Planning Board - Regular Meeting

the one on preeemption. Oh, good. Uh, think so. I'll double check. Thank you. I'm like 99% sure it Yeah, be sure to check if it won't work. Okay, we should be live. Good. Okay, great. I'll call to order the uh September 3rd planning board of the town of Rochester. To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Um, would you call the role? Yeah. Chair Jones here. Member Nelson here. Member Duda here. Member Basher here. Member Formald here. Member Pinsky here. member Roberts is capsent and Dave Gordon and myself. Dave Gordon's here for Christian is here for Greg Wner and Dave Church is not going to be here. Yes. All righty. Um so it's an easy agenda only one item on the agenda but I think it'll be a late night in spite of that. story.

What I'd like to do and the primary purpose is to have Doug Fishman here with us. Doug is the gentleman to everybody's left. Well, to your right to Zoran's right. Um so he's here as a result of a number of letters but particularly um one or two and we we received another one from uh Mr. Chamberlain, Dr. Chamberlain who is an expert in RF um electromagnetic radiation and its presence in um cell towers in particular and um given given the detail that he went into Dr. gentleman went into and some of the push back to the letters by Brendan Hennessy. Brendan is the gentleman in the middle and the letter by Doug Fishman. I thought we should spend one meeting talking about all of these comments and try to get to the the heart of the matter. Um, none of us are electromagnetic RF radiation and ionizing radiation experts, but we've certainly learned something. And I I think the the real issue is whether or not Verizon has done an adequate job in terms of the needs assessment in the area in which they want to put the new tower. Whether or not they've adequately assessed that and presented us with the data to allow us to move forward um under the assumption that there is a need for another tower. So um before I go get started with a series of questions that I developed and I want the board to participate uh in these questions also um I just want to alert you to the letters that I've received since we last met on November 10th. Um, saw on 11 and I did give you a list of I think most of

the letters in some degree of order, but the ones since November 10th was a letter from um Scott Olsen, actually from GSS, their biological firm um bio firm out of Texas who has um made the presentation to um to the government to um fish and wildlife regarding the environment and also regarding the animals and plants in the area. That was dated at 11:14 and essentially GSS contradicted the findings of Dr. Manville who had sent us a letter on 10:25 regarding the effect of radiation on birds. Then on 11:15, we received uh Doug Fishman's book, one of Doug Fishman's letter in response to Kent Chamberlain's first letter that happened on 11:15. On 11:11, we received a letter from uh Dave Gordon, uh our attorney, which was under the cover of uh attorney client privilege. I waved the privilege and made it public because I think it's an important letter. It was on the issue of preeemption and essentially our attorney has advised us that uh the TCA um the set of laws that envelop uh towers and the management of towers um does not permit us to consider the effect of RF radiation on humans, flowers, animals, insects or anything else. That's his conclusion. Um and I really go against our attorney overtly um at least. So um that's his opinion and it's also I

agree with it. It was well reasoned and um thank you for that. Then there was a letter from Scott Olsen um of 1124 covering a letter from Brendan Hennessy um dealing with the claims by Kent Chamberlain's letter of 115. So we have two letters Doug Fishman and Brendan Hennessy's letter dealing with um RF uh needs analysis or rather the um engineering needs analysis as to whether or not that tower is actually needed. So, we have those. And then just this past Monday, we received another letter from Kent Chamberlain, which is also up on MUN Collab, um, contradicting and challenging, disagreeing with both Doug Freshman and Bren Brendan Hennessy's letters of the previous dates that I gave you. So, it's um a lot of lettuce floating around and uh I'm smiling cuz it's I learned a lot, but my hair hurts. You can see my I don't have too much hair. Um so, anyway, I want to get into it. I did write a letter I um to Doug Fishman. I copied you all on it uh from yesterday, the second. Um, but I'm actually going to open it up to the board first if you want rather than go through u my letter. I do want to apologize on behalf of myself at least to uh Brendan for the uh letter that you received in the course of business here from the first letter from Dr. Chamberlain that I consider to be um not challen not the bit of challenging your professional credentials but just challenging means by which you got your um professional credentials. It just irked me to no end because my journey to get my credentials were pretty much the same as yours. So maybe it it hit a personal streak. So on

behalf of me and I assume the board just apologize for that. Anyway, um I've been assured that it won't happen again and I believe the asurances that I that I received. So we'll let we'll let that way lay on the table and leave it there. So does anybody from the board want to start or do you want to start with the letter that I sent out? That's definitely good. Okay. So, Doug, the first thing I want to know is for full disclosure purposes is can you just describe to us any relationships that you may have had in the past or currently with Verizon or with companies that have done work for Verizon? I just want that on the table for full disclosure.

Sure. First of all, I've never worked for Verizon. Um, secondly, my the company that I left three plus years ago, Verizon was a client. Um, I was the engineering lead and I worked with Verizon engineers mainly on inbuilding systems, but there was one outdoor system that we worked on with them, which is how I I gained some of the knowledge about the planning tool they use and how they use it. And I think it's it's an important piece of knowledge to apply to an application like this.

So you mentioned their planning tool. I assume that the needs analysis tool is going to the ATL tool. The forced ATL. Yeah, exactly. Do you consider yourself to have an intimate knowledge of the guts of that system or just a passing? No, very high level. I've never actually used the tool, but you know, based on what the engineers that I worked with, that was probably close to 10 years ago with it. Uh, you know, and you know what Verizon has said that, you know, how they use it. That's that's how I know.

Okay. Okay. All right. So, let's get right into it. I put at each place also a copy of 30 some odd pages that were in one of the documents that we got from Verizon. Dave, you have one too, which to me is the essence of the needs analysis. It shows the it describes the terminology that they they use which could be useful to a neoight and it also has the various charts showing the over and under utilization um of at the 700 megahertz and the 2100 megahertz and at what point in the eyes of Verizon it's time to look at providing addition additional capacity and then if you keep flipping there's an analysis of coverage, existing coverage at the different megahertz levels. U proposed coverage with the new tower. Um and then there are even uh pictures and um relationship to different focus areas in the area that they're trying to service better. Um including some areas on Polyana Place, Salata Osen, Upper Granite, Burn Road, Old Minowasa, and other places. So we may have pause as a group to reference this later on in in our discussions. So when I first when I read the first letter from uh Kent Chamberlain, it was interesting and um and I didn't probably take too much time to understand a lot of the details with the letters from Fishman and Mr. Fishman and Brendan and then the follow-up letter from Mr. Chamberlain. um I started to gain a keen interest in all of the particulars. So Brendan, I can think for starters um I'll jump right into the middle. There's

been a claim that um the TCA um only allows for Verizon maybe stating it um to put up another tower if there's a significant need for a significant lack of coverage. They also use the term well they use the term significant they use the term densification. So would you describe for the board exactly what significant or Scott if you want to jump in Doug you want to jump in describe what significant means and what this term of densification means and I ask about the densification because as we go forward and we look at the FCC broadband map which was described to me by you Scott they use 350 meter bins or segments ments you use 25 I think meter bins. Um but the fact of the matter within each of those home sites that have been identified it does record as being 100% uh coverage I'm wondering well what does it look like with the 25% bin uh coverage map? What does it look like with that? And do I really care whether the coverage is provided by Verizon or it's provided by AT&T or it's provided by T-Mobile or provided by whomever? Uh for the very simple uh matter that the town code doesn't talk about any one of those carriers. It talks about service in general. So why would I care which of the carriers provides that service? And I have to think, and I don't think we've ever asked this question, that the two other towers at Cord and Kirhunen, those other arrays, array two and array three, are not yours. There are some other carrier. I'd like to know which carrier

they are, which begs the question that about a fourth array on those towers or putting the 24th uh antenna at the top to create uh greater coverage. So for me, that's a mouthful. have challenges my technical ability. Um, but I'd like you to launch into a discussion of densification, significance of coverage, who's on those other monopoles, why should I care about what Verizon's coverage is, why should I, um, just care about, which is what the town code says, I should just care about carrier um, or rather utilization or ability to utilize my phone effectively regardless of whoever the carrier is. So,

can I jump in just because I think from the legal perspective that kind of sets the stage and I can answer some of those questions. Um, in terms of why should you care? You absolutely have to care because the law in New York is each carrier has a right and obligation to build out its own network. Fact that AT&T could have service in a certain area does not negate the fact that we have a right to build it out. Now there's a third depart third circuit federal case I believe that was done 15 20 years ago that said the opposite but New York has not adopted that. Um in fact the FCC says specifically you're paying billions of dollars for licenses. You have to build this out. So that's that's the I mean that's the legal answer to that one. Scott I'm sorry. You're saying the third circuit adopted an interpretation of the law that the FCC is blowing off and that New York State is basically following the FCC. And if so, what New York State decision is doing that before? Who's the third circuit? Is that Washington? No, it's New York State. Okay.

