, and Equipment Collapse
Response: The project site is located within the Edison Easement with equipment being proposed on an existing SCE tower. Historically the City of Fontana is known to have strong winds and a dry climate especially during certain months of the year. The appellants state that “telecommunications equipment can easily overheat or fail due to surges, equipment failure and extreme weather”. The proposed AT&T equipment on the existing SCE lattice tower has been reviewed by the City of Fontana Building and Safety and Fire Departments and structural plans would be reviewed prior to issuance of building permits. 2) Real Estate Devaluation and Property Blight (Aesthetic Issues) Response: The project (ASP 22-013) as proposed will match in style and design to the existing SCE structure. The wireless telecommunications antennas will be metal and match the color of the SCE metal structure. As stated above, the proposed equipment shelter will have a 10’ split face block wall, which screens all of the ground mounted equipment. 3) Noise Nuisance
Response: The equipment at ground level is secured behind a 10’ solid block wall. The equipment is generally located approximately 100’ from the nearest property line. The Edison Easement abuts solid block walls to the east and west which can assist in noise reduction.

Additionally, the applicant is subject to Section 18-63, Section 30-469 and Chapter 11 in the General Plan, Goal 8 adhering to conformance with noise standards during construction and operation of the facility.
4) Insurance Risk
Response: Similar to the above, the Federal Communications Commission regulates radio frequency exposure levels from wireless towers and devices. This site will comply with FCC standards and will operate well below the FCC’s permissible levels. Additionally, this tower complies with Section 32-6, locating towers on existing structures. As such, the antenna does not extend more than 30 feet above the highest point of the structure, does not exceed 75 feet in height for single users, complies with all applicable FCC and FAA regulations and the complies with applicable building codes.
5) Environmental Impact
Response: This area is dedicated to the utility company where SCE transmission towers are located. A biological study/habitat assessment has been provided by the Eukon Group to demonstrate that the project site has already been previously cleared and maintained and that there are no species affected by the development.
6) Seismic Activity
Response: Similar to fire, wind and equipment collapse (Concern no. 1) this project had been reviewed by both Building and Safety and the Fire department. Prior to permit issuance, the plans would be reviewed to meet and exceed the criteria outlined in the California Building Code and the California Fire Code.

