Robert Constant, The Constant Family Trust 28871 Blythewood Dr. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 [email protected] 310-541-1297 July 31, 2023 To Whom It May Concern: Robert Constant, next door neighbor directly to the North of proposed cell phone tower (located at 17010 Sierra Lakes Pkwy APN 1119-221-69 Project MCN no. 22-10-7; MUP No. 22-007; ASP 22-028) appeals the July 18, 2023, decision by the Fontana Planning Commission to deny Appeal No. 23-015, thereby upholding the decision of the Director of Planning on May 11, 2023. Un\l the following cybersecurity, safety, land use, and liability issues and demands are addressed, The Constant Family Trust opposes the tower development. In response to The Constant Family’s first appeal, Fontana staff addressed our concerns with a typical boilerplate template that can be summed up with a simple phrase: “complies with the development standards”. However, in their response, staff both admits and omits which proves that the standards have shortcomings. It is those standards shortcomings that this appeal addresses. 1. Setback: If “standards state that the setback requirement is a distance equal to at least 75 percent of the height of the tower from any adjoining lot line, which equates to a minimum of 56 feet setback from adjoining lot line”, then Fontana admits that standards facilitate trespass if the tower falls. This facilita\on puts Fontana at risk of trespass in addi\on to developer. Constant asks, minimally, that Fontana protects both Constant property and Fontana’s own poten\al future trespass and negligence by reloca\ng the tower so that in no way can fall on Constant property. 2. Fully nego\ated private easements: Nowhere in Fontana’s appeal response is the easement issue analyzed. Again, Constant asks that Fontana protects both Constant property and Fontana’s own future liability on the easement issue. If not, then a foreseeable future fall of the tower makes all par\es to the tower, Fontana, developer, and AT&T liable for negligence and trespass.
3. High winds and liability insurance: Again, nowhere in Fotana’s appeal response is there any analysis of liability insurance to protect the Constant property, when Fontana’s reply admits that the tower, if it falls, will encroach on Constant property by at minimum, 6 feet. As high winds are always a factor in Fontana, and the bulk of the tower’s weight is at the top, then simple math and engineering proves that a tower falling from that height could do major damage on Constant property to both structures and people. Again, foreseeability is the cornerstone of negligence. Negligence that is facilitated by City of Fontana standards. 4. Security, Privacy, and Safety: It is staff’s reply to Constant’s security concern, that contains the most egregious omission in their reply. Constant’s security concern is not limited to RF emissions. By focusing on that aspect only, Fontana has glossed over the major security concern of our \mes: cybersecurity. What is Fontana doing to protect itself from cybersecurity issues that the development of this tower is directly related? Constant requests that cybersecurity be immediately addressed by City Council in the form of a study and delay of this project. 5. Unlimited Future Usage: The concern over Unlimited Future Usage is directly related to cybersecurity. AT&T or a bad actor, under the guise of Fontana “standards” could add addi\onal spyware, or worse, to the tower not only as it relates to a hos\le foreign actor, but even at Fontana’s own direc\on. Spying on ci\zens is not just something that concerns interna\onal security, but the local community as well. Constant asks that Fontana analyze and protect the community from all foreign, domes\c, and local cybersecurity threats by immediately ceasing this project and organizing a study of the cybersecurity threats Fontana faces both now and in the future in accordance to city’s police power. Threats that are foreseeable considering Fontana’s own investment in the interna\onal logis\cs industry, as well as the property’s loca\on next to the sensi\ve energy producing Mid-Valley Landfill further demand immediate ac\on. 6. View impairment: Compliance with a height requirement does not defend view impairment. This is a taking and should be compensated as such. Just because you can do it, doesn’t mean it costs nothing to do. Ten years ago, The Constant Family presented to both the planning department and City Council, its concerns about the health issues surrounding warehouse development. The family’s focus was on addressing the shortcomings of the standards and accompanying boilerplate template response. Last week, Fontana finally denied a warehouse applica\on, aher a combina\on of intense community pressure, pressure from the California Aiorney General, health studies, and the City Council’s own poli\cal self- preserva\on ins\ncts, as the warehouse health and safety issue has become interna\onal news over the last several years. Constant looks forward to another ten year baile over cybersecurity concerns in Fontana that are directly related to the warehouse issue that Fontana has perpetuated and only now, aiempts to mi\gate. The Constant Family sees that these bailes make the community safer, stronger, and connected to the future health and growth of the Inland Empire. Do the (reasonable and foreseeable) right thing, and analyze the cybersecurity, trespass, and liability issues that this tower portends so that in another ten years, Fontana is not known as a weak link threat to United States cybersecurity, just as it is now considered a weak link threat to the Inland Empire’s health and safety due to city’s warehouse support and prolifera\on. Considering all issues and demands listed above, and in a neighborly aiempt to minimize future li\ga\on, Constant requests that the above reasonable demands be met. This appeal in no way limits any future causes of ac\on that may arise from this project of any other project. Fees to be waived as Constant is an adjoining property owner. Sincerely, Robert Constant Nicholas Constant, Esq.