Pennsylvania. that into context because a lot of people used to argue 10 years ago that wait a minute the law says if you have service AT&T service in an area Verizon has no right to be in that area that was in the third circuit I 99% of third circuit but so that's what their interpretation was so some sort of state law that they're interpreting

I no I think it was just I don't know the details I just remember that that was the the argument that people were speaking that law has not been followed especially in New York. We just because AT&T may have service in a certain area doesn't mean we can we can go we should go away or you should not be concerned about it. What authority do the states have to make their own judation or their own procedures in the face of federal law from either the FCC or the appellet courts.

I think generally speaking the states are preempted and left with the responsibility to simply uh conduct land use and zoning. So but but they can but but on this particular matter of the coverage the states are free to make different interpretations of the mandate coming from the federal government whether I don't believe they are. So you say the third circuit made a mistake. It's not the first court that's made a mistake. Yes. That's the and this and this circuit has not followed it. Second circuit has decisions that are different than the third circuit's decision. Correct. I believe they do.

Can you send me some of those cases? and and also any FCC reaction that said we're we think the third circuit missed the boat and we're gonna we're gonna do whatever. I can see if there's anything like that. I don't know that they were to respond or well there be the FCC saying we're going to ignore not listening to the third circuit but making an interpretation after the third circuit that's at variance with the third circuit more in line with somebody else. Is that where we're going? What's that? Is that is that what you're saying? I'm sorry. I was taking right I'm saying is did the FCC come out with an interpretive

I don't know if they came out with an interpretive document. I'll take a look at some of the declaratory rulings and see if they mentioned it in there at all because sometimes their declaratory rulings will are intended to address some issues that come up and so that yes send me the basis for what you presented. Yeah. And Scott, I I think it's important because I I did go on to the FCC broadband site and I hit tilt on some of those home sites

and I saw that it lists AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, and it shows whether or not they have coverage or not. In fact, I did that after Chamberlain claimed that he had done it for a house or two at Salata Od Odin. Right. So, I did the same thing. Now granted that's at the 300 meter right look see whatever it's called bin whatever but it seems so it's kind of important because it was pretty clear to me that some of these home sites and they didn't do them all some of these home sites they had coverage um and but it was coverage from AT&T right

which gets to the point of maybe you can explain unless you have more legal points you want to make you can explain who's on your two towers now and at what level second level, third level.

Yeah. Well, so I want to just address that though because our position is regardless of what the FCC broadband maps say, they're done for a different purpose than what we do it for. And the fact that you have in these large areas and anyone and I'll let the engineers speak to it, but everything I've read from them, anyone that understands this would never use a 350 meter bin area to basically design a site. It just as Mr. Chamberlain likes to say, it's science and physics doesn't allow you to determine whether you have coverage or not. The FCC purpose is totally different than arts. So I just want to say that.

Um well, do you have at 25 bin levels? Do you have 25 meter rather? Sorry. Yeah. Do you have the information for each one of these home sites that we do have the 350 meter data for?

I think you'll see it's probably in the maps. you'd have to just find on the map where it is. The point is that, and again, I don't want to be the I'm not the engineer, but the point is that those FCC broadband maps, they overexaggerate. They other words I'm missing, but they basically smooth out areas to make it look like it's totally covered when it's not. So I think if you looked at Brendan's propagation maps and were able to determine where that specific address is, you can color coordinate it and see does it have service or not. So I guess you're going to need to convince me and may I don't know whether the rest of the board that the model the fork atole model takes into consideration your data at the 25 meter points and shows that there are significant gaps I'm using the word significant causing you to want to deal with that andor causing or causing you to say well I have coverage but I want to densify for different kinds of usages at different bandwidths. Do you see where I'm going with this?

Sure. I think so. I can try to answer it. Um, so is the board is the board okay with Okay. So, so we pursuing our meaning of significance versus improvement, right? That's your vision. Yeah. We don't have any responsibility around the word significance. I I read that code. because I missed it again. Uh I even taught myself how to do a word search for the word significant. Pretty good, right? And I I couldn't find it but once. So we have no responsibility around significance. It's need, right? I need but it's it's need. They talk of need

versus improvement versus well improvement is need. You have a need so you improve. So I anyway. So Brendan, convince me that around your coverage maps and your model, convince me that um it's way worse. It's significantly worse than what the FCC broadband maps are showing. Sure. So if you take a look at our coverage and apps provided in the which page you're on.

So you can pick any we'll look at. We'll look at page uh 17. Um so this is showing basically coverage down to 105 dBm RSRP which is basically the signal strength bra from the existing sites in the area and this is on the 700 MHz band. So the band that travels fair very uh more distance in general. Um, you know, if you look at that and then you pull up some of these maps from the FCC, you can see that there's areas on our map that show white space. Um and that basically means you know based on this 20 and I believe it's 20 meter data that we use. Um basically there's there's there's these areas that do have no coverage or or are weaker than neg 105 dBm in these areas. Um whereas if you look at the FCC maps they basically take you know 350 meter width of a hexagon. So the actual hexagonal area is much larger than that. Um and they basically average the you know and I don't and again the other problem with the FCC maps is they don't say hey this is the signal level that we're using to determine this. um they just say hey this has this 350 uh this 350 meter hexagonal area has coverage whereas if you look at our map you you know 20 I don't know the math off the top of my head but many 20 meter bins can fit inside that 350 meter hexagon so our resolution is a lot higher and that identifies more fine gaps in the network so where these 350 meter your hexagon

sit the average throughout that 350 meter area may constitute and again I don't know what signal level the FCC is using and there's coverage there but they are basically saying hey you have coverage here whereas we're looking more granular we're able to determine in 20 meter intervals what the coverage is predicted to be at those locations so for instance let's just take Route 4455 here on page 17. Um, and then you know the road going north, you know, uh, maybe Stony Hill up to the project area. Here you see a lot of white space. Whereas the FCC maps, they're showing these hexagonal areas where they're covering these areas where yes, we're showing some coverage and the averaging is saying, hey, you actually have coverage throughout this entire 350 meter area.

And what page you looking at for the 17? I mean that's a direct comparison but I'll at Mr. Chamberlain's first letter. Okay. Where he provides the actual just as a reference. Let me see if there's one that matches the area that I'm actually referencing here as well. I think he's mostly focused on the site area. He is um page 11. Is that

Yeah. 11 10 11 12. So those are the FCC maps that I know Mr. Angeline is basically referencing. When he let me be clear when he shows a white hexagon, let's say on whatever road that is my eyes, Stonefield Road, um surrounded by purple. What he's saying is this one hexagon has no coverage, but the but the rest of it blue. So yeah. So if we're looking at page 11, is that the one you're looking at? That's what I'm looking at.

Yeah. So basically this FCC map is saying, okay, within this one hexagon, you have no and and I think the map can change based off the percentage that you set too. So there's no reference to that. Actually, there is a color code here, a map legend. So, so basically a bin with that color, basically no color is 0 to 20% coverage according to the FCC. So, so his point is all the other hexagons are purple, but it's just this this lone hexagon that's in white. He's he's basically claiming, hey, all these other hexagons have 80 to 100% coverage within that within that 350 meter area.

And your point is that the hexagons are too big. They're too large to determine, you know, finer details. So my Brenda, this this one hexagon that's in white is admittedly that area covered by ledges where there there is no or there are no there is no signal occurring there. Mhm. That's the only hexagon area you're referring to, right? With no coverage at this point is all the other ones are purple. So yeah, we're just referencing this one because he's f is focusing on these and saying they're all covered.

