HomeMy WebLinkAboutVerizon Wireless Proposed Monopole, Pleasant Grove Rd.PDFg{}wp www.rwrbgruuv-utm
Engineering/Architecture/ Surveying, F"C.
January 6,2006
Mr. Walter R. Lynn, Mayor
Village of Cayuga Heights
836 Hanshaw Road
Ithaca, New York 14850
RE: vrnrzol1wmnlnss pnoposno Moxoror,E , PLEAsANT GRovE RonnEqurrnrnNr Rnmov,lr_ BoNo Estrvrarr
Dear Mayor Lynn,
In cooperation with IvIr. William P. Johnson, MRB Group has prepared an opinion of probable
cost to be considered by the Village of Cayuga Heights for theiemoval of the propor"-d structure,equipment and site work at the above referenied Verizon faciiity. It is our rod"rrt*ding that thesecured amount would be utilized for demolition and restoration if the applicant abandons thisportion of the developed site. As shown on the May 27,2005 plans pr"pat"a by Costich
Engineering, the applicant proposes to install the foilowing items with incidental construction:
120'monopole
ll'-7" x 30' equipment building on a concrete pad
cable bridge from the building to the monopole
CSC cabinet vault
meter board
6' tall chain link fence, stone yard area within fence, gravel driveway
MRB Group is of the opinion that a year 2006 amount of $30,000 will be sufficient for thedemolition. If wording for an inflation adjustment is added, we recommend it be referenced, to aconstruction cost index such as Engineering News Record or R.S. Means Company, Inc.
Please feel free to contact me or Michael Simon, MRB Group Director of planning, if you have
any questions or need additional information in this resard.
Respectfully submitted,
MRB GROUP. P.C.
Cc: William P. Johnson
Michael A. Simon
Ronald J.
2480 Browncroft Boulevard - Rochester, New \/ork 14625 - 585-38j-g250 _ FA_X- 585-38t_1008
William P Johnson
PO Box 48
Scottsville I\iY 14546
January 1212046
VILLAGE of CAYUGA HEIGHTS
Mayor Walter Lynn and Board of Trustees
836 Hanshaw Road
Ithaca NY 14850-1548
RE: Follow-up Report
Proposed 120' Verizon Wireless Tower (Cayuga Site)
186 Y, Pleasant Grove Road, CayugaHeights
Dear Mayor Lynn and Members of the Board,
This report summarizes the review of additional materials submitted by Verizon
Wireless in response to two outstanding RF issues as presented at the December 19,
2005, public hearing regarding their proposed tower to support antennas at I2A' and
ground equipment for both an 850 MHz and 1900 MHz wireless telecommunications
base station. During the meeting, two new itemb were requested - namely the tower
removal bond estimate and the RF review for Cingular Wireless' collocation on the
proposed tower. The tower removal bond estimate will be provided under separate cover
from MRB Group engineers in time for the January l7m meeting. RF materials from
collocation applicant Cingular Wireless have not been received to date. Therefore ttre
need ard justification analysis for Cingular's collocation will, at the board's request, be
handled in a separate report at alater date if ttrat information is eventually made
available.
Pending Verizon RF Issues
Two RF issues regarding Yenzonwere pending priorto the December 19ft public
hearing. These were: (1) whether the use of antennas with wider coverage than the 40
degree beamwidth antennas proposed by Verizon would permit aheight reduction of the
proposed 120' site and whether any altemate site fimctionality would be improved, and
(2) whether the use of a future site to the west would reduce the necessary coverage area
to the west of the proposed site sfficiently to allow either a height reduction or the use of
an altemate site previously analyzed. During the December 19ft public hearing and
dwing the following week, Verizon submitted additional RF propagation plots addressing
these RF issues.
Verizon's choice of narrow beamwidth antennas to control of RF interference to
adjacentnetwork cells may have resulted in areas of reduced coverage due to the "nulls"
in the antenna pattem. The 'hulls", like foliage an tenain losses, appear as areas of weak
coverage on the propagation plots. Using an RF propagation plot alone, it is difficult to
Village of CayugaHeights January 12,2006
know whether certain areas of poor coverage were the result of the environment or
whether the antenna radiation pattem was really the cause of the poor coverage. In order
to remove the question regarding *re antenna pattem nulls, Verizon ran selected RF
propagation plots using 60 degree beam-width antennas'. When these plots were viewed,
certain of the weak coverage areas that were of concem improved, but the improvement
did not eliminate other poor coverage areas cited as reasons to reject either a lower height
at the proposed site or the use of altemate sites discussed at the hearing. In particular, the
proposed site at 100' (a 20' reduction in heigh| presents terrain coverage gaps to the
south that remain even after the wider beamwidth antennas are used" These gaps a.re
filled at 120'. Therefore, based uponthe propagation plot results, the proposed height of
120' is reasonable at the proposed site regardless of the antenna beamwidth used by
Verizon.
