My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Public Comments 04-30-2015 thru 05-13-2015 (file 2 of 2)
>
OnTrack
>
CU
>
2014
>
CU 14-3
>
Public Comments 04-30-2015 thru 05-13-2015 (file 2 of 2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/22/2015 4:05:46 PM
Creation date
5/20/2015 8:10:54 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
CU
File Year
14
File Sequence Number
3
Application Name
ATT @ CROSSFIRE MINISTRIES
Document Type
Public Comments
Document_Date
4/30/2014
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
200
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
The Truth versus What They Originally Said was the Truth <br />`MANIPULATED' PROPAGATION MAP <br />SAME SITE, SAME HEIGHT, SAME SIGNAL STRENGTH, DIFFERENT COVERAGE. <br />Original submittal showing large gaps remaining at 120' Resubmittal, after CMS analysis <br />showed the original map was <br />manipulated' to [try to] show that 120' <br />tall tower would not substantially fill a <br />gap when trying to get a 199' tower <br />approved. Note: After CMS analysis <br />the large gap `miraculously' <br />disappeared at 120 <br />7 <br />Proposed Site Coverage 120 feet <br />Coverage W.1t Proposed Site 120 Feet <br />Coverage Rance, <br />Coverage Rancee: - ° <br />t X15 d8m <br />-85 dS~ <br />t <br />w <br />❑ t. © 1.00 <br />` ntwni-. <br />. tMl Ias xzll ~aS <br />Scale 1:32,370 ~ Scale 1:-Z2,370 <br />This is the bottom-line or underlying issue in most applications for a new facility, as it determines i) the technical <br />need for a proposed new facility at all; ii) the need for the specific proposed location; iii) the visual intrusiveness <br />(e.g. the need for a tower versus a co-location); and iv) the needed height of the tower). <br />The basic underlying issue is `Proof-of-Technical Need', which the 1996 Telecommunications Act allows a <br />community to require proof of. The point of this is to demonstrate that without the modeling information (i.e. <br />inputted variables) used to produce the maps, the map is useless and should not be relied upon, as it can easily <br />be manipulated to show a pre-determined (desired) outcome, as the original submittal above did. <br />Manipulating propagation maps to show a desired, pre-determined outcome is an all-too-common practice and <br />results in facilities being permitted for which there is no technical need or justification. All-too-many <br />communities simply take the applicant's word, which is not recommended as evidenced by the example above. <br />Avoiding the issue of verifying the technical need for what is requested is not doing the due diligence officials are <br />supposed to be doing vis-a-vis serving the public interest and protecting the nature and character of the <br />community. Avoiding the issue of verification of evidence, claims or assertions i) does not fulfill the mandate of <br />local government and ii) can create major political problems when it's discovered. <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.