Gotcha. So if you look at page 12, you know, all like the map on the bottom of the page, they're claiming there's 100% coverage throughout this entire or 80 80 to 100% according to the map, right? And your argument is that it's faulty because they're all average. Yeah, it's too it's too large of an area to to to really claim that. And again, what signal level is that representing here? you know on like if we go to u one of our actual signal strength maps not the best ever so page 19 we give three levels of coverage here and then which page

uh you look on page 19 as a representation it's a little hard to see but we have green yellow and orange and then that basically those colors are defined by three different signal levels and then on page wait when you say defined by three different signal levels You mean you mean to say you need all three frequencies to be represented otherwise it's a gap? No. So they're not different frequencies. So this is 700 megahertz coverage only. So that's the frequency but these are different signal levels. And then if you look at page signal strange

yeah there's a page that defines basically the level of ex of service you can expect. Page 15 basically defines the level of service you can expect throughout those color ranges. So dark green we use in the height justification section of this but not in the map that we were just looking at. So we'll just go with the green, yellow, orange, and white. So anywhere covered green or greater than or equal to neg 85 DVM typically serves suburban single family residential and light commercial. Yellow is the next gear down. typically serves most rural, suburban, residential, and in-car applications. Orange, rural highway coverage. But here's the key. Subject to variable conditions, including fading and seasonality japs. So fading is a phenomenon that occurs when you're moving to towards a site or away from a site. it can basically degrade the signal um that you're receiving just based off um the the RF that you're receiving and and you know you're moving closer or further away from it. It it's it's harder for devices to basically decipher that signal. Um and then seasonality gaps is basically now that it's winter, there's no leaves. um when leaves have moisture in them, they basically absorb the RF signal and it makes it a lot weaker in in an area. So the the orange the areas that you see covered in orange are subject to those kind of conditions. So yes, even though there may be some areas that are covered in the orange tier, it's not what I would consider 100% reliable due to those. And I think that's important to keep in mind. Um, and you know, as you look at the FCC map, it gives you one color. It doesn't give you signal strength. Um, it just says, "Hey, you have coverage."

And I I want to push I want uh Yes, sir. combine what Scott what Scott said. Are you also saying that one color with purple that it could be any carrier? It's that it's so you're you're you're integrating the coverage from all the carriers. So, it really depends on the map. So here you can see that the different maps that he has submitted in his first letter there's um a legend to the right of the map like for instance on page 11 this is of the chamberlain

yes it's his first this first submission page 11 it does not specify any carrier to the right. So if you go to page 12 in comparison, if you look in the same area to the right of the map, you can see that this data is considering AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon coverage. If you go down to the next map on page 12, so the map on the bottom, this is only showing coverage for AT&T. And I think the point of what we were making was he's using these maps like a map that shows only AT&T to say Verizon doesn't need coverage or Verizon has coverage there. That's just not true.

Or AT&T has it makes sense to me if the board this board's responsibility is only to have coverage. It doesn't matter what the which carrier it is. This makes the submitt from Scott that he's going to send me pretty important. So I want to see I want to see the discussion and you right does the board does that make make sense anybody from the board have it if you have coverage but it's different who cares who it's coming from well I think

I think there's an important distinction to make because while yes it's it's true that we have roaming agreements with the other carriers for 911 emergency calls. So if you're in trouble you got to dial 911. Verizon doesn't have service, but AT&T does. Yes, it will call 911 and you'll be able to reach those services. Where we're more concerned or where we should con what we should consider is let's say a family member has has a family emergency and they try to contact you. You have Verizon. You're not calling 911. You're trying to contact them directly. No communication, etc. Situations like that. Like emergencies don't just constitute 911 calls.

No. I guess the the more salient uh argument would be Scots that legally I can't I can't think the way I just spoke, namely I don't care who's doing the cover giving the coverage. You're saying that that's not what the law says. Think about it this way. What you're you're not proposing it, but if that was the rule, you would have monopolies because monopolies in various areas. And that's exactly what the TCA does not want. it comes right out and specifically says we want competition. It's important to have competition. They want carriers in every area. That seems like a pretty critical legal parameter for the board right now. So, we'll need to understand what the interpretation of that is in New York State. Yeah, that's that's fine.

Okay. Sure. Can I make this comment? So, Jen, just speak up a little. Sure. So, we're talking about these larger 350 meter feet bins. Um, and we're talking about, you know, maybe there is some other carrier that provides coverage. I guess the way I interpret all that and the question that comes to my mind is if another carrier has coverage, that leads me to believe they have infrastructure to provide that coverage. Therefore, why are you not able to colllocate on existing towers versus constructing a new tower? Yeah, that's why I would ask them who's on their other two towers. So I'm I assume there's an answer to that. Mhm. So

So yeah, each area exactly with Chamberlain the same. So each each network provider it's basically up to their discretion how to design their network. We may have different coverage objectives. So one site AT&T may be pointing their antennas a completely different way than where we can deploy our antennas to serve what we need to. But who's on which who's on the airord tower? I don't have the drawings in front of me, but typically each level on the tower represents a carrier. So So I assume you have the prime um level. I believe that's true, but I can you get us that information as to who's on the accord tower?

Yes, we could get you the information of where we are and who else is located. And Khungen Tower. Yes, sir. And then those towers, one is 160 and the other is 150 I think. Hi. Yeah. So there is the ability to do to have a fourth level of a of arrays. Correct. Um Verizon would never put two levels of arrays on on the same tower for interference issues. So Well, you have three already. You have your own AT&T and and uh T-Mobile. Yes. We all operate on different frequency licenses to avoid interference. Verizon would never put two in the city. Correct. Right. Okay.

And I don't know that we own those towers, by the way. I don't know that we are the owners of the towers if that means anything. I believe that Overland Towers owns at least one of them, maybe two of them. Oh, okay. So, but could you get us who the who's occupying which towers? Yeah. If Scott, if Homeland Towers owns a tower that Verizon does not lease space on, and if there's space available, we do lease space on. We are on both of those towers. You have three towers in your town.

We are on two of the three. The third one is the city city hall road tower, which is four miles away and interceded by the Kurhansson tower. So here's city hall road there. Here's Kurhansson. Here's the area. We're trying to cover this tower which we're actually going to try to go on and not provide service to this area. And if it could you you'd be deferring with your own signal. Yes. Exactly. Yeah. I'm not quibbling with your analysis of city hall. I And Doug, you basically agree that it's 4 and a half miles away. It would interfere with the signals. You going on city hall, as I understand it, is providing service to the northwest. Correct. Right. Yes.

Um, so I'm not quibbling with that. I just want to know actually that's the board wants to know is there any opportunity to be to increase your coverage on one of the other two towers question mark and to the point that one of you made that you would never put two aras on the same tower you need to explain why if if that's the case if you're on each one of those anyway I need to understand why you wouldn't do that

so it's the same reason you would never want to put two towers too close together it's again interference So we operate the same frequencies within a geographical area on the tower. So if they're too close, it creates what we call signar problems and it prevents um users from accessing the network. It it it decreases data speeds. It it can make you drop calls sometimes. Um it creates a phenomenon called pingponging where the phone can't decide which tower it needs to go to because it's confused. Um, so I mean if like let's say for instance a chord were at the top and there's room for a fourth at the bottom. If we were to put another level of arrays for us on the bottom, it's not it would basically make that tower unusable at that point for Verizon because now you're transmitting the same frequencies um out of the same location and it's it's going to create massive interference. It would be something you would never do. Okay. So, I'm going to hold you right there. And it's not that I don't believe what you just said, but we're paying a guy, our consultant here to comment

and you spend the next couple of minutes commenting on what we've heard so far, not the legal stuff, but all the other the coverage stuff, the interference stuff. Would you tell us as our consultant? Sure. What you agree with, what you don't agree with. Sure. So, starting with the interference and speak up a little bit.

Sure. Sorry. Starting with the interference question, um today's technologies, both 4G and 5G, the carriers are using signals that are all operating over the same frequency band. You know, whether it's a 10 megahertz or 20 mehz wide channel, they're all using the same frequency. So that's why you've got to be very careful in coordinating the locations of these sites because where they overlap, you're going to have what what he referred to as sidearm, which is really good signal to bad signal issues, right? Because you want you want to have what's called the dominant server in an area. That's where you get the best quality coverage where you're served by one site much better than any of the sites around them. That's where you're going to get your clean channels. That's where you're going to get the greatest data through best voice quality.