The second RF issue addressed the lack of an identified furure Verizon site to ttre
west that would connect with the proposed cell. In order to properly evaluate the need
forthe proposed village cell, it is necessary to knowhow it will hand offto all adjacent
cells. Verizon provided a plot for the missing Ithaca cell2 and subsequently a plot of all
existing and future neighbor cells including the Ithaca cell but without the proposed
village cell'. By observing the plot without the proposed village cell and comparing it to
the plots for the proposed cell without the "Ithaca'' cell, one observes that the bormdary
between the two coverage areas are fairly well defined and that the 'Tthaca" cell as it is
currently envisioned by Verizon will not eliminate the need for l2A' at the proposed site
because a rehuction to 100' would still impact the coverage to the south'as addressed
above. Therefore, the proposed site at 120' operattng with the "Ithaca'' cell as envisioned
by Verizon is a reasonable combination. Verizon has demonsffated the need for the
proposed site at 120' rn conjrmction with the future Ithaca cell.
New ltem: Tower Removal Bond
Two new items were identified at the December 19ft meeting. These were (1) the
tower removal bond estimate and (2) collocation applicant Cingular Wireless RF
information review. Regarding the tower removal bond estimate, MRB Group
engineers, Rochester, NY, agreed to provide the removal bond estimate directh to the
village board based upon the preliminary site p1an. Their report dated January 6,2006"
was delivered directly from MRB Group under separate cover.
New ltem: Cingular Wireless RF Review
Regarding Cingular Wireless, project manager Jim Woodward was requested by
email on December 20,2005, to provide certain RF documentation to demonstrate need
and justification of their proposed collocation on the Verizon tower. Mr. Woodward
confirmed receipt of the request, but later explained that Cingular has not been able to
I See RF propagationplot titled "Ithaca: Future locations plus Cayuga cell 120' -78 dBm","Cayuga
Proposed location 100' w/60 degree antennas -78 dBm", and "Cayuga: DPW WT wl60 degree antennas -78
dBm".
2 See "Ithaca: Future locations plus Cayuga cell 120' -78 dBm"
3 See "Ithaca: Future coverage without Cayuga -78 dBm"
Page2 of3
Village of CayugaHeights January lZ, 2006
respond to date. Thjr,*n;;;;;;'ffi ffi;[ffi i|"ff ffi';ffiffi##y*ycomprisingsuchthe same purpose otislt bi;;rrbrr";; ;;rti'tot * ur.i, irr.lr:fffT:Hflrffi#irrj:tRF engineeraddressihe.CImr"rti* ii #1ry0*s1,i rri;6;;;t$ inrormation in writingso thar we can betrer.^underslllg ,!;;r"ii:t
_r:A"* r;i.lo, of either rhe requesredinformation or expranation" if the uoirj arriro to proceed oo tro, matter a reporf to theh:Tfi"'f, frlngthecingura'-wi'"r;;;il;;;;ff#firllfeprovidedsummarizing
. Thank you again fo.1tle grnortunity to s€rve the v'rage of cayugaHeights. Iffr"fi* anv questions or iraddif;"d ffi;;;;;r;;.ffi,r;ease feer free ro ret rne
Sincerelv.
tuni;-
Wiltiam p Johnson, Consultant
cc. }.nyrSdod Nixon peabody
Sandra Brooks, Verizon Wireless
James Woodward, FMHC Corp. fo, Cingular Wireless
Page 3 of3
William P Johnson
PO Box 48
Scottsville I\rY 14546
December 21,2005
VILLAGE of CAYUGA HEIGHTS
Board of Trustees
835 Hanshaw Road
Ithaca NY 14850-1548
RE: Proposed Verizon Wireless Tower (Cayuga Site)
18614 Pleasant Grove Road, Cayuga Heights
Dear Members of the Board,
This report sumnrarizes the review of the nraterials submitted by representatives
of Verizon Wireless for a proposed tower to support antennas at r20, and ground
equipment for both an 850 MHz and 1900 MHz wireless telecomnrunications base
station. The sole putpose of this report is to advise the Village of Cayuga Heights Board
of rrustees regarding the radio-frequency (RF) aspects of the proposic proiecr in
addition to the proposed site, the potential use of iltemate sites is discuised.
