►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
This
is
an
official
government
hearing,
and
so
please
show
respect
for
each
for
one
another
and
applause,
and
that
sort
of
things
is
really
sort
of
out
of
order.
So
don't
don't
do
that
if
you
hear
somebody
that
you
like
just
applaud
yourself,
but
don't
don't
disrupt
the
the
me
appreciate
that,
because
we
want
to
have
a
a
a
a
good
respectful
evening,
we
are,
we
have
a
number
of
items
on
the
agenda
and
how
we're
going
to
handle.
A
That
is
we'll
give
the
applicant
15
minutes
to
make
their
case
and
then
we'll
give
the
somebody
that
that
is
opposed
to
the
applicant,
we'll
give
them
another
15
minutes
to
make
their
case,
and
it
will
take
three
minute
testimonies
that
that's
how
we're
going
to
work
that
and
then
we'll
give
five
minutes
as
a
rebuttal
to
the
applicant
to
rebut
the
testimony
and
the
other
testimony
all
right.
First,
I
need
to
find
out.
Madam
clerk.
Are
there
any
changes
to
the
agenda?
No
they're,
not
okay.
A
We
have
some
unfinished
business
that
we
need
to
take
up
I'll
I'll,
accept
a
motion
to
remove
unfinished
business
from
the
table.
A
Okay,
you've
heard
the
motion
all
in
favor,
say:
aye
aye,
aye
aye
motion
carries.
We
have
now
for
discussion.
Applicant
application
number
two:
zero:
two:
two:
zero
zero;
four,
eight
nine
v,
vicky
christie
and.
A
D
E
D
A
And
but
in
that
regard
I
will
open
the
public
hearing
on
application.
202-200-489-V.
F
G
E
G
F
That's
for
you
well,
mr
chairman,
michelle
I'll
start
again
so
project
number
2022
00489
b
is
the
variance
to
rebuild
a
single
family
dwelling
within
the
100
foot.
Setback
of
the
boise
river
greenway
overlay
district.
The
property
contains
3.89
acres
and
is
located
at
4253,
west
old
valley,
road
in
the
rural
urban
transition
district.
F
The
applicant
has
applied
four
variants
to
rebuild
a
single
family
dwelling
within
the
100-foot
setback
of
the
boise
river
greenway
overlay
district.
The
boise
greenway
overlay
district
is
applicable
to
lands
situated
between
the
boise
river
and
area
100
feet
outside
of,
in
parallel
to
the
boundary
of
the
boise
river
flood
way,
the
new
house
will
be
built
close
to
the
same
location
on
the
property
as
the
original
house
in
order
to
grant
variance,
there's
three
findings
that
need
to
be
made.
F
Two,
the
variants
for
these
undue
hardships
due
to
characteristics
of
the
site
and
three
of
the
variants,
shall
grant
be
detrimental
to
the
public
health
safety
and
welfare
staff
finds
that
the
variance
would
not
constitute
granting
of
a
special
privilege,
because
a
single
family
dwelling
is
a
principle
permitted
use
in
the
rural
urban
transition.
District
staff
finds
that
the
variance
relieves
an
undue
hardship
due
to
characteristics
of
the
site
resulting
from
the
boundary
of
the
boise
river,
floodway
width
of
the
property
and
riparian
vegetation
on
the
property.
F
F
The
most
logical
place
to
build
on
the
property
is
within
the
existing
clearing
due
to
the
property's
width.
There's
no
place
to
build
in
the
clearing.
That's
outside
of
the
100
foot,
boys,
river,
greenway
overlay
setback
and
the
kind
of
liar
pink
line
here
is
the
what
would
be
the
boys
river
greenway
overlay
area,
so
you
can
kiss
with
existing
home.
You
know
it's
totally
within
this
northern
portion
of
the
property.
F
In
addition
to
that,
it
would
also
be
hard.
We
have
a
25-foot
side
yard,
a
rear
side,
yard
setback
on
the
northern
side
and
it'd
be
hard
to
build
between
that
overlay
district
and
the
25
foot
setback
staff
finds
out.
The
variance
is
not
detrimental
to
the
public
health
safety
and
welfare,
because
the
applicant
will
be
required
to
secure
a
building
permit
to
rebuild
the
new
single
family
dwelling.
F
A
I
don't
have
any
questions
either.
So
would
vicky
christie
like
to
testify
present?
Okay,
okay,
you
know
the
rules.