And is that accomplished by there was one of the letters talked about the asimoth of the of the arrays. Is that accomplished by adjusting you know to from 120 to 210? If that helps, that helps because that helps steer the coverage so that you're you're doing just that. You're creating areas of best server, dominant server, as opposed to having big overlap between sites where you could start having these interference issues. And if all these carriers are using the same bandwidths,

so let me correct you. Verizon within their network is using the same bandwidth, the same channels distributed over their sites to create ideally a homogeneous coverage to an area. And so how do they avoid interfering with some other carriers bandwidth? because they have distinct licenses and distinct areas within the frequency spectrum that they can operate.

So if they're if they're transmitting at a particular bandwidth, would it be appropriate to say 700 is it an example of bandwidth? So 700 talks about the frequency for all bands which covers you know 50 let's say 50 megahertz of spectrum within that spectrum they break it up into channels. All right. So if they have a license for a particular bandwidth or channel Yeah. somebody else cannot correct. Okay. Correct. So that's how they manage between the different uh carriers. Yes. Yes. And that's why you can't put essentially a second site at the same location as an existing

because you interfere with yourself. Right. Right. Okay. Okay. Any other comments on?

So, um I I didn't disagree with anything you said, but just to add a little more color. Um I know the issue of collocation came up relative to um you know why if AT&T has coverage and there on those two towers, don't you? Um it's because they really are independently designed network. AT&T is going to be on that tower at a different height. They're going to be using different antennas. They're going to be using different transmitters. Um, their network is configured differently. It's it's there's a lot of differences that can cause variation um whether you know when you're on the same two or three sites. So it's really carrier specific when we look at coverage.

So it's not as simple as saying we'll just put another set of antennas on this thing. Exactly. Exactly. And that's why they go through this kind of analysis to say okay I need to cover if you've got an area where you need to cover for capacity reasons for coverage reasons for for combination like this you want to be as close to that area as possible that's going to give you the best best result in terms of performance and um you know if you're going through all this to build a tower you want it to be a tower that's really going to meet all of the employment's objectives.

So, explain to me why Brendan did a little bit of it. Why does the FCC want stuff that is highly subject to to a lot of misinterpretation? Why do they want it done at 350 m? Um why don't they ask it? It's simpler to do.

Yeah. Much less data to deal with, right? It's a much higher level because they're doing it across a huge area, right? So, you know, it's just easier to to to map out. I mean, if you think about 350 m is like 210 of a mile. It's a huge area when it comes to looking at the variability in coverage. And I I just want So what I find mathematically it escapes me. You're saying that they average it within that 350 by 350 area.

I don't even know. I I didn't read whether they average it or they're just taking a sample within that area because if they average it, how could you possibly come up with 100%. Right. Right. Right. It's got to be less than 100%. Theoretically, yes. But again, they don't list any single levels. They don't list the the the you know how when they did that you know there's a so many unknowns with it and it's so so are they averaging Brendan or are they I I'm not sure the answer to be honest. Am I wrong? I know I know that I may have said that before but to be honest it's all right it's in all the reports average

I don't know if it's an average or like Mr. But that doesn't make any mathematical sense. Pulling a sample. But yes, I agree with what you're saying. If it's average of 100, then everything has to be 100, right? Right. So yeah, I'm not I'm not sure how they're formulating that 100% value on those online maps. Um but because they're not measuring they're not producing signal strength. So you can have a small small strength, high strength and everything 100 less than 100,

right? And we don't and we don't know um what signal threshold constitutes coverage uh as defined by the FCC. And maybe that is in their in their website a little bit deeper, but um you know we we basically in our maps we define what the signal levels are, the frequency band. Um I think it's important to say that the FCC maps are generated off of data provided by Verizon. So, we are not we're not disputing the FCC maps per se. We're just saying they're the maps that the FCC provides and the maps that we provide are for very different reasons. The FCC maps are generally for consumers where hey, I might be looking to move to an area. I'm curious what I can expect for wireless broadband service in this area. Let me go to the FCC map. It's very userfriendly. Again, it's very lame and everything's very simple. coverage, no coverage, it doesn't get into frequencies. Um whereas our maps, you know, we have smaller bins for higher granularity. Um you just you you couldn't use the map that an FC the FCC provides to design a network. You need that additional detail of frequency signal level uh in order to to to make the best decision for your network. Um

so some of the um the data that you have in this document there was a series of arguments going back or debates going back and forth between the experts Doug Brendan and Mr. Mr. around Chamberlain having to do with approaching the dotted red line that goes through across one of the charts. And in every case that I looked at, not in every month, not in every time frame, but it looked like the 700 megahertz was over capacity according to your charts, but the 2100 was under. I mean it was it was over slightly except there were huge spikes here and there. I don't know what that was representing whether that was representing holiday call time or

it could be an event in in the area for which that site serves. But the 2100 there wasn't a lot of variation and it was under that dotted red line that you said was the capacity number that you should shoot for. Over it is a problem. Under it is not a problem. Why is the 20? So again, why do I care about under capacity when you got a problem with the 700 MHz, but you don't have a problem with the 2100?

Sure. So in general, the 2100 megahertz uh band doesn't serve as far or and basically by function as many users. So, um, in general, when you're talking about capacity, unless you're in a very dense urban area, it's going to be the low band that gets overloaded because it it handles a majority of the geographical coverage. And another thing that needs to be considered as part of capacity is the um the efficiency of that service, right? So the further away we call it edge coverage of a cell site so the very very outer limits to which that cell site can serve even if you're getting service out there you are sucking up a lot more resources from that site in order to make that distant service work. So again it's that 700 megahertz band that we're really concerned with because it reaches out far. It covers larger geographical areas and it it serves the cell edge um which which drives up the resources of the site that are required to to

so it's a 700 megahertz frequency the one used by cell phones 700 and 2100 and 2100. So it's just a matter of different ability to to reach the distance. Yeah, it has nothing to do with um if I'm downloading uh Netflix, I can only use 2100 or I can only both frequencies provide all the same services. It's just a matter of distance. Isn't 2100 have higher bandwidth?

That yes, 2100 has higher bandwidth. Um so typically we'll give you higher data speed, etc. But we don't limit certain services to a 700 versus 2100. It's just a matter of like if you had an area covered by 700 meghertz with only three users in it, you're going to get very high data speeds. Um it's it's when you get more users onto that low band, smaller bandwidth on that edge coverage. Now that site has to work really really really hard in the 700 MHz band to provide that service and and that's where you run into the capacitations. So the variations of in your charts at the 700 megahertz levels the spikes that I saw they were primarily in the October November time frame for each of the beta sites and the alpha sites. I think that's when it was 700 MHz in general is pretty much over the threshold. I should actually look this up.

Yeah, that's one 100 megahertz, I think, is what you're referencing where once in a while it bounces above, but for the most part, it's below. Um, all right. You're right. I got it backwards.

It's okay. Yeah. One one important thing to say though is just because the 2100 is below that line, site development takes a long time. So, we need to be very cognizant of, hey, we're are starting to get close to that utilization. Yes, we may not be there yet, but by the time we get a site through development, maybe we will be. And we need to stay ahead of that. So, just because it's under the line right now and may not be affecting service or dropping calls at this time, we need to make sure that our sites don't ever reach that condition, which these sites clearly have on the setup.

And you said something about coverage during the time of the year. Help me with that again. So seasonality I think is what I I spoke to earlier and basically that's just going to affect your signal strength. Um and that's that's due to foliage. It it sounds silly but that's that's really it. Um so leaves with the moisture when the RF hits it it RF gets absorbed to a certain degree. Obviously, it still penetrates through to to a certain degree, but um you know, you may notice that in the winter months you have better coverage in areas where hey, I was here in the summer and I didn't have good coverage. So, it it leads to to those kind of conditions. Doug, no, I'm sorry. I

ahead.