City of Fontana Printed on 3/29/2023 Page 4 of 8
powered by Legistar™
1158
File #: 21-2089 Agenda Date: 4/4/2023
Agenda #: PH-B Category: Public Hearing
7) Inform to Consent
Response: As stated above, the FCC provides guidelines on not only how emissions by cell sites are measured and deemed safe but also how local jurisdictions can apply zoning regulations to wireless projects, otherwise known as the Spectrum Act. The Spectrum Act preserves local zoning authority yet clarifies when the exercise of local zoning authority may be preempted by the FCC. It further “prohibits any action that would ban altogether the construction, modification or placement of these kinds of facilities in a particular area and specifies procedures to be followed by local zoning officials for acting on a request to place these kinds of facilities”. Recently, the Spectrum Act had been amended and under Section 6409 (a), state and local governments 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. Generally, any additions or modification of wireless equipment to this SCE tower will require the submittal of a PreApplication Meeting (PAM) request to be filed with the Planning Department to determine whether entitlement applications are required. Subsequently, review and approval of the plans and associated structural calculations will be submitted to the Building and Safety Department prior to the issuance of a building permit.
8) Criminal Activity
Response: The proposed AT&T equipment will be installed on an existing SCE 133’ steel lattice tower. The bottom of the antennas are proposed at a height of 66’. AT&T radios, cabinets and associated equipment are also proposed to be located within a new 10’ tall, 200 square foot, split-face block wall enclosure. Additionally, the enclosure will have an anti-graffiti coating on the split face stone. The Eukon Group has also noted that AT&T equipment and individual cabinets are located with security systems monitored remotely by AT&T’s Network Operations Teams. Further, SCE also monitors their towers and assets with security. 9) Health and Medical Risks (Increased Radiation)
Response: These concerns range from cancers, DNA damage, cognitive decline, oxidative stress, cognitive effects, cardiovascular effects, electromagnetic sensitivity, fertility, etc. As mentioned previously, the wireless equipment is proposed to be installed on an existing SCE lattice tower. Wireless projects are governed by the FCC for the amount of radio frequency (RF) a cell site emits. According to the FCC’s RF exposure guidelines, [they] “recommend a maximum permissible exposure level to the general public of approximately 580 microwatts per square centimeter [and] this limit is many times greater than RF levels typically found near the base of cell sites or in the vicinity of other, lower-powered cell site transmitters”. Similarly at a cell site, the total radio frequency (RF) power that can be transmitted from each transmitting antenna depends on the number of radio channels (transmitters) that have been authorized by the (FCC) and the power of each transmitter. Although the FCC permits an effective radiated power (ERP) of up to 500 watts per channel (depending on the tower height), the majority of cellular or PCS cell sites in urban and suburban areas operate at an ERP of 100 watts per channel or less. An ERP of 100 watts corresponds to an actual radiated power of 5-10 watts, depending on the type of antenna used. In urban areas, cell sites commonly emit an ERP of 10 watts per channel or less. For PCS cell sites, even lower ERPs are typical. As with all forms of electromagnetic energy, the power density from a cellular or PCS transmitter rapidly decreases as distance from the antenna increases. The closest City of Fontana Printed on 3/29/2023 Page 5 of 8
powered by Legistar™
1159
File #: 21-2089 Agenda Date: 4/4/2023
Agenda #: PH-B Category: Public Hearing
adjoining property line is approximately 100’ east with the nearest residential approximately 125’ east. Therefore, the possibility that a member of the general public could be exposed to RF levels in excess of the FCC guidelines is extremely remote. 10) Security Risks, Cybercrime and Fraud
Response: Hacking most often occurs because of phishing attacks through email spamming, downloading or installing illicit apps for individuals who visit and access unsafe pages on the internet that carry viruses, malware and spyware. Hacking can also potentially occur from using free wi-fi, leaving phones and devices unattended in public, using public charging stations, and having weak passwords. Security technology continues to improve. There are now stronger methods of authentication, identity theft protection, and defense against cyber attacks being developed daily. In many cases, cell tower information increases personal safety. These towers with wireless equipment are built and located at safe and federally regulated distances.
11) Worker Deaths, Accidents and Suicides
Response: It is noted that both SCE and AT&T have very strict and stringent standards for the safety of their workers. Only certified and specially trained professionals are authorized to access and perform work on these towers. The property, tower and site will be monitored by SCE, as well as AT&T Network Operations. With the installation of the AT&T equipment on the tower, there will be improved coverage, connectivity and ability to contact public safety personnel to respond to the scene and deal with any individuals trespassing.

Findings for Approval for ASP No. 22-013
ASP No. 22-013, as approved on February 16, 2023, meets the mandatory ASP findings required pursuant to Section 30-81 - Findings for approval. The original findings below were prepared by staff for Director of Planning’s consideration:

1. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan, Zoning and Development Code, and any applicable Specific Plan or Area Plan.

2. The proposal meets or exceeds the criteria contained in this Chapter and will result in an appropriate, safe, and desirable development promoting the public health, safety, and welfare of the community.

City of Fontana Printed on 3/29/2023 Page 6 of 8
powered by Legistar™
1160
File #: 21-2089 Agenda Date: 4/4/2023
Agenda #: PH-B Category: Public Hearing
The modifications have been reviewed by Planning, Building and Safety, Engineering, and Fire Prevention and will meet or exceed all requirements. The proposed project will be built/installed pursuant to all applicable building, zoning, fire codes, and standards which will result in an appropriate, safe, and desirable development, as well as conditions of approval referenced herein, and therefore, shall promote the public health, safety, and welfare of the community.