H
Yes,
okay,
I
think
so.
I'm
vicki
christie,
1806
north
tuscalano,
drive
avenue
in
eagle.
Thank
you
for
hearing
this
case.
I
also
want
to
thank
ada
county
staff,
especially
kyle
balinski
and
brent
danielson,
for
navigating
me
through
this
process,
the
last
few
months
and
putting
up
with
all
my
questions,
because
there
have
been
several
as
brent
mentioned,
we're
asking
for
a
variance
to
rebuild
the
home
at
4253
old
valley,
road,
which
is
our
family
property,
so
that
we
can
have
a
place
that
our
grandchildren
can
come
enjoy
enjoy
for
many
years
to
come.
H
H
We
were
informed
that
this
homes
foundation
was
not
up
to
standards
and
to
seek
the
opinion
of
a
structural
engineer.
We
did
have
a
structural
engineer
come
out
to
the
property,
and
the
conclusion
was
that
this
home,
that
was
built
in
1922,
was
not
up
to
standards
and
for
the
safety
of
the
family.
It
would
be
best
to
remove
the
existing
home
and
and
rebuild
a
new
one.
H
H
H
A
A
If
not,
we
have
several
that
want
to
testify.
I
think
margaret
farning.
I
Hello
hi:
we
live
on
the
property,
joining
there's
the
long
area
to
the
west
and
we've
been
there
since
1990,
and
I
I
like
the
idea
of
a
single
dwelling
for
that
property
and
to
keep
the
integrity
of
the
river,
because
sometimes
people
disregard
the
river
coming
through
and
and
I
I
like,
the
idea
of
keeping
it
all.
I
The
houses
in
that
area
are
very
not
pretentious
single
one-story
homes
and
from
the
point
of
view
of
what
you
see
from
the
homes,
it
makes
it
feel
very
rural
and
I
know
growth
is
encroaching,
but
I
would
like
to
keep
that
pocket
that
little
oasis,
so
I'm
confident
that
their
plans,
you
know,
will
stay
in
that
and
that's
why
I'm
here,
just
to
make
certain
that
we
keep
that
rural
aspect
of
the
area.
I
A
Right,
you
know,
and
you
don't
see
any
any
any
rationale
for
for
denying
the
application.
Then.
I
H
I
H
J
As
my
spouse
said,
we've
lived
there
for
30
years
next
to
an
occupied
single-family
residence
on
the
applicant's
property
and
after
30
years.
I
see
no
reason
to
oppose
the
continuance
of
it,
and
so
we
did
have
some
concerns
about
the
second
story,
but
they've
been
adequately
addressed
if
they
build
it
according
to
their
plan.
So
we
we
have
no
objection.
J
A
Okay,
we
have
chad,
hirsch.
K
K
K
I
would
I
addressed
it
to
them
that
I
would
prefer
not
to
have
a
window
that
would
look
directly
over
my
fence
line,
since
their
house
is
going
to
be
very
close
to
my
my
my
fence
line
on
the
east
side,
and
they
were
have
been
very
accommodating
saying
that
they
were
going
to
look
into
something
different
than
a
window
that
would
kind
of
invade
privacy.
So
any
kind
of
the
lighting
situation
would
be
fine
in
my
opinion,
on
that
and
they've
been
accommodating
for
that.
A
D
Kendra
kenyon,
thank
you.
I
just
wanted
to
make
it
a
little
bit
more
formal.
We
already
think
all
of
us
are
in
agreeance
that
this
is
a
great
thing.
We're
excited
to
have
a
home,
single-family
home,
built
there
and
occupied
this
property's
been
sort
of
vacant
for
about
four
or
five
years.
So
that'll
be
great,
I'm
just
pointing
out.
It
is
a
single-family
dirt
or
a
single
lane,
dirt
lane
that's
very
narrow,
and
so
just
want
to
ask
the
the
applicants
that,
as
they
have
construction
trucks
coming
in
and
out,
there's
old
dogs.
D
There's
old
people
out
there.
It's
very
peaceful,
just
to
make
sure
that
they're
going
slowly
and
paying
attention
out
there,
because
it
doesn't
get
used
that
often
and
it
dead
ends
into
our
three
properties
down
on
the
river,
and
he
just
if
I
could
approach
the
diocese
I'd
like
to
include
this
as
an
exhibit
to
kind
of
show.
