The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBill Johnson Supplemental Report- 111WiedmaierCourtWilliam P. Johnson RF Engineering Consultant PO Box 20263 Rochester, NY 14602 November 4, 2024 Town of Ithaca Planning Board Attn: Ms. Christine Balestra, Senior Planner Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Proposed Wireless Telecommunications Services Facility - RF Site Review for Verizon Wireless / “Sunny View” Site 111 Wiedmaier Court (Tax Parcel No. 56-4-1.22) Proposed 134’ New Monopole Tower plus 4’ Lightning Rod (138’ overall) Dear Ms. Balestra, On October 29, 2024, the planning board asked for our collaboration to develop some ideas regarding alternatives for Applicant’s proposed “Sunny View” site. In addition, discussions with the town’s attorneys today has clarified my more restrictive interpretation of the Town Code §270-219 R (1) (c) [2] regarding identification of a “significant gap” and preferred frequency bands. Their explanations have reconciled the meaning of the Town Code and my interpretation with the engineering issues associated with reliable wireless communications. This report will address (1) the finding of a “significant gap” in the target improvement area and (2) scenarios for alternate approaches to remedy the “significant gap” for your consideration. SIGNIFICANT GAP Our revised preliminary report hesitated to acknowledge a “significant gap” as we interpreted Town Code §279-219 R (1) (c) in a manner that was, on review by town counsel, narrower than intended. Applicant’s propagation plots for low-band (700/850 MHz) showed usable signal strength in some of the target improvement area. We therefore concluded that, if there is a gap, it may not be a “significant gap.” By contrast the dropped call data shows more than 11% dropped calls which exceeds the 1% national goal. While there are likely several factors that are causing such a high dropped call rate, one of the causes is due to lack of mid-band RF coverage in the target improvement area. Calls in progress using mid-band spectrum will Town of Ithaca Planning Board, November 4, 2024 Page 2 of 4 drop when a mobile user enter the area where there is no mid-band RF coverage. As a result, part of the 11% dropped call rate is due to an RF coverage gap in mid-band. Mid-band spectrum accounts for about 90% of Applicant’s licensed spectrum and is necessary to avoid dropped calls as mobile users enter the coverage gap area. Given the high dropped call rate it is arguably reasonable to then conclude that there is a “significant gap” in mid-band RF coverage. That gap is confirmed by the propagation plots in application materials Exhibit H. By way of explanation, our over-interpretation that was corrected by town counsel derived from the statement that “[a] significant gap cannot be established simply because the applicant's personal wireless services operate on a frequency which is not the frequency most desired by the applicant. An applicant's claim of need for future capacity does not constitute evidence of a significant gap.” Town Code §279-219 R (1) (c) [2] [a]. Therefore, based on town counsel’s explanation of the meaning of the section quoted above in light of an excessive dropped call rate, as is the case here, results from some form of a coverage gap. Whether the gap is the result of weak low-band signals in building or vehicles as noted in our last report, or whether it is the result of mid-band calls-in-progress dropping as a mobile user enters the target improvement area, the results point to a “significant gap” regardless of reference to a preferred frequency band. The remedy for the “significant gap” requires a new base station or other hybrid solution in the vicinity of the target improvement area that can provide sufficient low-band and mid-band RF signal strength to initiate, maintain and hand-off voice telephone traffic. Sufficient signal strength and capacity will also facilitate availability of data services since both the transmission and reception use the same LTE technology to allow two-way exchange of information. POTENTIAL “SUNNY VIEW” SITE ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS As evidenced by the high-level view of Applicant’s wireless network, huge geographic areas can be serviced by many relatively small-diameter “cells” that allow sufficient signal levels and user capacity for safe and reliable voice communications. Where there are large numbers of wireless users, cells must be small to allow enough user capacity for reliable service. This is called “network densification.” Network densification adds additional user capacity and targeted signal strength improvement in areas such as business centers and sport complexes where wireless subscribers congregate. Network densification often takes the form of splitting an existing cell into several smaller cells with commensurately smaller support structures or co-location on, for example, existing buildings or utility poles. In addition to network densification for capacity there are times when zoning considerations and aesthetic concerns could benefit from a similar approach. Town of Ithaca Planning Board, November 4, 2024 Page 3 of 4 In the present case, the alternate sites considered by Applicant are in close proximity to each other. Town Code §279-219 R (1) (c) [5] and following address the aesthetic impacts, property values, community character, and mitigation of those affects through siting, location and design. These items were discussed in the revised preliminary report last month. During the October 29th meeting, the planning board concluded that the close proximity of alternate sites did not offer much advantage to mitigate aesthetic concerns expressed during hearings. While Applicant did not offer any additional possible approaches identified by their site acquisition personnel, we offer some scenarios for the benefit of the planning board’s consideration that have been found to work in other situations where (1) land control can be obtained and (2) technical performance was adequate when zoning a proposed macro site did not fit comfortably into the community. We offer these scenarios for possible consideration and comparison to the proposed site to assess whether the proposed site meets the minimum intrusion into the community test. First, there are parcels closer to Route 79 in the search area identified by Applicant on the south side that have hills on which a structure might be located that has a view through the Route 79 valley and has potential for RF propagation from a similarly sized tower. We acknowledge that those parcels may not improve some of the issues of concern since there are homes in the area, but the locations may offer a shorter tower structure. With the advice of town planners, it is possible that one or more of those parcels might provide some improvement to the proposed “Sunny View” location – at least for minimum intrusion comparison purposes. This approach will need RF analysis by Applicant to determine the minimum height to achieve acceptable RF coverage, assuming land control is possible. Second, the land features to the north of Route 79 provides a backdrop of foliage in the vicinity of the search area that, arguably, could provide a backdrop for a stealth tree structure. Normally a structure that is dramatically taller than the existing tree canopy is not a good candidate for a stealth tree, but in this case there are similarities to a stealth tree that was deployed on the east side of Lake George where a ridge provided a foliage back drop when viewed from the lake. From the middle of the lake, it was nearly impossible to pick out the structure that was taller than surrounding trees from the backdrop canopy. The observer’s viewpoint will affect the perception of the stealth structure, but we offer this suggestion in case there are locations where the balance of other concerns may overcome the concerns for the proposed site. Third, we note that it is generally desirable to provide area coverage from a single site for impact on the broader community (i.e. one tower to mitigate rather than multiple although somewhat shorter towers, each with its own set of concerns) and cost of deployment. In the present case, the target improvement area is mainly located along Route 79 and the areas slightly to the south. Two properly positioned shorter base stations long or near Route 79 would likely have the ability to illuminate the Route 9 valley and provide some RF Town of Ithaca Planning Board, November 4, 2024 Page 4 of 4 coverage to the south despite the lack of need for enhanced capacity that would be provided by two sites. Fourth, there has been much information about the pros and cons of small-cell deployment. The limitation of equipment facilities, susceptibility to damage to utility pole wiring from wind gusts and falling trees, and the coverage limitations from a low-mounted set of antennas might balance the aesthetic concerns of residents while providing some reasonable service along Route 79, nearby roadways, and residences in the vicinity. We recognize that none of these options are likely preferred by Applicant, and that they have not proposed any of these options. We offer these scenarios to allow the planning board and staff to consider which, if any, might be viable and then allow Applicant to address their viability to the board. The result will provide the board an opportunity to assess the minimal intrusion on the community and decide whether the proposed site or another approach is preferable. We will be glad to assist as the board deems appropriate. Very truly yours, William P. Johnson RF Engineering Consultant to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board