3. The proposal, in its design and appearance, is aesthetically and architecturally pleasing resulting in a safe, well-designed facility while enhancing the character of the surrounding neighborhood.

The proposal and appearance of the cell site as a result from this review will be compatible with other similarly approved wireless facilities. There are no changes to circulation or character. The proposed modifications will provide a safe and well-designed site that is both aesthetically and architecturally pleasing.

4. The site improvements are appropriate and will result in a safe, well-designed facility.

The proposed project has been reviewed by Planning, Engineering, Building and Safety, and County Fire Prevention for site circulation, access, and safety. The proposed project identified in Findings No. 1-3, meets or exceeds the standards of the specific plan and the Zoning and Development Code and will provide a safe design for normal access. The proposed project will not alter the existing site circulation and access.

Staff prepared the above-listed findings for the Director of Planning’s consideration pursuant to Section 30-81 - Findings for approval. On February 16, 2023, the Director of Planning determined that the findings were consistent with the Fontana Municipal Code and FCC statues and regulations and approved the project. The proposed project has met all the requirements of the Fontana Municipal Code and the General Plan and the appeal does not address any of these requirements.

As such, staff recommends the Planning Commission deny the request for appeal and uphold the approval of ASP No. 22-013.

Environmental
The installation of new wireless telecommunications facility and ancillary equipment as described above associated with Master Case No. (MCN) 22-054 and Administrative Site Plan (ASP) No. 22- 013 is exempted pursuant to Section 15301 Class 1 (Existing Facilities) and Section 15303 Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and Section 3.22 of the 2019 City of Fontana Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act.

MOTION:

Approve staff recommendation
City of Fontana Printed on 3/29/2023 Page 7 of 8
powered by Legistar™
1161
File #: 21-2089 Agenda Date: 4/4/2023
Agenda #: PH-B Category: Public Hearing
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Uniform Appeal Letter from Appellants(s)

2. Vicinity Map

3. Project Plans

4. Project Packet

5. Notice of Public Hearing

6. Responses from the Eukon Group and AT&T
City of Fontana Printed on 3/29/2023 Page 8 of 8
powered by Legistar™
1162
Uniform Appeal Letter from Appellant(s)
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
VICINITY MAP DATE: April 4, 2023
CASE: Master Case Nos. 23-022, -023, -024, -
025 and -026
Appeal Nos. 23-003, -005, -007, -009, -
011 CITY OF FONTANA PLANNING DEPARTMENT NORTH
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
ATTACHMENT NO. 5

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
SI DESEA INFORMACION EN ESPAÑOL REFERENTE A ESTA NOTIFICACION O PROYECTO, FAVOR DE COMUNICARSE AL (909) 350-6728.

In compliance with Section No. 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C.

Section No. 12132) and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof, the Agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability.

Should you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Planning Department by calling (909) 350-6718. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.

A PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN SCHEDULED BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FONTANA FOR THE FOLLOWING:

Master Case No. (MCN) 23-022 and Appeal (APL) No. 23-003 Master Case No. (MCN) 23-023 and Appeal (APL) No. 23-005 Master Case No. (MCN) 23-024 and Appeal (APL) No. 23-007 Master Case No. (MCN) 23-025 and Appeal (APL) No. 23-009 Master Case No. (MCN) 23-026 and Appeal (APL) No. 23-011 Review of appeals to overturn the on February 16, 2023, approving Master Case No. (MCN) 22-054 and Administrative Site Plan (ASP) No. 22-013 to modify an existing Southern California Edison (SCE) transmission tower for the installation of new wireless telecommunications equipment consisting of twelve (12) panel antennas, fifteen (15) radio remote units (RRUs) and ancillary equipment located at ground level within a block wall enclosure.