Why
we're
asking
for
a
condition
of
approval
that
the
second
story,
if
it
be
granted
that
it
doesn't
have
a
window
that
looks
right
down
on
the
property
and
you'll,
see
why
okay
sure.
C
B
B
D
F
A
And
and
you're
asking
with
without
a
window
going
looking
at
looking
in
into
your
property
yeah.
D
F
Yes,
so,
mr
chairman
kind
of
been
looking
at
the
site
plan
when
I
kind
of
measured
it
out
with
the
new,
the
existing
dwelling
is
about
34
feet
from
the
closest
part
of
commissioner
kenyon's
property
line,
and
then
the
new
house
is
going
to
be
around
41
feet
from
the
closest
part
to
the
property
line.
Okay,.
A
F
Public
hearing,
mr
chairman,
what
before
we
close
the
public
hearing
we
want
to
enter
commissioner
kenyon's
lay
exhibit
the
picture
and
that's
gonna,
be
exhibit
number
31..
Okay,.
B
Could
we
have
the
applicant
close.
H
So
I
just
wanted
to
say
I
we
want
to
be
the
best
neighbors
that
there
are,
but
we
did
get
a
call
from
our
architect
and
due
to
the
egress,
we
have
to
have
a
window
there.
It's
the
law
for
fire
safety,
but
what
we
can
do
is
put
in
opaque
glass,
which
we
have
an
opaque
glass
window
by
our
garden
tub,
and
you
cannot
see
out
of
it
and
you
can't
see
in,
and
we
would
definitely
be
willing
to
do
that.
H
H
B
So
well
let
me
direct
that
to
staff.
Does
that
sound
like
that
would
be
illegal
to
not
have
the
window
there
based
on
what
she
said.
F
So,
mr
chairman,
commissioner
davidson
so
that's
part
of
the
building
code.
So
if
that
room
is
being
used
as
a
bedroom
and
I'm
not
a
building
official,
I
just
know
just
a
little
bit
enough
to
get
me
in
trouble.
Basically,
if
you
have
a
bedroom,
you
have
to
have
a
saying
to
eat
methods
to
get
out
of
the
bedroom
if
there's
a
fire.
So
obviously
you
have
the
traditional.
B
And
I'm
assuming
that
the
code
would
dictate
how
high
off
the
floor
or
the
window
would
be,
because
if
it's
too
high
up,
then
you
couldn't
get
out
well,
would
you
be,
would
you
be
amenable
to
cementing
the
conditions
approval
to
require
that
it's
opaque
glass.
H
B
B
You
heard
previous
testimony
just
about
traffic
construction
traffic
going
up
the
road.
Yes,.
H
Yes,
so
my
son
did
at
one
point
redo
that
and
put
in
some
supporting
steel
plates
to
make
it
a
little
bit
stronger
going
over
there,
but
I
definitely
agree
that
you
know
it's
one
lane
and
people
need
to
be
aware
to
go
slow
and
watch
for
dogs
in
an
elderly.
Definitely
we
understand
that.
Are
you
going.
A
On
the
application
of
zero,
two
two
zero
zero
four
eight
nine
v,
the
public
hearing
is
closed.
So
commissioner,
kenyon
has
recused
herself
on
voting
on
this.
So
it's
do.
We
have
a
motion.
B
Well,
mr
chair,
you
know
it
sounds
like
everybody's,
pretty
pretty
amenable
to
you
know,
respecting
each
other's
privacy
and
the
applicant
said
that
they
wouldn't
object
to
putting
an
additional
condition
of
approval
to
to
require
that
it
be
opaque
glass
to
respect
the
neighbor's
privacy.
B
B
Well,
I
would
move
then,
to
I
guess,
amend
the
findings
of
or
the
conditions
of
approval,
to
include
a
opaque
window
for
privacy
purposes.
A
A
All
right
having
no
further
discussion,
all
in
favor,
say
aye
all
right.
All
right
motion
carries.
L
C
D
D
E
D
C
D
Yeah,
I
know
so
they
immediately
put
up
greenhouses,
so
the
greenhouses
are
there
but
they're
still
living
there.
C
C
A
Okay,
we
have
next
up,
is
application
number.
F
Mr
chairman
of
commissioners,
project
number
20190011
s,
t
e
is
a
time
extension
for
a
preliminary
plat
for
the
joint
fairview
cemetery
edition.
The
property
is
located
at
7860
west
mcmillan
road.