SUMMARY of FINDINGS
The proposed Verizon Wireless base station site is intended to provide a single,
site solution to fill the RF coverage gap in the general vicinity of the village when both
"exisfing" and "future" base stations are considered. ,'Existing,'base stations are those
that ate aheady on the ait. "Futute" base stations are those that are planned by Verizon
but which are not cun'ently deployed. Future sites may be relocated or cancelled due to
external zoning constraints or deployrnent may be delayed or cancelled due to interlal
decisions by Verizon. As part of this application, Verizon has not disclosed any "future,'
sites and the design is based upon the "existing sites". Verizon has been asked to
disclose plans for a "futule" site west of the village.
Verizon has submitted RF prcpagation plots foL the proposed site at 120' and
100', and various altemate sites located near existing structurei or commercial areas that
might have been amenable to a cell tower. Except for the Cayuga, Triphammer and
Pyramid mall sites which lack centrality to the coverage gap aria, evaluation of the other
sites are to one degree or another inconclusive since a connecting neighbor site to the
west remains undefined and the effect of altenna pattem nulls may affect the conclusions
regarding viabiltty especially on sites that ahnost achieve coverage. Verizon's algument
against any of the altemate sites relies in most cases upoll the assumption that a *est
neighbor site would be in the valley and therefore unable to provide any significant
coverage along the top of the bluff and into Cayuga Heights. Under this assunrption, all
D *,*h v-YJ '+y {n^* 4q" rnatl.4r W w* "4^^fL,l*,*^ll ,^r- -ft.n **A,
gW*
) pln ,* ,tf^ (lLJt* h oavq-' & V'7 a-^'04' *<"-
tt,,X,tt J tf-e. - grc.$*.n- Add.+/4 j" fu-.,It t-" t/p^A .
Village of Cayuga Heights Decenrber 19,2005
alternate and shofter sites fail. However, if a west neighbor site was defined with the
intention of penetrating as far as reasonably possible into Cayuga Heights, the constraints
for the proposed site may be found less stringent and may pennit use of either a reduced
height or stealth site. Minirnization of antenna sector nulls by use of wider beamwidth
antennas, or perhaps by realignment ofthe sectors to achieve the necessary coverage, are
being investigated by Verizon, It is possible that this information will be available at the
public hearing. Some of the altemate sites evaluated by Verizon at the request of the
village and in prepamtion of this review are located outside of conrmercial areas are
conceived as potential stealth installations. Even if technically viable, certain of these
sites present significant zoning and aesthetic issues that must be balanced. However,
determination of whether a site can perform technically should take place before
dismissing the site since stealth technology or zoning variances may nrake a site viable if
it proves to be a significant advantage over the proposed site.
If the village trustees decide that Verizon is not obligated to disclose plans for
west neighbor coverage to the city nofth and Route 13 areas and if the matter of antema
pattern nulls cannot be resolved, then the constmints stated by Verizon that the proposed
site must cover to the edge of the east lake bluff by use of the 40o beamwidth antennas
will dictate the dismissal of the altemate sites and any reduction in height at the proposed
site. If so, the proposed site at 120' will renrain the only viable single-site solution to
Verizon's coverage gap that they have presented.
The remainder of this report provides a discussion of the facts and opinions leading to
these conclusions,
MATERTALS REVIEWED FOR THIS REPORT
The base materials reviewed for this repoft are the packets provided on August 2nd
ard September 15, 2005, project site plan dated 512712005, and nreeting minutes of
S epternber 1 9'n and October 17 , 2005 . In addition, several propagation studies of other
alternate sites were requested and delivered for review. The RF propagation plots appear
to be reasonable results based upon both VeLizon's and independent tenain path and
propagation analysis with the exception of the issue regarding antenna pattern nulls
cunently being addressed by Verizon. Therefore, with this exception, the information
presented by Verizon and reviewed for this repoft is deerned reliable for establishing
need and estimating RF coverage from the proposed site and alternate sites.