I just wanted to This is a great conversation in a way. I'm sorry you have to go through it because obviously you don't these guys do this all the time. So then it's pretty it's pretty high high level stuff. I want to just step above a little bit and just make a couple observations on these issues. One um that capacity issue is an important issue. Capac that capacity issue and it goes to something you said Mr. Chairman in the beginning what which you referenced densification and in Mr. Chamberlain's letter, he does point out the issue about, well, if you have capacity, that doesn't necessarily mean a significant gap. And and what he's getting at is that in one of the FCC documents, the rulings, they basically said, hey, coverage gaps, it's just one example of need. You could also have capacity as need. However, in full disclosure, there was a district court in New York that said, we don't buy that. So that's probably what he's getting at saying, hey, capacity cannot be your sole reason for need. And my point that I'm making is we have it's a dualpurpose site. We have significant coverage gaps without capacity issues at all. And that that would address Mr. Chamberlain's

tell explain the difference.

Yeah. So the cap um so the capacity is you are in an area where each each site has x number of channels that can use and each channel you know provide service to x number of people. I don't know the specific numbers may maybe these gentlemen do but the point is that at some point say the khansson site you have more than 3,000 people using the site at a time. Don't quote me on that number but and but the site can only handle less than that. So you have a situation where your your capacity you're over capacity you can't take new calls. So if someone tries to access that network that antenna it's going to fail.

So capacity so capacity is the ability to reach a certain number of customers and coverage is the ability to reach a certain area. I So you could have you could have coverage but not capacity. Yeah. Let me put it that way. So, so you can you can have areas where you have sufficient coverage, but capacity is already maxed out. You can reach an air you can reach aerially, but you can't you don't have you don't have enough capacity for the people.

Yeah. If anyone's ever been to like a high capacity um venue, um you know, sometimes if if the system within the stadium or or wherever you are doesn't have enough capacity to support the users, you'll look on your phone, you'll have full bars, 5G, and then you'll go to you'll go to check your Facebook and it just spins or or you go to make a call and it takes forever, doesn't connect, doesn't connect, call fail. So the bars represent coverage typically. Yes. Okay. Which is aerial. So that's like a signal strain. You have coverage but you don't have capacity. That's all right. So Scott, come back to your talk your um description of densification.

So yeah. So when I read Mr. Chamberlain's most recent letter, he focuses very much on capacity. As a cynic, I think he's doing it intentionally to avoid the coverage issue because he just makes a reference of like, oh, they have tiny coverage gaps. They're not tiny coverage. They're three miles long on 44 and 55. And kind of going to the conversation I think Dave and and the chairman will have before. What's significant? Well, there is case law on that. I can provide that to you. And a three-mile gap is without question a significant gap which needs to be covered. We have federal law on that. Um, so I just think that yes, you're talking about capacity and Brendan believe, you know, you have a capacity issue, but what Mr. Chamberlain is saying is, well, maybe that doesn't totally justify need under the law. We're saying, but look to the coverage issue because we have major coverage problems. What I'm trying to point you to, um, the second thing about Mr. Chamberlain's letter, you're talking about all these issues about the FCC broadband maps. I'm not so sure that he disagrees with what we said because he didn't really respond to the issue about 350 meter bins. He didn't in fact he even said okay maybe the FCC maps have some limitations but he didn't really go into it. So my view of that is he hasn't refuted it. You know there's a major difference between 20 meter bins and 350 meter bins as these gentlemen have spoken about. So maybe he doesn't disagree with what our arguments are on that.

So um don't could you comment on based on what you know their forsk appole model are they using 25 meter information or 350? Honestly, are they in and now I'm asking you for I would be shocked if they were using 300 of it. I again I haven't used the tool but 20 m is typical from what I've seen but what do you use? Yeah, I'll tell you right now the maps that were generated in our engineering necessity case here use 20 meter data.

Okay. Okay. Um, the board have I have more questions. The board have any Zorian had a question. Did Yeah, but she has a question. Okay. Um, we talked about the over under capacity. Rick, just one second. Yep. Are we having problems with you? I just can't get it to go back up. Oh, it cut out before. I can get it to go left and right. We had that problem before when I was here. I think it has to be physically physically put. Get a letter. I did the last time. I say I can't reach that. Do we have a broomstick?

Yeah, we have the flag pole. I don't know.

How's that? A little more. There you go. That's better. Boom. Cool. Oh god, full problem in the middle. No, no broken neck. Um, I really have a lawsuit.

Talk to me, Doug. Talk to me about um dropped calls versus no call versus the FCC data being based upon as I understood it inhouse versus standing outside sitting outside in your car. Do you have any insights to this no drop no call drop calls?

Sure. Let me let me start with the issue of the where coverage is being measured. Right? So in nowadays the major the vast majority of cell phones in decision is not you know out in the open st you know standing on the street walking down the street. That's a very small part of it. You're either in your car, in your house, in a restaurant, in a store. That's where the vast majority of usage happens. And that's why And that's based on data. Yes. Okay.

Yes. I'll take that. I mean, you just think about everyone here. Think about where you use your phone. That's why Well, if you're in New York City, you're for sure. New York City, it's probably 90 plus percent are not on the street.

But that's why in in Brendan's maps, you've got those different colors, right? The the weakest cover color just basically looks at outdoor government. Then the next level up looks at, you know, in car coverage and, you know, lighter kind of buildings. And then as you get higher, you can penetrate further into buildings. Right? So the stronger your signal, the more people you can cover, not only from a geographic area, but from where people are actually using their book. Okay. Um the issues of drop calls versus incompleted calls. Basically, if you're able to get through with the network and then you're you lose your call, that's that's generally what's considered a drop call. But you can also have a call failure where kind of what Brendan was describing before where you try and make a call and you can't even access the network. That's not counted as a drop call, right? So that and and you've got plenty of problems with that in addition to drop calls, in addition to calls that are poor, you know, poor quality that people hang up before they drop, right?

That is not recorded as a drop either. So the the thought about using drop calls as the metric for determining the quality of service is just really not it doesn't the full picture. Well I may not give you the full picture but it's part of the picture. Why would part of the picture? Why would you not include it? Um because we can we can already tell by our capacity utilization that trying to talk a little louder. Sorry. We can tell already by our capacity utilization which we've given that those problems are having that out there. So it's we have this data.

Is is there data? So you're saying your model takes that into consideration. So this isn't a model. This is this is data recorded from these on air sites. Um oh so those charts these are this is historical data from users in the network. All right. So that's not coming out of that, not coming out of the magic box. The other issue with dropped calls would just be let's say you had dropped call data.

What I mean what are you going to do with it? How what threshold is the appropriate threshold? Um, you know, there are a few cases that talk about it, but what if we said, okay, the drop calls, and I'm not saying this is the case, but let's say if we had 90% drop call rate, maybe most people would say, okay, that's pretty significant. I don't know. What if it was 5%. You have the data though, right? But what but if you get the data, what are you going to do with it? Well, wouldn't that help with assessing the over the um the coverage in a particular area? Not for our purposes. No,

I think ultimately I think that's a decision for the board to make in terms of need. But I think what your better argument is the one you just made a two minutes ago, which is that if you had 5% drop calls, that's indicative of a higher percentage of problematic calls, the calls that people hang up on because they get upset with it or calls that um you know otherwise are never get through. And isn't that your better argument than we then what number are we going to use? Because if this were all reduced to numbers, the board would have to choose one at some point. Well, it's I think the the better argument is the one I've never made yet, but is basically that when a town municipality like this doesn't have a requirement in your code, if your code doesn't require drop calls, again, federal case law says you can't require it. It's it's that clear. We the carrier gets to decide what the need justification is. I'll provide I've actually provided the case. It's in the record. I'll provide

that one page. You did provide me something. It's the crown castle fiber v town of moisture day which was 2024. I don't have the site on top of my head but it's definitely on the record. I can I'm making a list of things right. Um that's just the court. Correct. So sit here Scott one page just it had to do with No, but I I may have It had to do with the village of Floral Park. No, Oyster Bay. Oyster Bay zoning board of appeals. There are a couple Oyster Bay cases that

you let off by saying federal law interpreting the Telecommunications Act of 96 does not require the submission of drop call or drive test data. Correct. To determine the need for a site. Is that what you're referring to? Uh it's possible that if if in that there's a citation to Crown Castle Fiverr, the town of Oyster Bay, a 2024 case, then then I'd defer to that. Yeah. Ju just to jump past the um the prospect of going to be talking past each other again. Are there since it's a district court, are there any other cases in different district in a different circuit that are against this?

