Gregory B. Mouroux Assistant Vice President - Senior Legal Counsel

AT&T 430 Bush Street, Office 361 San Francisco, CA 94108

T 415.216.2610 gregory.mouroux@att.com

December 3, 2019 VIA E-MAIL Mayor Zimmerman and City Council City of Menifee City Hall 29844 Haun Road Menifee, CA 92586 Re. AT&T Proposed Wireless Communications Facility; Site ID CSL04289 Conditional Use Permit No. 2018-078, Clock Tower in Wheatfield Park Dear Mayor Zimmerman, Mayor Pro Tem August and Councilmembers Deines, Liesemeyer and Sobek

I write on behalf of New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC dba AT&T Mobility (AT&T), to again respectfully request the City Council approve AT&T’s appeal and application to install a wireless communications facility camouflaged as a clock tower in Wheatfield Park (“Proposed Facility”). As I explained in my October 17, 2019 letter to you, AT&T has a significant service coverage gap in this portion of Menifee and it is proposing the best possible stealth design in the best available location. The project will enhance the community and provide very important wireless services, including FirstNet services to support police officers, firefighters, paramedics and other first responder communications. This letter also addresses additional questions that have been raised since the City Council first considered this item.

This project is supported by Planning Staff and is consistent with the Menifee Municipal

Code, which authorizes concealed or disguised wireless communications facilities in recreational and open space zones like this location. The Planning Staff Report provided an overall positive review of the location and aesthetics of the Proposed Facility. On September 11, 2019, however, the Planning Commission denied the application following two public hearings where misplaced concerns about radio frequency emissions predominated the public discussion. The City cannot deny the application on this basis. Nor can the City deny the application based on general concerns about aesthetics or speculation about impacts to property values. Indeed, federal law requires approval of the Proposed Facility because denial will effectively prohibit and materially inhibit AT&T’s ability to provide and improve wireless services, in violation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

AT&T’s Proposed Facility As explained in my previous letter, AT&T proposes to construct this stealth wireless communications facility in accordance with the Menifee Municipal Code (“City Code”) to improve wireless services for the City’s residents and businesses. AT&T has a significant service coverage gap in the City in the vicinity of the Proposed Facility (see attached Radio Frequency Statement – Attachment A). This gap is significant because the area includes hundreds of homes, businesses, a college, a school, parks and various other points of interest in

2

the immediate vicinity. The Radio Frequency Statement explains that placing the Proposed Facility in this location will close AT&T’s service coverage gap in this area.

AT&T thoroughly investigated alternative sites and designs to make sure that its Proposed Facility is the least intrusive means to close AT&T’s service coverage gap. AT&T’s analysis is summarized in the attached Alternative Sites Analysis (Attachment B), which was submitted to the City in connection with this application, along with additional details about the search for candidate locations that was presented at the Planning Commission meetings and at the previous City Council meeting (Attachment C). Given that residential neighborhoods surround this area, and the City Code prefers sites in parks and open spaces, AT&T investigated sites at the Mt. San Jacinto College, Bell Mountain Middle School and Wheatfield Park. Neither the college nor the middle school were interested in leasing space for the Proposed Facility.

During the November 6 meeting, City Council asked AT&T whether it could close its

coverage gap by deploying small cells in lieu of a stealth macro facility. Although the City is preempted from dictating the wireless technology to be deployed,1 and even though this request is not consistent with the City Code, AT&T evaluated small cells as an alternative to the Proposed Facility. AT&T concluded that small cells will not address its coverage gap and that a macro facility is needed. The attached Supplemental Radio Frequency Statement (Attachment D), which was shared with the City Staff on November 14th, explains key distinctions between use of macro facilities and small cells and concludes that small cells will not close AT&T’s significant service coverage gap.

Approval of AT&T’s Proposal is Required Under Federal Law Under the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 332 (“Act”), 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.”2 Here, it is beyond dispute that the Proposed Facility will comply. Thus, the application cannot be rejected based on concerns about radio frequency emissions. The Act also provides that the City may only deny AT&T’s application based on “substantial evidence.”3 Neither direct nor indirect concerns over health effects from radio frequency emissions qualify as substantial evidence. Some opponents of the Proposed Facility spoke out specifically about health effects. At least one person raised concerns about property values, but his concerns are based on a belief that homebuyers might worry about radio frequency emissions. The United States Congress specifically considered this type of information and concluded that it is not appropriate evidence to support a denial. Citing Congressional intent upon passage of the Act, a federal district court in California has held that in light of the federal preemption of radio frequency emissions, “concern over the decrease in property values may not be considered as substantial evidence if the fear of property value 1 See New York SMSA L.P. v. Town of Clarkstown, 612 F.3d 97, 105-106 (2d Cir. 2010). 2 See 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv); see also 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)). 3 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii).