CELL DESIGN
Verizon Wireless establishes RF coverage thresholds to achieve what it defines as
reliable covemge for its subscriber network. The coverage threshold is based upon its
colpomte design specifications and assumptions. Examples of the uriderlying design
specifications include elements such as receiver sensitivity, transmitter power, and
antenna configuration. Examples of design assunrptions that arc either built into the RF
propagation analysis software used to predict covemge or rnanually set by the software
Page 2 of8
Village of Cayuga Heights Decenrber 19. 2005
opemtor are signal fade level, signal loss penetrating a vehicle, and foliage loss as the
wireless signal passes through trees. These levels are used to establish the minimum
signal strengtlt covemge threshold for reliable perfornunce. The threshold includes a
moderate safety margin above the absolute minimum signal levels needed to avoid
dropped or blocked calls. Verizon Wireless established a coverage threshold of -78 dBm
for the proposed site. This threshold is consistent for suburban areas in this region. This
criterion is selected by Verizon for the specific geographical network area andtakes into
account the anrbient interference levels, the nature oflocal obstacles to the radio signal
propagation, and the nature of network subscriber conditions.
NEED - EXISTING and PROPOSED RF COVERAGE
Need for a new base station facility is based upon identification of gaps in the
existing and future RF coverage. Existing RF coverage can be estirnated by ionrputer
analysis using an RF propagation model that can incorpolate tenain variations, foliage,
and other significant obstacles, When necessary, RF drive test measurements can be
taken by a vehicle equipped with RF signal and location measurement equipment that is
drivett along the accessible roadways. During an RF drive test, the measured signals emit
frorn existing "on aif' sites and/or from a test antenna suspended at a known height by
use of a crane or existing stlucture upon which it is mounted. No RF drive test results
were submitted for this application although it has been obserued by town staff that such
tests werc conducted at the DPW water tank site. Through the use of predictive RF
propagation plots, and RF drive tests when necessary, a visual depiction of existing and
proposed coverage can be obtained and displayed on a map.
A geographic area nray exhibit numerous coverage gaps. A wireless service
provider will analyze their customer base and network traffic patterns to prioritize the
locations for new sites intended to fill the -eaps, New site locations nrust fit into the
existing wireless network in such a way as to avoid excessive covemge overlap while at
the same time providing enough overlap for call handoff, Once the decision to construct
a new site has been rrade, the service provider's RF engineer determines the location and
lreiglit necessary to fiIl the covemge gap, provide hand off capability, and,provide user
capacity to the area.
The plot provided by Verizon titled "Cayuga Existing" (see application nraterials
of August 2,2005, Tab E) shows a substantialarea of below-threshold coverage in the
vicittity of the Village of Cayuga Heights that is not covered by the cument on-air sites
located at Cornell, Lansing and Vama. Future sites have not been disclosed by Verizon
as part of the application materials, but there are likely to be one or more sites to cover
the nofth city and east bluffs of the lake area along Route 13. Connectivity to this
unknown site presents, according to Verizon, one of the limitations to reducing the
existing site's heigltt or using shofter stealth sites at alternate sites. Additional
consideration of a stealtlt site neal the cemetery (south of the proposed site) is further
Iimited due to stringent zoning restrictions on the land and the proximif to residences.
Page 3 of8
Village of Cayuga Heights Decenrber 19, 2005
The proposed site is intended to filI a coverage gap in the vicinity of the proposed
site and off-load traffic from the neighboring sites - Lansing and Cornell. Although a
wireless network consists of numerous base station facilities, individual site locations
(other than pure "capacity sites" that are intended to increase the number of subscribers
who can use the network in a localized area) are generally chosen to achieve the best
coverage of the major roadways and populated areas by a single site, Use of a single site
for each coverage gap areacollectively minimizes the expensi of deployilg the e1-tire
network. Sometimes the optimum location for a base station to achieve the best RF
coverage conflicts with local zoning and conrmunity values - an example of which would
be a non-stealth tower at the DPW water tank site considered earlier by Verizon but
whiclt is in close proximity to residences and which is zoned for residential use,
Conflicts between the technical and community needs are balanced by the rnunicipality.
the public and the applicant prior to and during planning and zoning public hearings.