Not aware of any, but I haven't researched that specifically. So, but not aware. So you're saying that because it's not in our code, we can't ask for No, no, you're not saying it. You're saying what they're providing. You know, that's what the case is. The CA the court basically says, listen, if a local code requires that information to be provided, it should be provided. But the court then says, but if it's not required in the code, there's no require there's no requirement. And the carrier gets to decide how to demonstrate need. I know that may sound counterintuitive, but it's Yeah. Why wouldn't you want to give it to us? Oh, because you have to interpret it then. And and we know that we have a need for this. But it may it it makes your case stronger.

It may or may not. I mean, which is it? Does it make it stronger or does it not make it stronger? Well, it depends. Like what if we had because the cases on this issue are not are far and few between in a sense. So there's no I don't think it's a standard as to really what is need in terms of a drought call. So you might see a percentage of dropped calls and you might have seven different opinions about whether that demonstrates need, but again you you've made you've made a reasonable argument that the drop calls underestimate the the percentage of the problem percentage of problematic calls. Yeah, I think that's what Doug was saying.

Yeah. But why would wait a minute why wouldn't I assume that your inability or your lack you're not wanting to give me the job call information is indicative of that it's not it doesn't support your case for lack of capacity or lack of coverage. I'm not sure I'm following that code. Suppose you have no drop calls. Why would you give me the data that says no drop calls? Then I'm going to look at it and say what the hell do you need another tower for? Well, because we have significant gap in service at three or four miles long that we've shown you and that in you have a gap in service with no job calls. Well, you might have you might not because if you have no signal signal, you're not going to have any calls. You can't access the network.

But if I'm driving if I make a call, I'm driving around and I go into your your three or four mile area that you know it's going to take me 10 minutes to drive through, the call's going to get dropped, isn't it? You're not even power. If you originate the call in an area that you can originate the call in. Sure. That's what we you know on our roads that's the situation we're dealing with. There's calls originating at all points on the road and if I'm outside the area and I drive into it, it's going to get dropped. Stop posing a three or four mile long gap. That's not going to Cole's not going to survive that.

No. So why so if we let's just say that's a given. You have a coverage problem. So why wouldn't you give us the information to substantiate that coverage problem? It's not a because we've always given you the information doing it with you didn't give us the drop calls. Yeah, but there's no requirement. The drop calls is a requirement. I mean where does that come from? Why shouldn't I suspect you don't want to give it to me because it's it's not a good story for your

It's it's it's it's deeper than that. There's some proprietary information that Verizon Wireless generally doesn't want to give up and that's that's some of the information that they they have made a decision on a national basis that we prefer not to do it because they have invested significantly in these models and and using capacity data and that shows them there's an absolute need. That's why they do it. Do these models have to be licensed by the FCC? Do they check them and say, "Yeah, okay. This is You're not playing with the numbers. You're not playing with the uh the model." Are you referencing the models that are used to create the maps?

The model that you use to create the need for another tower, which is the force at the right. Okay. So, let me just jump way ahead. I think it's one my next to last question or last question. How do I know that the model hasn't been juryrigged to give you the result that you want? Like who's adjudicating that the model is being done properly? Well, I think that's why you hired someone like Mr. Fisherman to Well, Mr. Fishman just said that he doesn't he doesn't know the inner guts of it. I've talked to

Right. But Right. I don't know. I can't guarantee that everything is done, you know, exactly the way it optimally should be done. But based on the maps that I see, it seemed reasonable to me because I've reviewed hundreds of these things, if not more. It doesn't look like there's any big fish going on there. That That's all I can say. You know, I've seen enough of these that I I'm I believe what I see and again the inside years ago when I actually saw an engineer using it was, you know,

because one of the arguments that the opposition has made in both of their letters. Yeah. And in Comey's letter also, I think, was how could you or Brendan say that the models are fine? they if you don't know what's if you're not willing to tell us what's in there, nobody can check to see what's in there. Nobody's checking to make sure there isn't any monkey business going on in there. You know, how could you, Doug, as a as a third party attest to the accuracy of the model when you don't know what's in the model?

It's a good question. I just know the inputs to the model in terms of the tower locations and the antennas and and all that. But in terms of what's what are called the propagation parameters that are in there and how they're adjusted, you know, generally, you know, I don't get visibility that level of detail. And even if I did, it would be hard to make make a conclusion. Doug, do you have experience with other cell tower licensing at the local level um proceedings such as this one? You mean other

other towns, other applications? Um to what extent does the use of a model like this with whatever opacity it carries, is that typically used to determine whether or not there's a need? Yeah. And to what extent is the sort of um kicking the tires that we're doing on this assisted by the commenters, to what extent are we um sort of doing what what's typically done? What extent are we going beyond it? What to what extent are we basically putting them through their paces in terms of what other the typical licensing procedures that you would see in your in your practice?

Um you are going beyond what's typically done. Um, and I understand why in this case, but again, I' I've been through this quite a few times. I've seen maps like this quite a few times. There's there's there's a lot of similarities in what I see, you know, the variations due to to terrain and do due to all that all show the way that I expect them to show on here. And AT&T would be making a similar type of

similar they use a different tool, but it's the same idea. These tools are are the engineering tools that they use to do their jobs to make sure that the network is, you know, is built out and and performing the way it's supposed to be. What what states are you familiar with local local permitting in uh New York and New Jersey

just again for the legal perspective the case law historically says these models are what has been used that is in fact I've never provided dropped call data in 30 years of doing this but doesn't mean drop call data hasn't been provided is in other places, other states. But the point is that the federal cases will will show it's these types of models that are used and it's an industrywide standard. It's the accepted standard. Um, and Verizon Wireless has zero, um, they're not going to put parameters in there that don't match their network because why would they spend a half a million dollars or more on a site that's not needed? That's just the common sense business reason.

We don't build sites we don't need. Okay? Uh, we don't waste that type of money. But having said that, you still have the technical justification for you. But that's what I always tell people. We're not doing this just for the fun of it. There's a need for us.

All right. Unquestioned out. The board have any final comments. U reading the last letter of Mr. Chamberlain. It seems to me the main argument is about uh proving the modeling of the signal and uh basically validation of the of the software, validation of the results and This is to me it's main core of the letter. He basically saying prove it to me by again providing drop data and I am coming from engineering or one time of my career I was working for nuclear power plant seismic stress analysis and uh our software obviously we couldn't validate result every time but there was a center which particular run validation of the software was was experiment and they proved that software was was valid in your case you already have a data but you don't want to disclose them but prove by those data that your modeling is correct that's essentially what whole argument main argument of Mr. government all other stuff is kind of discussible you have this opinion that opinion but he basically asking all right you you have analysis pro that why that is my comment so so what prevents you why is

it so proprietary data you you you can show some of that I I don't know why is it proprietary that's my my question I'll I'll in terms of the why is it proprietary I'll talk to the people that make I'll not I won't get to them but I'll talk to the people I can talk to them to find out what their rationale is so we can provide a response

and whatever I read says uh drug data is that quality drug data rate quality drug call rate it's one of the main parameters of the quality of the network. So why it's not present here? Why you hesitant to to compare that with with your result and say all right this is proof that our analysis is correct. That's essentially my my question. I will get some information on that for you. The um Doug, I want to come back to you. In your first report from February, um you analyzed um these essentially you analy and one of the things that well more than this, but one of the things that you made comments about was the adequacy of towers at 100 ft, 120 ft, 145 ft, and 160 ft.

Right. You said at 100 don't bother building it but at every other height obviously 160 or 165 would be optimum but it would be fine at 120. Speak to that again.

So I think I said something like there wasn't a significant difference as once she got to 120 and above. Um, I think my feeling and I don't remember what Brendan said in this report to be honest with you who I don't know is if you're going to be building a new tower, you want to build it so that other carriers can use it for collocation, right? Because you want to minimize the number of these towers in your town. So if the minimum height that you can use is let's say 120 ft and you build it at 120 ft, chances are that the other carriers are going to have a similar minimum height and it won't want to colllocate or won't be able to colllocate on that because they're below the tree line. they're below whatever was causing those propagation issues. So again, I don't remember your rationale, but I would say okay, 120, 140, 160 are good. I'm comfortable going down to 140 which will leave some room for the two additional authorities to be at 130 and 120 in case they need to improve coverage also in the area to allow collocation.