3

depreciation is based on concern over the health effects caused by radio frequency emissions.”4 In addition, generalized expressions of concern regarding property values and aesthetics do not constitute substantial evidence to support the denial of an application seeking to install wireless telecommunications facilities.5 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, if a wireless provider 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. 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 technologically feasible, and that it is “less intrusive” than the proposed facility.9

More recently, the FCC has confirmed its rulings that an effective prohibition occurs whenever the decision of a local government materially inhibits wireless services.10 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.”11 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.”12 Here, AT&T has demonstrated its significant service coverage gap and that it seeks the least intrusive means to close that gap. The only alternative suggested by the City was Council’s question of whether AT&T could meet its service objectives with small cells. That question did 4 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)). 5 See California RSA No. 4 v. Madera County, 332 F.Supp.2d 1291, 1309 (E.D. Cal. 2003) (citing Omnipoint Corp. v. Zoning Hearing Bd., 181 F.3d 403, 409 (3d Cir.1999)). 6 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II). 7 See e.g., Metro PCS, Inc., 400 F3d 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. at 998-99. 10 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 ¶¶ 34-42 (FCC rejects the need for wireless providers to meet judicially-created coverage gap and least instructive means tests); 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 Infrastructure Order at n. 95. 12 Id. at ¶ 37.

4

not shift the burden back to AT&T, but AT&T evaluated the suggestion and concluded that small cells will not close its significant service coverage gap. AT&T needs to construct the Proposed Facility to provide and improve wireless services to this portion of Menifee, and this stealth clock tower is by far the best available and least intrusive means to do so. Accordingly, the City must approve AT&T’s application.

Conclusion AT&T is diligently seeking to upgrade its network to provide and improve wireless services to this part of Menifee. AT&T has shown that approval is required under federal law. I urge the Council to approve the appeal and AT&T’s application. Sincerely, Gregory B. Mouroux Attachment A: AT&T Radio Frequency Statement Attachment B: Alternative Sites Analysis Attachment C: Summary of Locations Considered Attachment D: AT&T Supplemental Radio Frequency Statement cc: Tamara Harrison, Senior Planner (tharrison@cityofmenifee.us) Jeff Melching, City Attorney (JMelching@rutan.com) Ajit Thind, Assistant City Attorney (AThind@rutan.com)

ATTACHMENT A

LTE Coverage Before site CSL04289

Exhibit 1

LTE Coverage After site CSL04289

Exhibit 2

ATTACHMENT B

  

Page 1 of 6 

        On Behalf of        

  

Tyler Kent Real Estate Specialist  

3300 Irvine Avenue, Suite 300 Newport Beach, CA  92660 

949‐701‐2444 (C) 949‐468‐0931 (F) 

Tyler.kent@smartlinkllc.com  

                                                                                                                    AT&T Project Number: CSL04289                                                                                                                          AT&T Project Name: Wheatfield Park 

 City of Menifee 

Alternative Site Analysis   AT&T Mobility (AT&T) is requesting approval of an Administrative Development Plan Review application, for the construction and operation of an unmanned wireless telecommunications facility (cell site), and presents the following project information for your consideration:  Project Location 

Address: 30627 Menifee Rd APN: 364‐070‐026 Zoning: SP  Project Representative  Tyler Kent Smartlink, LLC 3300 Irvine Avenue, Suite 300 Newport Beach, CA  92660 949‐701‐2444 (C) 949‐468‐0931 (F) Tyler.kent@smartlinkllc.com    AT&T Contact Andrew Hollihan, Project Manager 1452 Edinger Ave. 3rd Floor Tustin, CA 92780‐6246 Ah932h@att.com 714‐566‐7112  Project Description  AT&T proposes a new unmanned wireless communication facility that will be disguised as a 70' clock tower and attached to the main building at Wheatfield Park by a wooden trellis breezeway. Wrought Iron fencing with gates will be located at the side entries into the breezeway areas. The facility will include 12‐8' panel antennas (three [3] panels per sector),36 L TE RRUs at antenna level (9 per sector), one (1 )‐ two (2) foot microwave antenna, eight (8) DC‐6 surge suppressors (two [2] per sector), one (1) DC power plant, two (2) FIF racks, 1 GPS antenna, 1‐30KW generator, 2 A/C units, utility cabinets, a Telco board all within a 715 sq. ft. lease area that will be enclosed by a eight (8) foot high split‐faced CMU block wall. 