The proposed site represents a technically viable solution to cover an area thatwill not be served by the cunently-known existing and future neighbor sites. 11 order to
meet their coverage need, Verizon's coverage objective for the present site is to fill the
gap to the west and east of the village center, the major roadways near the site, relieve
traffic frorn neighbor sites, and provide connectivityto the exisiing and future sites. As
shown on the map titled lcayuga Existing & proposed,' (Tab E), iire proposed cayuga
site provides substantial RF coverage to the area and meets the stated-objective.
Covemge of the area toadways permits Verizon subscdbers to receive, place and
nraintain calls in plogress while traveling along the roadways noar the site. The milimal
overlap to adjacent neighbor sites allows "hand off' to take place as the mobile user
migmtes from one cell to the next. Both coverage ald mininrum overlap are needed for
ideal reliable network operation. In addition to roadway coverage, substantial additional
coverage is provided off-road in the surrounding area.
Sometimes there is confusion by wireless phone users who believe that existing
coverage is sufficient when in fact it is not reliable. This can result frorn a mobile phone
user's experience at particular locations in the area. In other locations where the
propagation plots show less than the minimum RF coverage threshold, siglal strength
may in fact be too weak to support service. Depending upon the actual signal strerigth at
a user's location and other variables related to the user's phone and sunounding
obstacles, a user may receive wireless selice even thoug/r the service rnay be
intemrittent for other users. The network nrust be desigried to accommodate the
reasonably expected conditions for the majority of the subscribel base. The proposed
base station will ideally fill in those areas to provide reliable seryice.
RANGE LIMITATIONS
A wireless phone system conrprises a two-way communication link each of which
operates effectively on its own "channel". One channel is used for the link fi.om base
station to mobile (calted the downlink) and another for the link fiom the mobile
subscriber to the base station (called the uplink). If eitirer link fails, the call or servicewill be dropped. Unlike broadcast stations that can draw upon the electric utility grid for
Page 4 of 8
Village of Cayuga Heights December Ig,Z00S
energy to produce high-power transmissions that penetrate buildings and foliage, a
wireless telecomnunicatiotts base station does not operate in this mode becauJe even if it
could reach the distant mobile phone, the ability of the low-power mobile phone to reach
back to the base station is lirnited. The transmission power of the rnobile phone is limited
for hurnan safety concerns, but it is also constrained because of the limited power source
(battery) and an inefficient omni-directional antenna in the low-power rnobile terminal.
As a result, the rnobile phone signal is limited in its ability to penetrate through the same
obstacles on the uplink even when low-noise receivers and diversity receptioi techniques
are used at the base statiott. Therefore, wireless telecommunications systen6 are lirnited
l]l range especially in envirorunents where building, foliage and tenain are complicating
factors.
COLLOCATION and ALTERNATE SITE ANALYSN
There are no existing towels in the vicinity of the coverage gap and therefore a
new suppolt sttucture is required if the proposed site is to be used. A support stlucture istypically galvanized tower, but other alternatives can be considered. Wh;; a proposed
site does not need to be as tall and when the surrounding area permits, a stealih ,it.
"anbe designed' Exarnples of stealth sites arc those mounted on rooftops, the side of an
existittg building or agricultural structure (such as a silo), or upotl an aftificial tree
intended to blend in with sunounding foliage. Stealth siies require that the antenna
heights are consistent with the stealth struciure's height so as t; permit the desired effect.
Tlrere are no such existing structures upon which to mount antennas at lz0, .
One of the lirniting factors in the Cayuga Heights cell is the tenain and clutter
clraracteristics. Although the tenain in the villag e areadoes not change as drastically asthe temain to the west, nonetheless there are several key terrain features that cause
reduction to the wireless radio signal and may preclude use of a shorter tower at the
proposed site' In addition, even in the absence ofterrain variations, as the altenna height
is reduced the wireless signal must plopag ate at amore shallow angle and therefore
penetrate more obstacles on the way to and from a subscriber near ground level("clutter"), significant losses can occur. The same effect occurs when a base station must
deliver the wireless signal from a distance since the radio waves will generally encounter
more obstacles along the path and each one has the potential to substintially ieduce the
available signal.
