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
August 21, 2023
Mayor Warren and City Council
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
RE: AT&T’s Response to Appeal from Approval of
Administrative Site Plan (ASP) No. 22-028; Minor Use
Permit (MUP) No. 22-007
17010 Sierra Lakes Parkway, Fontana, CA 92335
AT&T Site ID CSL02952
Dear Mayor Warren, Mayor Pro Tem Garcia, and Councilmembers Cothran, Roberts, and Sandoval:
I write on behalf of New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC d/b/a AT&T Mobility (AT&T), to respectfully request the City Council uphold the Planning Director’s and Planning Commission’s approvals of AT&T’s application to construct a stealth wireless communications facility, disguised to appear as a palm tree (“Proposed Facility”) located at 17010 Sierra Lakes Parkway in the City of Fontana. The Proposed Facility is needed for AT&T to provide more robust and competitive wireless services in this portion of the city.
This carefully sited and well-designed facility will minimize visual impacts, and the city’s approval comports with federal law as it is the best available and least intrusive means to close AT&T’s significant service coverage gap in this area. The appeal raises a few general concerns that have been fully addressed by AT&T’s careful adherence with the city’s design and development regulations. Thus, AT&T requests that the Council deny the appeal and affirm approval of AT&T’s application for the Proposed Facility.
AT&T’s Proposed Facility
Consistent with Chapter 32 of the Fontana Municipal Code, AT&T seeks to construct the Proposed Facility as an alternative tower structure, which will be a stealth facility disguised as a palm tree. This “mono-palm” structure will be 75 feet tall, will be aesthetically and architecturally blended with the surrounding area, and will be subject to all applicable health and safety regulations as the city requires.
The Planning Department Staff Report explained how the
Proposed Facility complies with the city’s General Plan and Fontana City of Fontana City Council
August 21, 2023
Municipal Code. The Staff Report also explained that the monopalm design will “blend with the existing area” and that the equipment enclosure finish and new mature landscaping will “compliment the landscaping of the surrounding properties which will match the surrounding neighborhood.” Addressing the appeal issues, the Staff Report explained, “the project complies with the setback requirements as outlined in Chapter 32. The proposed AT&T tower and equipment 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. The project will be built pursuant to all applicable building, zoning, fire codes and standards and complies with all applicable 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 Escalon Drive to the north, Long Cove Drive to the west, Lurelane Street to the south, and North Alder Avenue to the east. (See Attachment A – AT&T Radio Frequency Statement.) This portion of Fontana includes hundreds of homes in several neighborhoods; parks; a golf course; commercial districts along and near Foothill Freeway, Sierra Lakes Parkway, and South Highland Avenue; busy roads, including a mile stretch of Foothill Freeway; 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 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.
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
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.
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 City of Fontana City Council
August 21, 2023
The Act defines the scope and parameters of the city’s 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.
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.”
6 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.7 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 municipality must approve the wireless facility.8 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, is available, and is feasible.9
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, 10 and this
material inhibition standard was again upheld by the Ninth Circuit.11 The FCC explained that 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.”12
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)(i)(II).
7 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).
8 See T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. City of Anacortes, 572 F.3d 987, 999 (9th Cir. 2009). 9 Id., 572 F.3d at 998-999.
10 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).
11 City of Portland v. United States, 969 F.3d 1020, 1034-35 (9th Cir. 2020). 12 Infrastructure Order at ¶ 37.
City of Fontana City Council
August 21, 2023
Here, AT&T has demonstrated its significant service coverage gap in the vicinity of the Proposed Facility. AT&T’s radio frequency propagation maps submitted in connection with its 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 shown that the Proposed Facility is the least intrusive means to close the gap (see Attachment B – Alternative Sites Analysis). The Planning Commission’s approval thus comports with federal law, and the Council should likewise approve AT&T’s application and deny the appeal.
Response to Appellant’s Criticisms
The appeal acknowledges the Proposed Facility complies with th e city’s standards, thereby conceding the city lacks substantial evidence to deny AT&T’s application. The appeal raises six (6) issues, none of which support upending the Planning Commission’s approval.
AT&T responds to each of these six issues as follows:
1. Setback. Appellant complains that the tower is taller than the distance from his property line. Specifically, as he stated in his appeal from the Planning Director’s approval, the Proposed Facility will be located 65 feet from his property. As the Planning Director found, however, AT&T’s Proposed Facility meets or exceeds all applicable City Code provisions, including in particular Chapter 32, Wireless Telecommunications Towers and Antennas. The Planning Director specifically found that “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.” In addition, the structural report for the tower, which will be submitted in connection with the city’s building permit process, will demonstrate the tower’s safety.
Moreover, the appellant explains the tower will be located 65 feet from his property, which is even greater than the 75% of height setback applied in the more stringent conditional use process (see Fontana Code Section 32-7(b)(5)). As the appeal specifies that requirement – if it applied – would require the Proposed Facility to be located at least 56 feet from his property.