It
contains
one
acre
in
the
rural
urban
transition
district.
The
cemetery
is
a
public
cemetery
is
owned
and
managed
by
the
joint
fairview
cemetery
district.
F
For
the
pulmonary
plat
for
the
joint
fairview
cemetery
edition,
the
subdivision,
which
is
forest
cemetery,
will
contain
580
lots
in
the
form
of
traditional
burials,
infant
burials,
garden,
niches,
columbarium
niches
and
common
lots.
The
app
can
stay
in
their
detail
layer
that
the
time
extension
is
needed
due
to
the
limited
cyclical
development
funding
for
construction.
F
F
F
A
Okay,
thank
you
is
the
applicant
here
wish
to
comment.
Okay,
go
ahead,
state
your
name
for
the
record.
M
Alec
gorilla
actress
as
well.
Of
course,
no
okay,
I'm
with
to
engineers
and
land
use.
Planner
just
gonna,
be
here
for
any
questions
that
you
may
have
other
than
that
I'll
keep
it
short
and
sweet.
A
I
don't
have
questions
yes,.
M
Get
them,
commissioner,
kenyan?
Yes,
essentially
it's
from
covid
and
increased
construction
costs,
and
so
we
get
that
that
taxed
amount
each
year
for
funding
for
the
construction
and
we're
limited
with
that
funding.
So
only
so
much
can
be
done
each
year
and
it's
been
an
ongoing
struggle
as
cost
goes
up
for
construction
and
it's
it's
getting
done,
but
it's
a
slow
and
slow
and
steady
race
and.
M
There,
but
each
year,
there's
only
so
much
you
can
do
with
so
much
funds.
M
And
I
might
just
add,
we
just
have
essentially
landscaping
and
pathways
left
to
do,
but
the
the
board,
the
cemetery
boards
looking
at
what
they're
funding
us
for
this
upcoming
year
and
to
see
how
much
longer
that
will
take,
but
we
can
look
into
that
option.
Yeah.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
A
This
is
for
580
additional
burial
spaces
right.
M
Mr
chairman,
I
I'm
not
entirely
sure
the
answer
to
that
question
I
meant
to.
I
got
a
quick
rundown
about
construction
about
our
our
plans,
but
I
didn't
get
any
quotes
about
prices
for
those
lots.
But
that's
that's
a
that's
a
good
question.
M
D
A
A
What
is
the
pleasure
of
the
board.
D
Well,
mr
chair,
I
think
hearing
our
testimony
tonight
it
looks
like
the
applicant
should
be
granted
time
extension
and
we
could
grant
that
till
may,
8th,
2024.
So
I'll
make
that
motion
and
that's
based
on
the
testimony
here
tonight
and
the
conclusions.
The
law
that
were
provided.
A
Okay,
do
we
have
a
second
emotion?
Second,
okay,
you've
heard
the
motion
to
grant
the
application
all
in
favor,
say:
aye
aye
aye
aye
motion
carries.
A
A
N
Yes,
thank
you
chairman
commissioners.
The
item
before
you
is
a
preliminary
plot
for
two
lot
subdivision
located
at
3797,
south
rustler
lane
the
applicant
is
briggs
engineering.
N
N
N
N
Some
key
conditions
of
approval,
in
addition
to
that
25
foot
easement
I
just
mentioned-
are
the
applicant
and
owner
shell-
submit
approval
from
the
boise
project
board
of
control
and
the
applicant
and
or
owner
shall
submit
a
new
maintenance
agreement
for
the
private
road
southwestern
lane,
essentially
including
that
additional
lot
that's
being
created
through
the
subdivision
process.
D
Yes,
mr
chair
leon,
what's
the
turnaround
for
fire
at
the
end
of
the
lane?
Where
is
that
going
to
be
located.
N
Yes,
so
let
me
pull
up
obscenity
map
here
chairman,
madam
commissioner.
I
apologize
there's
the
turnaround
initially
here
for
russell
lane
and
then
russell
saying:
wrestler
lane
actually
extends
further
to
the
south.
That
is
not
pictured
here
in
in
the
aerial
that
I've
shown
you,
but
there
is
an
additional
turnaround
at
the
end
of
kind
of
that
russell
lane
extension
that
has
already
been
established
for
the
other
lots
within
the
project.
Okay,.
D
And
is
this
in
the
any
of
the
concerned
well
areas
like
the
nitrate.