Environmental
Determination:

The installation of new wireless telecommunications facility and ancillary equipment as described above associated with Master Case No. (MCN) 22-054 and Administrative Site Plan (ASP) No. 22-013 is exempted pursuant to Section 15301 Class 1 (Existing Facilities) and Section 15303 Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and Section 3.22 of the 2019 City of Fontana Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act.
1192
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
Should you have any questions concerning this project, please contact George Velarde, Assistant Planner, at (909) 350-6569 or by e-mail at [email protected]. Any interested party may provide information by letter or email or appear and present any information which may be of assistance to Planning Commission in making their decision. A copy of the application and environmental documentation is available for inspection in the Planning Department, City Hall. Please contact the planner identified above for information.

IF YOU CHALLENGE ANY ACTION TAKEN CONCERNING THIS ITEM IN COURT, YOU MAY BE

LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED AT THE PUBLIC

HEARING DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE, OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE PROVIDED TO THE CITY AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE PUBLIC HEARING.

Location of
Property:

North of Terra Vista
Drive, east of
Condor Avenue
(APN: 0239-101-
17)
Date of Hearing: April 4, 2023
Place of
Hearing:

City Hall Council
Chambers 8353
Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
Time of Hearing: 6:00 P.M.
1193
AT&Ts Proposed Facility
1194
AT&T Needs the Proposed Facility to Provide and Improve Wireless Services AT&Ts Analysis of Alternative Sites
See Wireless Substitution: State-level Estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, 2019 See, e.g., Thirteenth Annual Report to Congress on State Collection and Distribution of 911 and Enhanced 911 Fees and Charges https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/13th-annual-911-feereport-2021.pdf. 1195
Approval of AT&Ts Proposal Comports with Federal Law
City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams
Metro PCS, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco
T-Mobile South, LLC v. City of Roswell
See e.g Metro PCS, Inc Sprint PCS Assets, LLC v. City of Palos Verdes Estates 1196
See T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. City of Anacortes
Id
See Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment see also In the Matter of California Payphone Association Petition for Preemption, Etc City of Portland v. United States
Id
1197
Response to Appellants Criticisms
Health Effects and Risks.

Property Values and Aesthetics.

AT&T Wireless Services of California LLC v. City of Carlsbad Id
1198
Insurance Issues.

Fire, Wind, and Seismic Issues.

California RSA No. 4 v. Madera County Cellular
Telephone Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay Omnipoint Corp. v. Zoning Hearing Bd Telespectrum v. Public Service Com'n. of Kentucky
Preferred Sites, LLC v. Troup County
See Wireless Communications Initiative Study: Wireless Facilities Impact on Property Values
1199
Noise.

Other Concerns.
1200
1201
1202
AT&T Mobility Radio Frequency Statement
3808 North Flame Tree Avenue, Fontana, CA 92377
AT&T has experienced an unprecedented increase in mobile data use on its network since the release of the iPhone in 2007. AT&T estimates that since introduction of the iPhone in 2007, mobile data usage has increased 470,000% on its network. growing demand for mobile data services to continue. The increased volume of data travels to and from cust
radio frequency spectrum that AT&T licenses from the Federal Communications Commission.

Spectrum is a finite resource and there are a limited number of airwaves capable and available for commercial use. Wireless carriers license those airwaves from the FCC. To ensure usage and forecasted demand for wireless services, and it must use its limited spectrum in an efficient manner.

AT&T uses high-band (i.e., 6 GHz and higher), mid-band (i.e., C-band, 2300 MHz, 2100 MHz, and 1900 MHz) and low-band (i.e., 850 MHz and 700 MHz) spectrum to provide wireless service. Each spectrum band has different propagation characteristics and signal quality may vary due to noise or interference based on network characteristics at a given location. To address this dynamic environment, AT&T deploys multiple layers of its licensed spectrum and strives to bring its facilities closer to the customer. The proposed wireless communications facility at 3808 North Flame Tree Avenue, Fontana close coverage gap in LTE service in an area roughly bordered by Interstate 15 to the north, Coyote Canyon Road to the west, Escalon Drive to the south, and North Palmetto Avenue to the east. This gap area includes hundreds of homes in several neighborhoods, parks, schools, busy roads, and other points of interest in the vicinity.

