2021-01-07 Windward Exh C AT&T Mobility USE 20-000084

Home

So, first one would be the physical how could they be physically be co-located with the way that they look here and the second is will the second provider be coming in to get a permit? Thank you. TOMLINSON: Yeah, thank you for your question. Typically, what happens in a co-location process would be that they would mount their antennas below the top antennas and there is a buffer space between the lower portion of the antenna and the upper tips of the second what they would call rad center antennas below it about ten (10) feet. So, it would be below the AT & T antennas and in terms of your question about permitting actually there is a discussion of that in recommendations I believe that Jeff and Maija put together. I'll defer to them because I know Jeff has mentioned to me that this is new language that they are including with all Use permit applications for co-locations. Jeff or Maija? JACKSON: Hi, so Commissioner Raffipy if I can direct your attention to Condition six (6). That condition discusses co-location of the antennas on the existing tower and basically it lays out the parameters for AT & T to provide co-location to your carriers. It says that those things can be done within certain parameters without needing to amend this permit They would just need to get an additional Plan Approval but then if they go outside of those parameters of a substantial change as defined by Federal Communication Commission (FCC) then they have to amend the permit before the Planning Commission. RAFFIPIY: Thank you I guess that is what I was trying to get that the definition of substantial change. JACKSON: Okay. I can look that up and get back to you if you'd like? RAFFIPIY: No, not necessarily I just want to make sure that the substantial change would mean extending the monopole which I think that's what it is and a follow up question to that is I would imagine that when the engineer designed this monopole or monopine however it is going to be they already designed it considering the co-location having other antennas installed on here. The load factor and all that's already been included in the calculation for the design for this pole. JACKSON: Yeah, I think Andrew can speak to that a little more but what he did share with me the other day was that the reason AT & T was hoping to design the tower as a pine tree instead of the broad leaf was because the tolerance of wind is higher with the pine design then it is with the broad leaf design. Andrew do you want to add anything to that. TOMLINSON: Sure, the definition of substantial pursuant to Federal Law would be that would be 20 feet and from a structural design standpoint before any co-location is done there is a structural review of every tower that's been in existence. Typically, newer towers yes have capacity to host co-location equipment. In the case let's say an older tower, what typically happens is there's a structural review of the tower and what's proposed for equipment and then in some cases actual modification to the foundation or the structure of the tower is completed prior to any co-location. Making sure the structural integrity is up to code. RAFFIPIY: Thank you very much. EXHIBIT C 11