 

  

Page 2 of 6 

AT&T will work with the City and the community to install a state‐of‐the‐art stealth structure that will improve communications services for the residents and visitors in the City of Menifee.    Project Objectives A wireless carrier requires the installation of a cell site within a specified area to close a “significant gap in coverage.”  Other criteria for selecting sites include the following:  

The radio signal must be of sufficient strength to achieve consistent, sustainable, and reliable service to customers at a level sufficient for outdoor, in‐vehicle, and in‐building penetration with good voice quality (Threshold, 15.85 db).   

When nearby other sites become overloaded and more enhanced voice and data services are used (4G and other high‐speed data services), signal contracts and a gap is created.  With heavy use it is intensified due to the unique properties of digital radio transmissions.   

 In this specific case, AT&T’s radio‐frequency engineers (RF) have identified a significant gap in coverage in the vicinity of La Piedra Rd, Menifee Rd and Antelope Rd, in the City of Menifee. RF Propagation Maps are submitted with the is Site Analysis.   Alternative Site Analysis AT&T’s gap in coverage in this instance largely consists of four parcels, owned by two entities, showing no interest in leasing land for a new wireless communication facility. The other land within the search ring is made up of one and two‐story residential homes. The Wheatfield Park is the only site meets the project objectives as well as the four key elements in the site selection process, described in general information section below.  Figure 1 Search Ring Map  ‐ Existing AT&T Facilities  

      

  

Page 3 of 6 

 Figure 2 Existing Non‐AT&T Cell Sites  

 

     

  

Page 4 of 6 

Candidate A  Mt. San Jacinto College – 28237 La Piedra Rd, Menifee, CA 92584  APN:364‐070‐031 & 364‐070‐032 The candidate did not have a willing land lord at the time of site selection.  Candidate B Bell Mountain Middle School ‐ 28525 La Piedra Rd, Menifee, CA 92584 APN:364‐070‐033 & 364‐070‐025 There is not a location on the property that would allow for AT&T to access the site for routine maintenance, that would not disrupt the normal functions of the school. The candidate did not have a willing land lord at the time of site selection.  Candidate C  Wheatfield Park – 30627 Menifee Rd, Menifee, CA 92584 This was chosen as the primary candidate and best meets the requirements to fill AT&T’s significant gap in coverage with the least obtrusive means.   Colocation: There are no cell sites in the area that provide an opportunity for AT&T to collocate and fill its gap in coverage. The two maps above show the proximity of the nearest cell towers.   The other developments within the search ring were not viable do to residential zoning, or an unwillingness from ownership.  Findings/Burden of Proof The site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape. 

 AT&T is proposing a stealth design for this project which is concealed within the Clock Tower.  All cellular equipment and antennas are disguised and screened from public view.  The requested height of the Clock Tower is the minimum height needed in order to fill the significant gap in coverage for this project. AT&T uses the most advanced technology to design the equipment shelter so as to blend the architecture with the surrounding community and landscaping and thereby minimizing the visual impact of the site. 

 The proposed location has sufficient access to streets and highways that are adequate in width and pavement type to carry the quantity and quality of traffic generated by the proposed use. 

The proposed project in Wheatfield Park, which is the perfect location as there is an underutilized strip of land behind the main building that can support the new facility.  There are adequate access routes directly to the proposed facility.  All the roadways and access ways within the facility are in compliance with local, state and federal regulations concerning width and pavement. 

  The proposed use will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent or abutting properties. 

The project is proposed within a park that has a SP Zoning designation and will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent or abutting properties as it is a stealth design that will blend naturally with the subject property and the surrounding community.  The project will provide a public benefit of better wireless telecommunications and data services to the surrounding neighborhoods and community. 

 The proposed use is deemed essential and desirable to the public convenience or welfare. 

The new wireless telecommunications facility is in high demand to the residents and visitors of the City of Menifee.  Wireless communications are vastly used in this area and 

  

Page 5 of 6 

the need for this site was established entirely from increased usage of AT&T services in the vicinity of the requested project.   