To meet its coverage objectives, AT&T needs to construct a new wireless communications facility. Wireless telecommunications is a line-of1203 2 to be high enough propagate an effective signal throughout the gap area. To meet its coverage objectives for this gap area, AT&T proposes a new wireless telecommunications facility collocated on an existing electric utility transmission tower. Denial of this proposed facility vices in this portion
of the city.

The facility at the Property will help close the gap in coverage and help address rapidly increasing data usage driven by smart phone and tablet usage. This site is part of an effort to fully deploy 4G LTE technology in the area. Specifically, the proposed facility will close this service coverage gap and provide reliable 4G LTE service for AT&T customers in the affected area. LTE technology also offers lower latency, or the processing time it takes to move data through a network, such as how long it takes to start downloading a webpage or file sent the request. Lower latency helps to improve the quality of personal wireless services. to carry data traffic and services and to deliver a better overall network experience.

It is important to understand that service problems can and do occur for customers even that coverage is available. As the legend to the Coverage Viewer maps indicates, these maps display approximate coverage. Actual coverage in an area may differ from the website map graphics, and it may be affected by such things as terrain, weather, network changes, foliage, buildings, construction, high-usage periods, customer equipment, and other factors.

It is also important to note that the signal losses, slow data rates, and other service problems can and do occur for customers even at times when certain other customers in the same oc
the handset. The bars of signal strength that individual customers can see on their wireless phones are an imprecise and slow-to-update estimate of service quality. In other words, a at times, be unable to initiate voice calls, complete calls, or download data reliably and without service interruptions due to service quality issues.
1204
3 To determine where equipment needs to be located for the provisioning of reliable sources than just signal strength from individual phones. AT&T uses industry standard propagation tools to identify the areas in its network where signal strength is too weak to provide reliable service quality. This information is developed from many sources including terrain and clutter databases, which simulate the environment, and propagation models that simulate signal propagation in the presence of terrain and clutter variation. AT&T designs and builds its wireless network to ensure customers receive reliable in-building service quality. This level of service is critical as customers increasingly use their mobile phones as their primary communication devices. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), more than 81% of California adults, and more than 98% of Californians under age 18, rely exclusively or primarily on wireless communications in their homes. And California households rely on their mobile phones to do more (E911, video streaming, GPS, web access, text, etc.). In fact, the FCC conservatively estimates that 74% of 911 calls are placed by people using wireless phones. public safety through its partnership with FirstNet, the federal First Responder Network Authority. Conceived by the 9/11 Commission Report as necessary for first responder communications, Congress created the federal First Responder Network Authority, which selected AT&T to build and manage FirstNet, the first-ever nationwide first-responder wireless network. The proposed facility will provide new service on Band 14, which is the nationwide high-quality spectrum set aside by the U.S. government for public safety. Deployment of FirstNet in the subject area will improve public safety by putting advanced wireless technologies into the hands of public safety agencies and first responders.

Exhibit 1 to this Statement is a map of the existing 4G LTE service coverage (without the proposed installation at the Property) in the area at issue. It includes 4G LTE service coverage provided by other existing AT&T sites. The green shaded areas of the map depict acceptable inbuilding coverage. In-building coverage means customers are able to place or receive a call on the ground floor of a building. The yellow shaded areas depict areas within a signal strength range that provide acceptable in-vehicle service coverage. In these areas, an AT&T customer should be able to successfully place or receive a call within a vehicle. The pink and white shading depicts areas within a signal strength range in which a customer might have difficulty 1205
4 receiving a consistently acceptable level of service. The quality of service experienced by any individual customer can differ greatly depending on whether that customer is indoors, outdoors, stationary, or in transit. Any area in the yellow, pink, or white category is considered inadequate service coverage and constitutes a service coverage gap.