N
Yes,
madam
our
chair
mountain
commissioner
speaking
with
zach
kirk
accounting
engineer,
this
is
in
the
nitrate
priority
area.
It's
not
an
area
of
drilling
concern.
It
is
an
area
of
groundwater
concern
which
is
affiliated
with
that
nitrate
priority
area,
but
it's
not
in
an
area
of
water
quantity
concern
as
my
idwr,
so
zach
kirk.
The
county
engineer,
has
specified
as
typical
for
projects
like
this
things
that
the
future
property
owners
and
developers
will
have
to
do
in
order
to
comply
with
nitrate,
priority
areas
and
areas
of
groundwater.
Concern.
O
Yes,
this
is
dean
briggs
of
briggs
engineering.
O
How's
it
going
today,
this
is
pretty
simple.
The
owner
has
accepted
all
the
conditions
of.
O
A
A
Okay,
okay,
thank
you.
Are
there
anyone
else
that
are
in
the
audience
who
wish
to
testify
on
this
application.
A
A
We
will
next
take
up
for
consideration.
Application
number
two:
zero:
two
one:
zero
three
one:
six
one
dash
a
john
ropp,
the
I
will
open
the
public
hearing
on
that
application.
Two
zero
two
103
161
dash
a
john
rob.
This
is
an
appeal
of
the
planning
and
zoning
commission's
conditions.
A
Yes,
we're
going
to
allow
the
applicant
15
minutes
after
we
hear
a
staff
report
and
questions
from
the
commission.
That's
15
minutes
to
present
the
case
and
then
we'll
allow
any
in
the
original
applicant
15
minutes
to
reply
and
then
we'll
allow
three
minute
testimony
from
anyone.
Anyone
that
wishes
to
testify.
We
do
have
a
number
of
people
who
sign
up
here
and
we
we
do
want
to
there's
any
applause
or
anything.
We
please
don't
do
that.
D
Mr
chair,
and
just
for
further
clarification,
the
reason
we're
allowing
15
minutes
for
the
original
applicant
is
because
this
is
an
appeal
to
this
board
and
it
was
first
heard
with
planning
and
zoning.
So
this
will
be
the
first
time
that
we
actually
hear
the
testimony.
So
we
wanted
to
make
sure
that
we.
A
N
You
sharon,
I
guess,
from
staff's
side,
we'll
also
ask
that
if
anyone
in
the
audience
has
a
question,
please
direct
it
to
the
director.
N
If
you
want
to
know
how
proceedings
are
going,
if
you
have
a
question
about
who's
signed
up,
I
know
that
the
last
time
we
had
a
presentation
there
were
a
lot
of
folks
approaching
staff
here
at
this
podium,
which
is
really
tough
for
us
to
focus
on
what
they're
asking
us
to
do
or
answer
questions
so
richard
beck
over
here
will
can
answer
any
procedural
questions
that
you
have,
or
things
like
that,
so
just
as
a
just
as
a
heads
up
all
right.
So
chairman
commissioners,
thank
you.
N
The
item
before
you
is
a
an
appeal
of
the
planning
and
zoning
commission's
approval
of
a
conditional
use
permit
for
a
private
cell
tower
or
antenna
for
suez
water,
idaho.
The
tower
will
be
80
feet
tall
and
used
to
support
the
company's
internal
communications.
The
appellant
is
john
rob.
The
original
applicant
is
suez.
N
The
next
two
slides
summarize
the
appellant's
argument
for
overturning
the
planning
and
zoning
commission's
approval
for
this
project.
Stamps
staff's
response
is
provided
in
italics
below
each
point
of
the
appellant's
argument,
so
I
will
kind
of
read
both
and
the
staff's
responses
in
italics
just
to
let
everyone
know
so.
The
first
point
is
that
the
original
application
is
incomplete
for
the
requirements
of
veda
county
code,
8-5-3-114
tower
or
antenna
structure,
commercial,
so
staff's
response
is
that
that
is
not
the
applicable
section
of
code
for
this
particular
project.
N
N
The
third
point
was
that
there
was
lack
of
written
evidence
by
an
independent
third
party
measuring
reporting
frequency,
specific
dbm
measurements,
to
determine
power
output,
that
the
power
output
will
not
exceed
minimum
power
necessary
to
carry
out
the
communication
desired
again.
This
is
not
required
for
a
tower
antenna
structure
that
is
private.