 GENERAL INFORMATION  Site Selection Customer demand drives the need for new cell sites.  Data relating to incomplete and dropped calls is gathered, drive‐tests are conducted, and scientific modeling using sophisticated software is evaluated.  Once the area requiring a new site is identified, a target ring on a map is provided to a real estate professional to begin a search for a suitable location.  During an initial reconnaissance, properties selected for evaluation for installation of a cell site must be located in the general vicinity of the ring, possess an appropriate zoning designation, and appear to have enough space to accommodate an antenna structure and supporting radio equipment.  The size of this space will vary depending on the objective of the site.  The owners of each prospective location are notified to assess their interest in partnering with AT&T.  Four key elements are considered in the selection process: 

Leasing:  The property must have an owner who is willing to enter into a long‐term lease agreement under very specific terms and conditions. 

Zoning:  It must be suitably zoned in accordance with local land‐use codes to allow for a successful permitting process. 

Construction:  Construction constraints and costs must be reasonable from a business perspective, and the proposed project must be capable of being constructed in accordance with local building codes and safety standards. 

RF:  It must be strategically located to be able to achieve the RF engineer’s objective to close the significant gap with antennas at a height to clear nearby obstructions.   

 The Benefits to the Community Approximately 90‐percent of American adults subscribe to cell phone service.  People of all ages rely increasingly on their cell phones to talk, text, send media, and search the Internet for both personal and business reasons.  More and more, they conduct these activities in their homes, therefore, becoming reliant on adequate service within residential neighborhoods.  In fact, 50‐percent of people who relocate are not signing up for landline service at their new location and are using their cell phone as their primary communication method.   The installation and operation of the proposed facility will offer improved: 

Communications for local, state, and federal emergency services providers (i.e., police, fire, paramedics, and other first‐responders). 

Personal safety and security for community members in an emergency, or when there is an urgent need to reach family members or friends.  Safety is the primary reason parents provide cell phones to their children. Currently 25 percent of all preteens, ages 9 to 12, and 75 percent of all teens, aged 13 to 19, have cell phones.   

Capability of local businesses to better serve their customers. 

Opportunity for a city or county to attract businesses to their community for greater economic development. 

Enhanced 911 Services (E911) – The FCC mandates that all cell sites have location capability.  Effective site geometry within the overall network is needed to achieve accurate location information for mobile users through triangulation with active cell sites. (Over half of all 911 calls are made using mobile phones.) 

 

  

Page 6 of 6 

Safety – RF is Radio The FCC regulates RF emissions to ensure public safety.  Standards have been set based on peer‐reviewed scientific studies and recommendations from a variety of oversight organizations, including the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), American National Standards Institute (ANSI), Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE),  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Federal Drug Administration (FDA), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).    Although the purview of the public safety of RF emissions by the FCC was established by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, these standards remain under constant scrutiny.  All AT&T cell sites operate well below these standards, and the typical urban cell site operates hundreds or even thousands of times below the FCC’s limits for safe exposure.  AT&T Company Information AT&T is one of the fastest growing nationwide service providers offering all digital voice, messaging and high‐speed data services to nearly 30 million customers in the United States.    AT&T is a “telephone corporation”, licensed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to operate in the 872‐1962 MHz and 827‐1877 MHz frequencies, and a state‐regulated Public Utility subject to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC).  The CPUC has established that the term “telephone corporation” can be extended to wireless carriers, even though they transmit signals without the use of telephone lines.    AT&T will operate this facility in full compliance with the regulations and licensing requirements of the FCC, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the CPUC, as governed by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and other applicable laws.  AT&T requests a favorable determination and approval of this Conditional Use Permit to build the proposed facility.  Please contact me at 949‐701‐2444 or tyler.kent@smarlinkllc.com for any questions or requests for additional information.  Respectfully submitted,    Tyler Kent, Smartlink, LLC Authorized Agent for AT&T  

ATTACHMENT C

AT&T Wireless Communication Facility Proposal

Wheatfield ParkCUP- 2018-078

AT&T Ref: CSL04289

Search Ring

Search Ring on top of Menifee Zoning Map

Other Locations Considered

The property owners of both San Jacinto Community College and the Middle School declined to lease space to AT&T for a wireless facility. All other properties in and near the search ring are zoned residential and contain single family residences. There are no opportunities for colocation in or near the search ring.

ATTACHMENT D