Several of the altemate locations evaluated by Verizon were perfonned at tle
request of the village. Verizon discusses these sites at Tab F. Of the sites listed, Verizonprovided propagation.plots at 120' for (1) Triphammer, Cayuga and PyrarniO HAaUs 121St. Catherine's Church and (3) Village Frre Hall. To assess tlie possibilities of a srealth
1t-te plots were provided for (a) Dpw Hill at g0, (5) Dpw rank ar g0, (6) cemetery al
80' and (7) Country Club at 80'. Iu each case, these sites acting atone iait to provide
either the connecting g-yefap to the existing Lansing and/or Coinell sites for offloading
traffrc or they fail to fill the coverage gap suffrciently to satis$, Verizon's RF engineer. It
is unclear to what extent the anteruu nulls contribute to the failure. or whether and to
Page 5 of8
Village of Cayuga Heights December L9, 2005
what extent the future west area site would provide comection to the proposed site and
altemate sites.
in the evaluation of alternate sites, the lack of a connecting site to the west
prevents clear evaluation of whether othenuise viable sites might have worked. For
example, if Verizon was to decide to cover the city north area and Route 13 north of the
city, a site situated on the lake's west bluff would have almost unobstructed lirie of sisht
to the east bluff area and the top of the bluff. Such a site may well penetrate deeper iito
the Village of Cayuga Heights and relieve some of the constraint being placed upon the
proposed and altemate sites to cover far enough west to allow some future site to cover
only the face of the bluff. Since no specific infomration has been provided regarding a
possible west site to cover the city nofth and Route 13 areas, analysis of the actual need
to covel up to that area, while reasonable as an overall goal, is inconclusive as to the
required extent of required coverage'. It is reconrmended that Verizon discuss thgil
There are also questions regarding the nulls between sectors in the present
design2. verizon is using an LPp,40D-5 1+0" horizontal, 7o vertical,So eiectrical
downtilt, 19 dBd gain 21 dBi) on all three sectors, The 60o sector (sector 1) has 0"
mechanical down-tilt while the 180" and 300o sectors (sectors 2 and3) have an additional
5o mechanical downtilt to track the tenain rolloff. One of the noticeable characteristics
on some of the propagation plots involves the "null" between each of the antennas.
Unlike the Lansing and Cornell sites which appear from the propagation plots to be using
wider beamwidth antennas that each cover a substantial portion of a L206 sector, on the
proposed site and a.lternate propagation plots the same extent of angular coverage is not
obtained. Angles outside of the 3dB beamwidth experience signal reduction inihis case
of up to 20 dB, where the reduction is the highest at the boundaries between sectors (0o,
120', and 240') see Table 1. The problem is exernplified on the "Existing + proposed
120' '78 dBm" plot. On this plot, at bearings 0o and 120o in particular, the null arJa is
exhibited. The probleur is also evident on most other plots. Some of these nulls are cited
by Verizon as reasons to dismiss alter.nate sites.
I Chr Monday momiug as this relrort was being prepared for delivery, a response to the west bluff site
coverage was received indicating that such a site would aiso interfere with exrsting sites and tend to be
overloaded ffolu the norflr city subscribels. While tiris is true for any potential sit" io th. vicinify, it does
not satisfactotiiy provide coverage infonnation to terrlove tlie assumption ofneed for the proposed site to
cover to the edge ofthe east bluff and, therefore, the question of exactly what constraints are imposed by a
west site renrain speculative.
2 The mattel o-f antenna pattern nulls lias been discussed with Verizon's RF engineer as of this moming and
it is possible that suppienentary infor:nation will be available at the nublic hear.ins.
Page 6 of8
Table 1: Antenna Sector Beamwidth
Sector Bearing
(degrees)
-3dB point
angle
(deqrees)
'3dB point
angle
{deqrees)
Outside -3dB
beamwidth
fdeqrees)
1 60 40 80 0-40&80-120
2 180 160 200 120-160,200-240
3 300 280 320 244-280,320-360
Village of Cayuga Heights December 19,2005
For reason of lack of centrality to the covemg e gap areaprecluding not only
coverage but traffic offloading from the Cornell site, it is my opinion that the mall arca
sites are deemed unworkable and can therefore be disrnissed as viable altemate sites.
PROPOSED TOWER EXTENSION DESIGN
Some municipalities require design of new towers to support additional
conmercial and non-comttercial applications. Verizon has shown on the site plan that
the proposed tower will be capable of hosting a minimum of four wireless ca6iers.