And the appeal admits it is proposed to be sited nine feet farther away than that. There is, therefore, no basis to deny AT&T’s application with respect to the setback.
2. Fully negotiated private easements. Appellant also raises a concern that the height of the tower might encroach on private easements if it were to fail and fall. Again, however, the Proposed Facility meets all applicable building and safety requirements, as well as all design and development standards. The structural soundness and safety of this facility will be ensured via the building permit process. Further, as the Planning Director found, the Proposed Facility will be compatible with the “size, shape, topography, accessibility, and other physical characteristics” of the site. This concern does not support denial.
City of Fontana City Council
August 21, 2023
3. High winds and liability insurance. Appellant raises a concern about the high winds in the area. Again, “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.” The structural report for the tower, which will be submitted in connection with the city’s building permit process, will include the effects from wind and will demonstrate the tower’s safety. Further, operating the facility will be conditioned on the City’s inspection. This issue does not support denial.
4. Security, privacy, and safety. Appellant raises various vague concerns about wireless facilities generally, seeking to stoke fears about supposed health impacts and cybersecurity threats. But the appeal fails to offer any evidence – let alone substantial evidence – to support these far-fetched notions. As to health concerns, the Proposed Facility will comply with the FCC’s RF emissions regulations, and, as a result, the city is preempted from considering appellant’s health effects concerns. See 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv). Moreover, the city is preempted from regulating the means and facilities for wireless network expansion.13 On this vague and improper premise, the appeal suggests the city to delay or deny AT&T’s application (and seemingly all other wireless facility applications). But this simply invites the city to violate the Act’s timing, evidentiary, and substantive requirements.
5. Unlimited future use. Appellant reiterates his fears that AT&T and others might use the Proposed Facility as a platform to commit cyber-crimes and espionage. Again, however, the appeal fails to offer any evidence to support these fantastic notions. The appeal specifically views wireless infrastructure as a threat to the city and its logistics industry. But the city’s residents and businesses need reliable wireless services. As the Planning Department Staff Report explained, AT&T will be required to follow the city’s requirements and processes for any future changes to the Proposed Facility.
6. View impairment. Finally, appellant asks to be compensated based on his unsupported statement that the Proposed Facility might cause him damages due to its appearance. But the Proposed Facility fully complies with the city’s design requirements, including its specific design as an “alternative tower structure” as explicitly contemplated and preferred by the City Code. Indeed, the Planning Director found that the design and appearance of the proposed faux palm tree is appropriate:
The project proposal in its design and appearance as a result from this review will be compatible with the site and other similarly approved wireless facilities. The wireless tower is proposed to be disguised as a mono-palm with faux fronds and a faux growth pod, which will complement the surrounding neighborhood and blend with the existing area.
13 Public Utility Comm’n of Texas Petition for Declaratory ruling and/or Preemption of Certain Provisions of the Texas Public Utility Regulatory Act of 1995, Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 3460, ¶¶ 13, 74 (FCC rel. Oct. 1, 1997) (FCC ruled it is unlawful for a state or locality to spec ify the “means and facilities” through which a service provider must offer services); Bennett v. T-Mobile U.S. Inc., 597 F.Supp. 2d 1050, 1053 (C.D. Cal. 2008) (FCC has regulated “every technical aspect of radio communication”).
City of Fontana City Council
August 21, 2023
22937942v1
The Planning Director went further to find that “The proposed project provides a safe and well-designed site that is both aesthetically and architecturally pleasing.” Whereas the Proposed Facility design is fully in line with the city’s requirements, the appellant’s request for compensation is neither supported in fact nor based on the city’s regulations.
Conclusion
AT&T is working diligently to upgrade its network to provide and improve wireless services in this area. There has been no substantial evidence proffered on which the city could deny AT&T’s application. AT&T urges the City Council to deny the appeal and affirm approval of AT&T’s application.
Sincerely,
Aaron M. Shank
cc: Mai Thao, Assistant Planner ( [email protected])
ATTACHMENT A
AT&T Mobility Radio Frequency Statement
17010 Sierra Lakes Parkway, Fontana, CA 92335
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 increase d 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 de mand 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 wi reless 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 prop osed wireless communications facility at 17010 Sierra Lakes Parkway , Fontana (the “Property”) is needed to close coverage gap in 4G LTE service in an area roughly bordered Escalon Drive to the north, Long Cove Drive to the west, Lurelane Street to the south, and North Alder Avenue to the east. This gap area includes hundreds of homes in several neighborhoods ; parks; a golf course ; commercial distr icts along and near Foothill Freeway, Sierra Lakes Parkway, and South Highland Avenue; busy roads, including a mile stretch of Foothill Freeway; and other points of interest in the vicinity.