My conclusions are based on my knowledge of the Property network
telecommunications facilities in the surrounding area. in Electronics and Communication Engineering from the Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Regional Engineering College, Jalandhar, Punjab, India, and have worked as an engineering expert in the wireless communications industry for over 25 years.

__________________________________
Sandeep Mangat
AT&T Mobility Services LLC
Network, Planning & Engineering
RAN Design & RF Engineering
March 2023
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
Zonable Leasable RF Engineer-able Constructable Regulatory-able 1212
2 Pillars of Zoning
Significant gap in coverageLeast visually obtrusive means 1213
Brief Zoning Information - Fontana
1214
Brief Zoning Information - Rialto
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
1220
1221
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
City of Fontana
Action Report
Planning Commission
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
File #: 21-2128 Agenda Date: 4/18/2023
Agenda #: CC-B Category: Consent Calendar
FROM:

Planning Department
TITLE:

Master Case Nos. 23-022, -023, -024, -025, -026 and Appeal (APL) Nos. 22-003, -005, -007, -009 and -011 - Appeal of the Director of Planning’s decision approving Administrative Site Plan No. 22- 013, for the request to modify an existing Southern California Edison (SCE) transmission tower with new wireless telecommunications equipment consisting of twelve (12) panel antennas, fifteen (15) radio remote units (RRUs) and ground mounted equipment within a new lease area of approximately 200 square feet.

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a Resolution denying Appeal Nos. 22-003, -005, -007,- 009 and -011, thereby upholding the decision of the Director of Planning approving Administrative Site Plan No. 22-013, a request to modify an existing Southern California Edison transmission tower with wireless telecommunications equipment consisting of twelve (12) panel antenna, fifteen (15) radio remote units (RRUs) and ground mounted equipment within a new lease area of approximately 200 square feet that was reviewed at the April 4, 2023 Planning Commission Hearing.

APPLICANT:

Tika Dave and Bryant Harris, 4687 Condor Avenue
Neil Hedtke, 4665 Condor Avenue
Yolanda Hedtke, 4665 Condor Avenue
Nickole Williams, 3828 North Flame Tree Avenue
Luis Mexicanos, 4543 Condor Avenue
LOCATION:

North of Terra Vista Drive, east of Condor Avenue (APN: 0239-101-17) REQUEST:

Master Case No. 23-022, -023, -024, -025, -026 and Appeal (APL) No. 22-003, -005, -007, -009 and - 011 - Appeal of the Director of Planning’s decision approving Administrative Site Plan No. 22-013 for the request to modify an existing Southern California Edison (SCE) transmission tower with new wireless equipment consisting of twelve (12) panel antennas, fifteen (15) radio remote units (RRUs) and ground mounted equipment within a new lease area of approximately 200 square feet.

PROJECT PLANNER:

George Velarde, Assistant Planner
Rina Leung, Senior Planner
BACKGROUND INFORMATION/ANALYSIS:

City of Fontana Printed on 4/11/2023 Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
1231
File #: 21-2128 Agenda Date: 4/18/2023
Agenda #: CC-B Category: Consent Calendar
At the Planning Commission meeting on April 4, 2023, the Planning Commission denied Appeal (APL) Nos. 22-003, -005, -007, -009 and -011, thereby upholding the Director of Planning’s decision on February 16, 2023 at a Directors hearing that approved Administrative Site Plan No. 22-013, a request to modify an existing Southern California Edison (SCE) transmission tower to install wireless telecommunications equipment consisting of twelve (12) panel antennas, fifteen (15) radio remote units (RRUs) and ground mounted equipment within a new lease area of approximately 200 square feet.

During the April 4, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission received a presentation of the staff report by Planning Department staff and also opened the hearing for public testimony where appellants, applicants for Administrative Site Plan No. 22-013, and other members of the public spoke. During this hearing, there was testimony and discussion for the wireless telecommunications project. At the conclusion of this April 4th hearing after receiving public testimony and holding deliberations, the Planning Commission voted 4-0 (one Commissioner absent) to deny Appeal Nos. 22-003, -005, -007, - 009 and -011, thereby upholding the decision of the Director of Planning, for Administrative Site Plan No. 22-013.