So your comment about 120 was was anticipating that there would be collocation. Yes. As opposed to well if they were the only ones using the town one would be fine. You're saying then what are you going to do if AT&T goes? Exactly. It was also and that would be another tower in the town, right? And you don't want that. So it was also based on do you do do you are you recommending or observing um that 120 is a good height because you're also observing that 100 is what they really need and you're bumping it up 20 feet to capacity.

No. No. The 100 was was not good. I my comment was 120 and above there weren't really significant improvements which yes from 100 to 120 there were significant improvement but then you were above whatever the terrain is. So even apart from collocation 120 is the lowest is the lowest in your view is the lowest level where they get the coverage they need. Yes. I believe Scott, didn't you say that you didn't care about collocation? It wasn't your concern in the previous meeting.

I may have said it hopefully not too snarky, but like we don't care about collocation in the sense that we don't care if people come or not. However, we will design the tower so that if colllocators do come, it's available to them. Peter, Doug's point is that we should care about collocation. Do some lumber towers. No, I understand that. Yeah. But but they go they can go over 145 for collocations, right? Well, not if the tower is built at 120. Yeah, they can increase five. Wow. Or it's structurally if the tower is designed in such a way. So, it's a maximum that structurally it can support that and you build it initially to 120 and then they can do that. Okay.

They're going to abandon that right. They're going to but by by lease they're going to abandon that right. Well, yeah. I think we did. I think we we will not the the landlord said you cannot go higher than 145. Oh, so so if it was 120 the right would still be there to go to 145. I think that basically that's the maximum height of tower. I think the concern of the board was well maybe you should consider something taller than 145 if they have that right under the spectrum act. So what he said the landlord will limit that. They can do that as a property right.

So that's interesting. If we would if we were to suggest that the board was to s suggest that we want 120 but build it for collocation at a higher up to 140 that would avoid the instance where somebody else could come in and build a whole new town. Yeah. But then, right, then you're going through this. I'll ask you, you know, we're going through all this all over again. You want to know I don't know if I agree that 120 is good for Verizon. That was my opinion. No, I know. I just I want to make I just I have to get that out there.

Well, you work for Verizon, so I Yes. Um, so are you speaking exopicio? That's a big word. Actually ask a question about the height. So would it be appropriate for me to use on this document for me to use pages 32 through 35? Yeah, 36. when we start talking about height differentials and coverage.

Um because you I'm glad you brought up the point about 120 because I'm and would you also agree that these are the only maps that you've provided that show that information? I believe so, but I just want to confirm maps that show the coverage at that height. Yeah. Yes. I want to make sure I'm using the correct maps. Yeah. So, so the section labeled height justification is basically meant to convey, you know, why we need what we're asking for. Yep. So, I test 100 45.

It has various it has 120 140 it's usually 120 or 140 they're referring to the 10 center line. It's either 125 tower or 145.

So, I reviewed these and it's I see that you also have areas one two three and four called out. In my review, it appears that the only material difference in coverage between 120 and 140 is in areas 1 and four. Areas three, two, and three. Based on what I can't see a material difference.

Yeah. So, I think I think we need to consider and and it's a little hard to see on these maps between the orange and the yellow, but I think we need to consider uh the color tiers, right? So, yes, you see color in those areas, but at what level, right? So basically if it's orange like take for instance area number two on 120 that area circle is mostly thorn meaning zero in so I asked maybe back in September for some additional information and I don't believe anything was ever submitted. So I'm working off of what I have available

and I can't necessarily see those differences. the only so I mean I guess I can even map a separate orange color if you look at the maps on the computer the original I couldn't find the file where I couldn't find it and I looked in in the Google you know where it is in that big document 650 page review document it's the big 650 page document it's page 238 in that document right is that 238 somewhere around there. Let me see if I can find it. I went for this pressor and I do think I do think that so that I can print it around.

I think when when evaluating there is some important information missing, I do think that um 700 meghertz coverage at the various heights would be beneficial and that's that's something that I can 192 to 238 in that document under narrative. It's like the fourth document down says 177 megabytes and it's 650 pages. These pictures that we took were done on the were not done directly from the computer. The original would had orange in it and I made the copies from that. So you had some bleeding between the yellow and the orange. If you look at the original, I think you'll see the orange.

I need wood coming up. Hold wood for the What is the date? Was it the date? Was it that was the one of the initials? So, did you know what's the date on that document? 2025 917. 917. Yeah. What 17? 917. It's two page. It's in the narrative section. 238. Go to the file. Yeah. It has September 18th as a date uploaded. Go to review. No, it's under application proposed site plan and then narratives. It's the second one down. You can search for it

and it's page 190 193 to 238. I'm sorry. It's HVR_exanderative package. Stacey, can you repeat that? It's under proposed site plan. Under proposed site plan. And then underneath narrative, it's the second one down. It says HBR expanded narrative package with EAF stated 918 and it's 177 megabytes. And you got to go to page is page 193. Look up at the top of

the Yeah, on the top you can put it says page whatever number out of 650 I think it was. You can type the page number into rather than scrolling. What was the page number one? 193. I got it. It's still loading up. But to get to the specific ones you were talking about, Jennifer, it's page 219. Starts at 219. Focus areas. Oh, this is much better.

You okay? You got it, Ch. So I I just while Jennifer's looking for that, I just want to go back to what you said, Doug. What you said about the 120 was assuming there'd be one array at 120. Anything below that, colllocated below that is for snug. It's a technical term again based on based on this data right that's that's my interpretation

and but Brandon you're saying that Verizon doesn't like 120. Yeah, we believe that we've submitted um you know in the height justification section uh you know we provide a apply at 120 and at 140 and we believe the differences within the areas that we highlighted are significant enough to warrant being at 140 versus 120. Well that makes sense. Um do you agree with that Doug? I mean there are differences to me it's not significant but it's not my network. So the the key differentiator here is going to be that in building coverage to the residences in the area.

What in building coverage to the residences within the areas that we've identified. So at 120 we may get outdoor coverage on the 2100 meghertz but inside it's not going to cut. So how can you tell that? I mean your model tells you that. Yeah. the color thresholds. So basically

at the signal levels defined at each color level, they're going to there's going to be an expected level of service. So again, white space, no no coverage, no service. Orange, rural highway, again subject to seasonality, fading um conditions. And then yellow, light construction, so residential homes. So, we're really kind of looking for that yellow color. Um, green would be, you know, heavier construction like for the resort. Um, you can basically expect a service to work within those areas as

So, you're you're rattling off these things and I'm not quite sure where you're getting them from. Sorry, I've just uh So, they're defined on page I believe it's 15. Let me double check. All right. So look at page 32, which I think where is where Jennifer was to begin with. Page 32, you got dark green, light green, light yellow, and then orange. Right. And you've got um RSRP levels - 75, - 85, - 95, - 105. Explain that. How did you How did you say, well, that is okay for outside but not okay for inside? How do I know that from those numbers?

Sure. On page 15, it defines the the basically the service levels you can expect for each color. So, um, orange greater than or equal to 105. Okay, I see it. Okay. Okay. And and just to add on the the you need the stronger signal coverage to get in your car into the building, right? Because in penetrating through your car through the building here, you're going to get a loss of power from the signal. So, you need to be able to overcome and hit some minimal level.

And the higher signal level is um described by the dark green. Yes. Yep. A minus5 greater than or equal to. Yes. Right. Jen, do you see that? Yeah. Is it coming out orange on the It is uh It doesn't look like a major difference to me. That's my personal opinion. It certainly doesn't look like a major difference if you use the copies that I made from look better on that. It doesn't Well, Scott, when we talked about 120, you were happy with that, it seemed. Um, you can

I think I said I was it's got to depend upon him. I said that. Okay. Ultimately, it's up to him. But if we only give you 120, then it's 120. I guess that's the way one way to look at it, huh? I guess that's one way to look at it. Well, the board's going to have to make a decision. Well, he's going to have to make a decision. You know, either no 120 or 140, right? It' be 125 or 140. Why don't we gather the information from the one that we needed at this? Well, the information. All right. So, let's go through. Anybody have other questions?