So
again
that
wouldn't
have
been
included
because
we
don't
require
that
of
these
types
of
projects.
N
N
Local
land
use
planning
act,
so
we
are
staff's
position
and
that
of
the
pnz
is
that
we
we
did
follow
our
code,
which
again
is
required
to
be
in
line
with
state
legislation
and
state
law,
as
it
relates
to
land
use
decisions.
So
now
I'll
give
an
overview
of
the
project
in
greater
detail.
N
Project
location
is
highlighted
in
red
here
near
kind
of
these
agricultural
areas.
It
is
a
398.5
acre
site
in
the
rural
preservation
district.
The
site
is
accessed
via
a
gravel
driveway
that
intersects
pleasant
valley
road
down
here
to
the
south.
The
proposed
location
of
the
tower
is
approximately
a
half
mile
from
that
pleasant
valley.
Road
intersection
surrounding
uses
in
the
immediate
vicinity
include
agricultural
uses
and
a
quarry
to
the
east
zooming
out
a
bit.
The
birds
of
prey
center
is
approximately
3
500
feet
to
the
northwest,
so
highlighted.
N
N
Previous
mentioned,
the
project
consists
of
an
80-foot
private
antenna
tower
for
suez.
The
new
tower
is
shown
here.
It
will
be
located
in
close
proximity
to
an
existing
private
tower
on
the
same
site.
I
would
encourage
you
if
you
have
any
questions
as
to
why
co-location
or
that
sort
of
thing
for
the
new
tower
equipment
versus
the
old
tower.
N
I
think
we
have
suez
and
the
applicant
here
to
answer
those
best
for
you,
but
there
will
be
two
towers
on
this
site
if
ultimately
approved
so
some
key
conditions
of
approval
placed
on
the
project
by
the
planning
and
zoning
commission
are
the
applicant
and
our
owner
shall
obtain
a
written
verification
from
the
federal
aviation
administration,
the
chief
of
the
idaho
bureau
of
aeronautics
and
the
boise
airport.
D
Yes,
mr
chair
right
leon:
did
you
say
that
there's
a
gravel
road
that's
already
built
or
going
to
be
built
for,
like
fire
truck
access.
N
Yes,
chairman,
madam
commissioner,
there's
an
existing
gravel
drive
that
serves
the
existing
tower
and
there's
a
building
on
site
as
well.
It
intersects
with
pleasant
valley,
road
down
here,
which
is
a
public
roadway,
that's
improved
with
asphalt
and
and
everything
that
you
would
expect
of
a
public
roadway
and
so
yeah.
It's
about
a
half
mile
from
this
intersection
into
the
site.
D
Okay
and
did
birds
of
prey
the
peregrine
fun
did
they
respond.
N
N
So
this
whole
parcel
here
is
part
of
the
parcel
that
the
project
is
located
on
and
right
here
is
the
birds
of
prey
parcel
boundary,
so
they're
directly
adjacent,
so
they
were
included
in
our
radius
notice,
which
is
up
to
a
thousand
feet
for
a
project
like
this.
A
How
many
homes
are
within
a
radius
of
the
property.
N
N
N
Property
yeah
there's
another
antenna
tower,
so
the
difference,
it's
not
for
cell
phones,
it's
for
antenna
work.
So
in
our
code
we
lump
antennas
and
cell
carriers
kind
of
into
the
same
use,
either
private
or
commercial.
So
this
is
for
antenna
equipment
specific
to
suez
and
again
I
will
defer
to
the
applicant
to
explain
in
greater
detail
what
exactly
they're
putting
on
the
tower
for
you
equipment-wise.
I
mean
there
are
plans
and
a
detailed
letter
as
well,
but
but.
N
Per
the
detailed
letter,
it's
another
private
tower,
that's
on
the
site.
N
Chairman
commissioner
davidson,
so
this
is
not
in
the
fire
districts.
This
is
regulated
by
the
state
of
idaho
and
so
understanding
how
that
works
similar
to
any
emergency
situation
in
the
county.
Ada
county
sheriff
is
kind
of
the
initial
call
for
dispatch,
and
then
there
is
a
management
plan
for
emergencies
that
occur
in
those
areas.
So
close
proximity,
fire
districts
would
be
probably
included
whitney
and
cuna,
and
then
blm
actually
owns
land
out
here.
N
So
they
would
be
a
part
of
that
response,
team
as
well,
and
then
yeah
any
of
the
response
capability
that
the
state
of
idaho
has
as
well
would
be
a
part
of
that
process.