Future wireless service providers will encounter the same terrain and propagation effects
as exhibited in the Verizon RF propagation plots at lower elevations. Other than
Cingular Wireless, which has expressed interest in collocating on the proposed tower at
100', there is no guarantee that any future wireless service provider would be able to use
the proposed Verizon tower especially at lower elevations. The proposed tower nray lack
centrality to their coverage need. If the site was a desirable collocation site, placement
of antenna arrays at lower elevations compared to the current proposed height of i20' (an
perhaps below Cingular at 100') will, for the same frequency of operation and design
tlu'eshold, result in less RF coverage than currently proposed by Verizon, increased
terrain "shadowing" and more obstruction losses. Therefore, it is possible that future
applicants nmy propose extension of the tower to achieve the required RF covemge
without shadowing by terrain. Wrether this tower and its fhundatign should be desiened
for Possible extension so as t-o avoid construction of a new tower at a nearbv site should
be disqussed with the applicant hefor.e site plan approval.
MINIMUM HEIGHT ANALYSiS OF THE PROPOSED TOWER
Basic parametric height analysis of the proposed site was provided by Verizon by
the submission of one plot of the proposed site at 100'. Paranretric analysis involves the
analysis of sequentially shorter heights to demonstrate that the proposed height is near the
mininrum height required for the site to provide reliable coverage over the extent of the
target area. The 100' plot shows reduced covorage to the west and development of a
larger gap area to the south east in the direction ofone ofthe antenna pattern nulls,
Whether either is in reality fatal depends upotl the depth of the south east gap (i,e. Is it
only marginally a gap or is it a substantially drop in signal level? Can it be remedied by
minimization of the anterura pattem nulls?) and whetlier the rcduction in coverage to the
west in reality precludes connection with a future west site on the lake bluff or elsewhere
(refer to the discussion of altemate sites, above).
Page 7 of8
Village of Cayuga Heights December lg, Z00S
RF DRIVE TEST RESULTS
No RF drive test results were submitted for review.
S UMMARY and RECOMMENDATIONS
verizon has submittgd RF propagation plots for the proposed site at 120, and100', and various altemate sites lolated iear .iisting structures or conxllercial areas thatmight have been amenable to a cell tower. Except 6r tne mall sites which lack centralityto the coverage gap area, evaluation ofthe other sites arc to one degree or anotherinconclusive since a connecting neighbor site to the west remains undefined and theeffect of antenna pattem nulls may affert ttte conclusions regarding viability especiallyon sites that almost achieve coverage. Verizon's argument a'gainst any of t6e altematesites relies in most cases_ upon the assumption that iwest n.i!nbo, site would be in thevalley and therefore,unable to provide any significant coverale atong the top of the bluffand into Cayuga Heights' Under this assumption, all alternati and shorter sites fail.However, if a west neighbor site was defined with the intention of penetrating as far asreasonably possible into Cayuga Heights, the constraints for the proposed site lray be
Plnd less stringent and rnay permit use of either u trOo"rO ttrigftt or stealth site,Minimization of antenna sector nulls by use of widel beamwidi-h antennas, or perhaps byrealignment of the sectors to achieve the necessary coverage, are being investigated byVerizon. It is possible that this information will be available at the priblic heaiing. Someof the alternate sites evaluated by Verizon at the request of the village and in preiarationof this review are located outside of commercial areas are conceived as poteniial stealthinstallations' Even if technically viable, ceftain of these sites present significalt zoling
and aesthetic issues that must be balanced. However, determination of whether a site canperfonn technically should take place before dismissing the site since stealth techlologyor zoning variances rnay make a site viable if it provesio be a significant advantage overthe proposed site,
If the village tlustees decide that Verizon is not obligated to disclose plans forwest neighbor coverage to the city north and Route 13 areas and if the nratter of antennapattern nulls cannot be resolved, then the constraints stated by Verizon that the proposed
site must cover to the edge of the east lake bluff by use of the 40o beamwidth alteruraswill dictate the dismissal of the altemate sites and any reduction in height at the proposedsite' If so, the proposed site at 120' will reruain the onty viable single-site solution ioVedzon's coverage gap that they have presented,
Thank you for the_opportunity to serve the Village of Cayuga Heights. If there
arc any questions or if additional items rcquire review and comment, please feel free toIet me know.
Sincerely,
[,tW;-
William P Johnson. Consultant
Page 8 of8