Public Comments 04-30-2015 thru 05-13-2015 (file 2 of 2)

Proof of Need: The applicF. ' asserts (Exhibit 6, memo to the City i` i4ene from Gordon Snyder dated December 30, 3) that "South Chambers is designed .L andle high volumes of traffic in the area of South Chambers Street, «V 24`h Ave, W 18"' Ave. and the 1111n1Cdlate area. The site will also provide capacity for future growth, and improve signal coverage in the sul-rounding area." The applicant slates two capacity reasons (handle high volumes of traffic and providing for future. growth) its it need for the site. Yet the applicant has provided no proof of either high volumes of traffic or that future growth will require a site at this location. These are both capacity issues and data needs to be provided to prove the capacity need. If the issue is capacity, then the antennas call most likely be placed at a substantially lower height. We would reWilllllelld tll<lt the ~ipplicant he required to provldc. the inforniallon contained in E_. 111hi1 A. The applicant also states that the site is needed to improve signal coverage in the surrounding area. We find the propagation information to be inaccurate and incomplete as follows: 1. The location of the South Chambers site on the Odyssey map called "coverage with South Chambers" is not identified at the right location. This makes that model incorrect. 2. The scale of Exhibit 5 and the Odyssey maps is inconsistent. The locations of sonle of the adjacent sites are not shown on the Odyssey studies. 3. There is no information provided on the data input into the Odyssey system. We would recommend that the information in Exhibit B be required to show that the Odyssey maps are correctly showing the coverage. 4. We disagree with the signal strength shown of the Odyssey maps. The applicant states that they require-83dBm for motonvay and -78dBm for suburban coverage. I11 hundreds of other applications we have reviewed, including Voicestream applications, propagation projections at -95dBm for in vehicle or -85dBm for in building coverage are considered reliable. The applicant needs to state whether the applicant is designing for in-vehicle or in-building coverage. If the applicant believes that they need a stronger signal strength than -95dBm for in -vehicle coverage or -85dBm for in-building coverage, then we would request proof of the need for the stronger signal strength to include all data, spec sheets and other documentation. It must be noted that the -78dBm is over five times as strong a signal as -85dBm (each 3 dBm difference doubles the power) and obviously shows significantly less coverage on the Odyssey maps. 5. To prove that one hundred (100) feet is the lowest level the facility will provide coverage at, a study at ninety (90) feet needs to be provided with a narrative description of what needed coverage will not be provided by lowering the height of the antennas. This should be repeated in ten (10) foot increments until the lowest possible height is determined. 6. Propagation Studies vs. Field Testing (Drive Test Data): There was no drive test data supplied with the application. The applicant would have the City believe that the propagation maps submitted accurately depict existing and proposed coverage and that actual field testing to verify coverage is of no value. The industry commonly states that they believe drive test data to be more valid in predicting coverage than propagation modeling, yet they have provided no drive test data. Other noted issue: Photo Simulations: The photo simulations that were provided are not accurate. For example simulation one (1) shows the lights at three inches above the ground and the antennas to be three and five-eight inches above the ground. The documentation provided states that the lights are sixty-five (65) feet above ground and the antennas are to be one hundred (100) feet above 2