Subsequent to the April 4, 2023, Planning Commission hearing, staff prepared a resolution (Attachment No. 1) summarizing Planning Commission’s denial of the appeals (APL Nos. 22-003, - 005, -007, -009 and -011) for consideration.

ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

Sonal Thakur, of the Eukon Group representing AT&T submitted the application of ASP No. 22-013 on June 7, 2022, for the establishment of a wireless telecommunication facility to install wireless telecommunications equipment consisting of twelve (12) panel antennas, fifteen (15) radio remote units (RRUs) on an existing SCE transmission tower and ground mounted equipment within a new lease area of approximately 200 square feet. The equipment shelter is approximately 10 feet high and 200 square feet in size and secured with a decorative split face block wall with a gate. The shelter will be accessed via an existing 12-foot-wide access road used for maintenance and service for the existing SCE towers.

The existing series of SCE transmission towers are approximately 133 feet in height and are located within an existing public utility corridor. This utility corridor area is generally located north of Casa Grande Road to North Riverside Avenue in the City of Rialto. The proposed 12 wireless communication antennas will be located 66 feet above the base of one of the existing SCE transmissions towers.

MOTION:

Approve staff recommendation
ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment No. 1 - Planning Commission Resolution
City of Fontana Printed on 4/11/2023 Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
1232
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
RESOLUTION PC NO. 2023-

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
FONTANA DENYING APPEAL NOS. 22-003, -005, -007,- 009 AND -011,

THEREBY UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE DIRECTOR OF
PLANNING APPROVING ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN NO. 22-013, FOR

THE REQUEST TO MODIFY AN EXISTING SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

EDISON TRANSMISSION TOWER TO INSTALL WIRELESS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT CONSISTING OF TWELVE (12)
PANEL ANTENNA, FIFTEEN (15) RADIO REMOTE UNITS (RRUS) AND

GROUND MOUNTED EQUIPMENT WITHIN A NEW LEASE AREA OF
APPROXIMATELY 200 SQUARE FEET LOCATED AT A PROPERTY

LOCATED NORTH OF TERRA VISTA DRIVE, EAST OF CONDOR AVENUE (APN: 0239-101-17)
WHEREAS, the City of Fontana received five appeal applications on March 6, 2023, Appeal (APL) Nos. 22-003, -005, -007, -009 and -011 for the appeal of the Director (ASP) No. 22-013, for the
request to modify an existing Southern California Edison (SCE) transmission tower to install new wireless telecommunication and associated equipment, and Appeal Applicants (Appellants): Tika Dave and Bryant Harris, 4687 Condor Avenue - Appeal (APL) No. 22-003 Neil Hedtke, 4665 Condor Avenue - Appeal (APL) No. 22-005 Yolanda Hedtke, 4665 Condor Avenue - Appeal (APL) No. 22-007 Nicole Williams, 3828 North Flame Tree Avenue - Appeal (APL) No. 22-009 Luis Mexicanos, 4543 Condor Avenue - Appeal (APL) No. 22-011 WHEREAS, the City of Fontana received an application on May 31, 2022, Administrative Site Plan No. (ASP) No. 22-013, for the request to modify an existing Southern California Edison (SCE) transmission tower to install wireless telecommunication equipment consisting of twelve (12) panel antennas, fifteen (15) radio remote units (RRUs) and ground mounted equipment within a new lease area of approximately 200 square feet for a property located north of Terra Vista Drive, east of Condor Avenue (APN: 0239-101-17), and
Project Applicant for ASP No. 22-013:

Sonal Thakur of Eukon Group representing AT&T, 65 Post No.1000, Irvine CA. 92618
1233
Resolution PC No. 2023-

Page 2 of 11 ends

Fontana City CouncilJune 27, 2023

Fontana City Council
June 27, 2023