The information that I heard that we need or there's legal information for you to take a look at. All the facts that they can give us, but debating them with them at this point. That's what we're going to do. I think Oh, I think we have all the all the I don't know. We have you all I took a list of the different Yeah, the legal stuff. three thing at least three topics I believe I said I would provide so I'll provide those too particularly the the question as to whether you you have the right to your own network or whether this reliance on other networks that that one was significant as far as added data I think it's all here it's just how it gets interpreted well that's we probably should have conversations with Doug at some point you want to have it now um might as well have it now

when you go to the agenda um we have nothing else on the agenda Although we did say we're going to have it, you need to give us some legal advice which would be a separate session on any is does anybody have any other questions or need? Yeah, I just want to be perfectly clear from Brendan's perspective and then also Doug's perspective that can you say whether Verizon cannot get or can get coverage from the existing other existing tower? Can we just say that they can we cannot provide additional coverage from the existing towers that we are already located on.

Okay. And and Doug, in your opinion, do you feel like they've provided justification for need? Yes. Thank you. Do you concur with their I agree with what Brendan said, but do you concur with what he said in terms of they can't add additional arrays to the existing? Yes. Because of signal interference. Yes. Peter's question. Okay. So, Peter, any other um No, not right now. Sorry. Uh, Hans, I'm good.

Chad, sorry. I mean, aside from us, you're going to get us you're going to get us a write up as to why you won't tell us what's in the black box. I'm glad. Yeah. Gonna about the job. Oh, yes. Yes. I mean, by the way, drop just I mean, again, they're the engineers, but I've been sitting around these guys for long enough. That's just one like parameter. It's that drop calls. I'm not saying he said it, but to the extent that Mr. Chamberlain suggests that drop calls is the way to definitively define need, I think we could conclusively say that we disagree with that because there are so many other factors which is are contained in this report. But I will

Well, I don't agree with it being the only factor. I just don't understand why you wouldn't want it out there if it favors your case. The fact that you're not giving it to us gives me a different impression. There's a second there's a second question. Not all data is um equally important. No, not all data is argument is is meant to be um you know to prove a case. Sometimes it's I guess the question is to what extent is that data fairly indicative of the problem? In other words, to what extent is it reliable as a scientific matter? Well, if if it's not reliable, why can't just give it to us? But it's one of it's one of the parameters. But if it's not reliable,

well, you're saying it's it's so minuscu it's so diminous in its effect. All the other data is overwhelming. Well, we I didn't say that. We we actually have an RF expert here. So, I'd like to is is this drop call data reliable data in terms of the science of determining need if there is such a thing? It's not it's a data point. How good is it and how important is it and how and especially in light of the data that we otherwise have? Not nearly as important as as what they were laying out. I I don't understand why Mr. Chamberlain's making such a big deal about it.

Do you feel in your experience that the board would be unreasonably firm ground in making a decision as to their need without that particular data point? Um I don't think there is a need. I I again question was asked to me before did they prove their case for me and I believe they did. I think the drop call data I I don't think it's going to going to help or hurt.

Mr. Chamberlain is is an academic expert with a great deal of knowledge of the scientific inputs and analyses of these things. He's hired by commenters with a particular perspective and so he's going to do what an advocate what what a scientific expert for advocates will do which is to pick up on what the best arguments are and make make it a scientific case for them. He's probably done it very very well. But we need to we need to have a perspective on the entirety of the case before us particularly if we run the risk of you know investigating the the the scientific basis of every point that's raised. We you know these decisions are made all the time and so at some point we take we we take the applicant's presentation we take the the commenters presentation we take our experts analysis of it and we make our judgment.

Well what I thought I heard you say Doug and confirm in the order of things it's not as important as all the other data. Sure. when we can you believe that if we I think this is the question councelor asked if we held up our decision or made our decision solely on drop calls the absence of drop calls we'd be m practicing we'd be malpracticing that that's not the decision decision is we have a lot of data we have a lot of we've had we've had commentary we I want to know the specific importance of drop calls from Doug Fishman's point of It's of minimal importance.

Okay. But don't they validate the model? No. Drum calls do not. Why?

Um if you did if you collected some physical drive data, you can use that to help tune the model, tune the parameters. And I believe that Verizon alpha does that anyway. so that the model gets tuned over time to be more and more accurate. That only benefits them, right? They don't want to make decisions based on a model showing there's a gap and there's no gap and they're going to spend a half a million dollars and they're not going to see any improvement in system performance. Right.

So, can you reinforce the message that you uh what did you say was a an aside signal or you're essentially validating provide another uh support that your model is valid that it's sound that essentially is the question.

So maybe if if you guys made some sort of statement about how you tune your model. I think I alluded to it in one of my letters. It's it's written somewhere between a line but I think the strongest statement in absence if no drug call data are available you need to say this is modern this is proves that the modernity can you provide that

we can see what we can do in terms of that because you know again if you just read Mr. Chamberlain's letter, you think we're trying to pull the wool over your eyes. We're not. No one wants our modeling to be more accurate than we do because we don't want to waste money. Um, and Verizon has a national program. They you So, we'll see what we can provide. But please understand, in fact, there's you know Ron Grafe of him. Ron Grafe. Yeah.

So, he's an engineer, but he's probably not doing it anymore. Uh, very well respected. 10 15 years ago when we I was doing a site with him, his response to us was the Verizon model that they use is the gold standard. Neither here nor there. I just want to convey to you that you know we we want this model to be as accurate as possible and we do constantly put new data in there to make sure that it's reflects current conditions but and I'll see what we can provide and we just want to make sure by the you're trying to verify that. I get it. Okay. Um

because we we need to consider another okay except but outside of data we also consider environment and how community look at it because we need to take in consideration that factors. So which factor is more viable we need to decide in order to make a decision. I I understand that I will you know go to the people that I need to go to to see what I can get for you

provide that verification. So, I I think we're done for tonight in terms of unless there's more questions in terms of Doug's input to us, Brendan's input. Um, Scott, you and I need to talk the next day or two about escrow and also um then the items that Dave Church sent you or I sent you, Dave Church's memo, and you've been sending some of it. If you recall, we're asking for sort data. Um, and there's a host of other things. It's gradually coming in and Stacy is getting it out to you as it comes in, but it's for the site plan, and I just want to make sure everything that's in the site plan portion of our code has been provided. And I guess the biggest thing we haven't seen yet is the real estate material.

And that's going to take I I literally we've been talking with him, Thanksgiving, interrupted it a little bit. Uh, he's been authorized to move forward as of earlier in this week. Um his response to me was kind of like Dave Church said, "It's impossible to comply with the strict requirements of your code. It's simply not feasible to do." However, we have him doing some other analysis that he's going to try to at least provide I think maybe going towards some of Peter your comments previously about what about more localized data. He's looking into that. So, unfortunately, I'm hoping to have it in the next three weeks, but I he says he's pretty busy, but I have his attention. He's got his check. So,

okay. Just before I forget, the next meeting that we will have um you on the agenda for is next Monday, the 8th. Yes. There will be continuation of the public hearing.

Yeah. It's and the board needs to discuss at some point when we close the public hearing. Um at what point do we do that and then at what point do we begin to do seeker? Um so Scott and Bren uh Brendan and Doug unless there's anything else from your end or the board has any questions from them. uh our attorney um wants to go into a session um attorney client privilege section session which means everybody has to leave except for the board members. So that includes um our consulting engineer Stacy and the public uh needs to leave while we have the uh consultation with the attorney.

Very good question. It's not related about structure. You you're designing structure for every site or you don't you have a standard design and basically applying everywhere I guess they sent the right I saw it but I didn't open it but is that for each side you designed and started that is so each site's going to be a little different because you have different uh subsurface you know around it so your foundation may be different obviously tower height's different but the tower is generally the same If it's a monopole, it whatever height it's at, the overall design is very similar. The bolts go where they go and stuff like that. So, that's what we use for our structural analysis. Yes.

Okay. So, we're going to take a break. Um, thank you, gentlemen. Public will have to leave for the attorney. You want to meeting? We need to Yes, you're right. Uh, I take a make I'll make a motion to go into attorney client privilege meeting. We need a second. Jennifer seconding everybody. I I I And no more discussion after the meeting after executive session on this. Thank you. Thanks for listening. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you gentlemen. And okay. So when do you adjourn?