But
there
is
a
emergency
management
plan
for
all
of
ada
county,
and
this
particular
area
is
a
little
different
because
it
isn't
within
one
of
those
fire
districts
that
we
normally
deal
with.
So.
N
P
I'm
john
rob:
I
live
at
7707
west
vallejo
road
in
boise.
N
Yeah,
for
some
reason,
this
just
closed
one.
Second,
here
sorry.
E
G
N
N
P
P
P
P
It
burned
a
barn
and
several
acres
of
sagebrush
and
threatened
the
neighborhood.
So
we
live
there.
The
birds
of
prey
sanctuary
is
the
next
hill
over
and
then
you
can
see
from
the
beginning
map.
That
was
where
the
towers
can
be
put
slide.
Three,
our
family
stood
guard
with
garden,
hoses
and
shovels
ready
for
battle.
P
These
slides
show
the
terrain
from
the
birds
of
prey
sanctuary
to
the
tower
and
and
also
toward
our
house,
so
we're
standing
in
the
middle
taking
it
on
your
left
is
the
birds
of
prey
sanctuary
and
you
can
see
all
the
sagebrush
out
there.
P
P
P
Thank
you
and
that
this
is
one
of
the
signs
at
the
birds
of
prey
sanctuary
saying:
can
you
tell
where
it
burned
before
and
that's
the
top?
Is
the
birds
of
prey
sanctuary,
four,
more
sagebrush
you're
looking
from
the
west
birds
of
prey
sanctuary,
and
you
see
all
of
that
and
that's
what
you
see
between
that
and
the
tower
five?
P
This
shows
boise
from
the
tower
north
and
you
can
see
the
residences
down
there
that
are
on
holy
land
and
go
to
number
six,
which
shows
you,
holly
lynn,
drive
from
another
angle
and
there's
37
homes
along
that
road,
not
13,
as
the
other
map
showed.
I
counted
them
from
google.
P
P
Also,
agriculture
is
threatened
with
no
master
plan
for
protection
with
livestock
horses,
goats,
yamas
and
bee
hives,
for
instance.
My
son
is
a
beekeeper
and
has
hives
at
our
place
is
also
within
this
threatened
area,
because
there
is
no
access
roads
to
it.
So
I
urge
you
to
deny
this
application
number
nut
10.
P
Q
I'm
david
dehaas
1116
south
vista
one
of
the
big
goals
of
this
commission.
This
body
is
to
protect
the
private
property
rights
of
the
citizens
and
to
keep
us
safe.
So,
even
though,
as
they
mentioned
in
853-115,
this
is
a
private
tower.
It
doesn't
give
the
right
for
private
commercial
companies
to
go
out
and
create
a
hazard.
Q
I
talked
to
the
applicant
some
time
ago
and
this
tower
is
putting
out
proposed
to
put
out
11
600
megahertz
of
power
at
17
dbm.
What
that
means.
It's
an
insane
amount
of
power,
it's
beyond
what
would
be
needed.
In
fact,
the
recent
course
ruled
that
any
towers
over
6,
000
megahertz
should
be
turned
off
because
there
are
no
safety
studies
whatsoever.
Q
One
of
the
things
local
governments
have
been
doing
across
the
entire
united
states
is
to
try
to
minimize
the
number
of
towers.
You
need
to
provide
personal
wireless
services
and
to
do
that
anytime,
an
applicant
submits
an
application.
They
require
the
applicant,
provide
probative
data,
not
computer,
generated
propagation
maps
which
have
no
appropriate
value
in
order
to
enable
this
board
to
determine,
if
there's
a
good
spot
for
a
wireless
facility,
you
need
the
data.
Q
The
most
common
form
of
a
data
is
a
drive
test
data.
If
you
get
drive
test
data,
which
is
very
simple,
they
take
a
device,
a
recording
device
attached
to
a
phone
drive
through
the
area
and
that
recording
device
gives
you
the
actual
signal
strength
throughout
the
jurisdiction
that
data
that
actual
probative
data
shows
you
the
number
one.
The
existence
or
absent
gaps
in
service
number,
two,
the
geographic
locations
of
those
gaps,
the
applicant
claims
they
need
this
tower,
but
we
have
you
have
no
proof.
You
have
no
actual
data
whatsoever
they've.
