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 City of Fontana Planning Commission
March 27, 2023
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-fee- report-2021.pdf.
City of Fontana Planning Commission
March 27, 2023
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 Telecommun ications 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 telecomm unications technologies.’ Ibid. One of the means by which it sought to accomplish these goals was reduction of t he impediments imposed by local governments upon the installation of facilities for wireless communications, suc h 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).
City of Fontana Planning Commission
March 27, 2023
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 effec tive 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 (Sept ember 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.
City of Fontana Planning Commission
March 27, 2023
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.
City of Fontana Planning Commission
March 27, 2023
Additionally, this claim that property values would decrease b y 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 data- driven property valuation study of home values.18 Based on market data for more than 1,600 single- family 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 sin gle-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”).
City of Fontana Planning Commission
March 27, 2023
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 w ill 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.
City of Fontana Planning Commission
March 27, 2023
22253157v1
Notably absent from the appeal is any indication that the subs tantially 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])
ATTACHMENT A
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 47 0,000% 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 u se 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 di fferent 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 poin ts of interest in the vicinity.
The service coverag e 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
2 to be high enough p ropagate an effective signal throughout the gap area. To meet its coverage objectives for this gap area , AT&T propo ses 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 ser vices in this portion of the city.
The facility at the Property will help clo se the gap in coverage and help address rapidly increasing data usage driven by smart phone an d 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 technolo gy 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 p roblems 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 impo rtant 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 qualit y. 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.
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 ex clusively 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 wi reless 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 in - building 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
4 receiving a consistently acceptable level of service. The quality of service experienced by any individual customer can differ greatly depending on wh ether 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
Existing 4G LTE Coverage Before site CSL00192
4G LTE Coverage with Site CSL00192 On Air
ATTACHMENT B
AT&T Wireless
Communication
Facility Proposal
• 3808 North Flame Tree Avenue, Fontana
• AT&T Reference: CSL00192
AT&T RF Engineers’
Search Ring Objective
Area
5 ‘Ables’
Zonable
Leasable
RF Engineer-able
Constructable
Regulatory-able
2 Pillars of
Zoning
Significant gap
in coverage
Least visually
obtrusive
means
Brief Zoning Information - Fontana
Brief Zoning Information - Rialto
Alternative Sites Map
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.
Alternative Site Analysis
Open space surrounds the area north of Riverside Avenue, and already has coverage provided by AT&T’sexisting 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) Site Photosimulations – Looking North from Terra Vista Drive
View 2 – Looking South from Access Road
View 3 – Looking West from Flame Tree Avenue
© 2008 AT&T Knowledge Ventures. All rights reserved.
AT&T is a registered trademark of AT&T Knowledge Ventures.
LTE Coverage Before site CSL00192
© 2008 AT&T Knowledge Ventures. All rights reserved.
AT&T is a registered trademark of AT&T Knowledge Ventures.
LTE Coverage After site CSL00192
© 2008 AT&T Knowledge Ventures. All rights reserved.
AT&T is a registered trademark of AT&T Knowledge Ventures.
LTE Coverage Standalone Site CSL00192
ATTACHMENT C
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) 1–80 GHz 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.
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-of-sight 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.
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.
FCC Guidelines
Figure 1
1000
100
10 1
0.1 0.1 1 10 100 103 104
105
Occupational Exposure
Public Exposure
PCS
CellFM
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 ensu re 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 Radio frequency Electromagnetic Fields,” p ublished in 1 986 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 r estrictive. The more recent standard, developed by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers IEEE C95.1- , “Safety Levels with R espect to Human Exposure to &MFDUSJD
.BHOFUJD
BOE Electromagnetic Fields, )[ to 300 GHz,” includes similar limits. These limits apply for continuous ex posures from all sources and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, orhealth.
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/ f2
3.0 – 30 1842/ f 823.8/ f 4.89/ f 2.19/ f 900/ f2 180/ f2 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
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 Pnetx
θ
180
θBW
× 0.1× Pnet
π × D × hx D x h
2.56 x 1.64 x 100 x RFF2 x ERP
4 x x D2
180
θBW
× 0.1× Pnet
π × D × hS =
qBW
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 time- averaging 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:
in mW/cm2power density
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 reflection s, 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 fo rmed at close distances and so exposure levels may be lowe r than otherwise calculated by the formula above. OET-65 recommends the cylindrical model formula below to account for this “near-field effect”:
in mW/cm
2 power density S =
where P net = 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 Pnetx
θ
180
θBW
× 0.1× Pnet
π × D × hx D x h
2.56 x 1.64 x 100 x RFF2 x ERP
4 x x D2
180
θBW
× 0.1× Pnet
π × D × hS =
qBW
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 P netx0
180
θBW
× 0.1× Pnet
π × D × hx D x h
2.56 x 1.64 x 100 x RFF2 x ERP
4 x x D2
180
θBW
× 0.1× Pnet
π × D × hS =