The service coverage gap is caused by inadequate infrastructure in the are a. 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 2 facility. Wireless telecommunications is a line -of-sight technology, and AT&T’s antennas need to be high enough propagate 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 disguised as a palm tree (“monopalm”) . 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 clo se 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 C overage 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 e xperience 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 do wnload 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 an d 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 ma ny 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 r eceive 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.). I n 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 FirstN et, 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 t he 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 ve hicle. 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 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 Proper ty 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
August 2023
LTE Coverage Before site CSL02592
LTE Coverage After site CSL02592
ATTACHMENT B
AlternaƟve Sites Analysis
AT&T Mobility
Wireless TelecommunicaƟons Facility
at
Sierra Lakes
17010 Sierra Lakes Parkway
Fontana, CA
Site ID: CSL02952
2 LocaƟon of Candidate Sites
3 Proposed Facility – Sierra Lakes, 17010 Sierra Lakes Pkwy.
Conclusion: Based upon locaƟon, a willing landlord and the superior coverage as shown in the proposed coverage map included in AT&T’s Radio Frequency Statement, the proposed Facility is the least intrusive means for AT&T to meet its service coverage objecƟve.
This commercial property is located in a Regional Mixed Use (RMU) zoning district. Consistent with Chapter 32 of the Fontana Municipal Code, this “mono-palm” structure will be 75 feet tall, will be aestheƟcally and architecturally blended with the surrounding area, and will be subject to all applicable health and safety regulaƟons as the city requires.
4 Per Chapter 32 of the Fontana Municipal Code:
5 6
Alternate Candidates InvesƟgated
7 AlternaƟve Site – ARI Highland Village LP , 16944 S. Highland Avenue
Conclusion: Unavailable.
This property is located approximately 0.33 miles to the southwest of the Proposed Facility. AT&T pursued this locaƟon and there was no interest. Currently, with the City of Fontana setbacks requirements for a wireless facility and the property lines, a cell site with RF’s requested height could not be met.
8 AlternaƟve Site – CAKY LLC, 17030 S. Highland Ave.
Conclusion: Unavailable.
This property is located approximately 0.27 miles to the southwest of the Proposed Facility.
AT&T pursued this locaƟon and there was no interest. This property was undeveloped at the Ɵme AT&T approached the property owner. Currently, setbacks cannot be met per the City of Fontana municipal code.
9 AlternaƟve Site – CMK2 Fontana LLC, 17051 Sierra Lakes Pkwy.
Conclusion: Unavailable.
This property is located approximately 0.14 miles to the south of the Proposed Facility. AT&T pursued this locaƟon and there was no interest. This was a rooŌop antenna locaƟon. RF would have to consider a much lower RAD.
10 AlternaƟve Site – FARSAI-FONTANA LLC, 16943 Sierra Lakes Pkwy.
Conclusion: Unavailable.
This property is located approximately 0.15 miles southwest of the Proposed Facility. AT&T pursued this locaƟon and there was no interest. This is a restaurant parking lot with landscaping for a disguised light standard. RooŌop antennas will not work since this is a single-story building.
11 AlternaƟve Site – FONTANABS 2019 LLC, 16963 Sierra Lakes Pkwy.
Conclusion: Unavailable.
This property is located approximately 0.13 miles to the southwest of the Proposed Facility.
AT&T pursued this locaƟon and there was no interest. This was a rooŌop antenna locaƟon. RF would have to consider a lower RAD.
12 AlternaƟve Site – Li Hui Min & James Hsi Chieh, APN: 0240-121-22, Fontana, CA. 92336
Conclusion: Unavailable.
This property is located approximately 0.32 miles to the south of the Proposed Facility. AT&T pursued this locaƟon and there was no interest. This is an undeveloped commercial property.
The residenƟal setback is approximately 57’.
13 AlternaƟve Site – MV ProperƟes LLC, 17040 S. Highland Ave., Fontana, CA. 92336
Conclusion: Unavailable.
This property is located approximately 0.25 miles to the south of the Proposed Facility. AT&T pursued this locaƟon and there was no interest. This property was undeveloped at the Ɵme AT&T approached the property owner. Currently, setbacks cannot be met.
14 AlternaƟve Site - Verizon CollocaƟon Monopine, 17051 Sierra Lakes Pkwy.
Conclusion: Unavailable.
This property is located approximately 0.17 miles to the southeast of the Proposed Facility.
AT&T pursued this locaƟon and had correspondence with the property owner, Vincent Piarulli, about required add land for AT&T’s equipment. AŌer a few weeks of communicaƟon and discussions about lease terms, Mr. Piarulli informed AT&T he was not interested in moving forward as an interested Landlord, therefore, AT&T stopped pursuing this candidate.
15 AlternaƟve Site – Cambria Park, 17140 Cambria Ave.
Conclusion: Unavailable.
This property is located approximately 0.42 miles to the southeast of the Proposed Facility.
AT&T pursued this locaƟon, however, setbacks cannot be met.