Q
Given
you
no
numbers,
it
would
be
like
me
building
a
building
and
I've
got
a
nice
picture
of
it,
but
I'm
not
giving
to
you
the
strength
of
the
steel
I
haven't
given
you
how
depth
the
concrete
is.
I
haven't
told
you
about
any
of
the
electrical
innards
of
the
building
whatsoever.
They
have
not
proven
it.
They
have
a
tower
now,
but
they're
not
really
telling
you
why
they
need
it
and
why
so
much
power?
Q
Maybe
they
don't
know
they
have
that
much
what
that
means.
So,
anyway,
this
this
should
be
night
on
those
grounds
not
providing
you,
the
data
that
you
need.
So
it's
really
easy
to
provide
these
maps
with
physical
probative
data,
but
that's
not
been
done
in
this
application.
So
for
that
reason
this
should
be
denied.
B
So
the
gentleman
before
he
was
talking
a
lot
about
fire
suppression.
I
probably
could
have
asked
him,
but
do
you
know
these
towers
to
cause
fires.
Q
There's
yeah
there's
lots
of
evidence
in
the
most
recent
court
decision.
There
was
a
lot
of
evidence
put
in
about
how
these
towers
catch
on
fire
all
across
the
country
they
catch
on
fire.
You
can
fall
over
so
yeah.
It
does
happen,
they're
putting
out
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
energy.
Q
I
can't
tell
you
all
the
reasons
why
they
do
catch
on
fire.
I
think
there's
someone
gonna
speak
to
that
here
in
a
few
minutes
in
the
audience,
it's
gonna
speak
to
that
more
thoroughly.
Okay,.
Q
A
Q
Q
A
With
the
suez
with.
A
We
have
is
anyone
from
suez
or
or
okay
go
ahead.
R
R
E
E
R
R
This
will
support
their
scada
system,
which
is
the
supervisory
control
and
data
operation
system
which
allows
suez
to
monitor,
manage
and
respond
to
any
emergency
from
their
headquarters,
so
they
don't
have
to
be
on
site
at
all
times.
It
really
allows
their
different
wells
and
their
different
monitoring
to
talk
to
each
other
throughout
the
treasure
valley
region.
R
We
do
have
robert
barrett
here,
he'll
be
able
to
address
that
a
little
bit,
but
it
is
it's,
it
does
use
radio
transmissions,
but
when
you
think
about
the
propagation
of
small
5g
cell
towers
throughout
the
cities
throughout
the
counties
where
they're
on
every
other
block
on
every
other
corner,
that's
not
what
they're
proposing
here.
This
is
out
more
in
the
it's
out
in
the
country,
and
it's
used
strictly
for
these
public
safety
concerns
with
the
water
system.
R
The
proposed
tower
is
only
for
their
private
use,
it's
not
for
commercial
use,
they
don't
sell
space
on
this.
They
don't
let
verizon
or
anyone
come
in
and
use
space
on
the
tower.
The
project
aligns
with
the
current
land
use.
It's
been
approved
by
the
planning
and
zoning
commission.
It
meets
all
the
requirements
of
ada
county
code
and
the
conditions
of
approval,
and
it
is
necessary
to
it
is
necessary
to
ensure
the
safe
water
delivery
within
the
system.
R
Mr
rob
talks
about
fire
safety
at
this
location.
There's
actually
a
large
suez
water
well,
and
there
are
hydrants
on
the
property
within
the
fenced
perimeter.
There
is
fire
safety
at
this
location
further
as
far
as
fire
goes,
there's
not
a
significant
history
of
these
towers
bursting
into
flames
of
there
being
significant
problems
with
them,
and
this
is
a
second
tower
in
a
location
where
there's
already
one
tower
the
area
has
already
been
graveled.
R
It's
been,
it's
had
all
of
the
trees
removed,
it
said
well,
there
are
never
any
really
trees
out
here
to
begin
with,
it's
had
the
trees,
it's
had
the
grasses,
it's
had
the
shrubs
all
removed,
and
so
we're
really
talking
about
a
graveled
fenced
in
area
with
two
antennas
in
there.
So
adding
the
second
antenna
is
not
going
to
significantly
change
anything.
R
It
really
is
just
one
more
antenna
on
a
concrete
pad
in
a
graveled
area,
be
fined
behind
a
fence
there's
also
as
far
as
other
concerns
where
they
go.
There
are
numerous
towers
in
the
area,
including
that
large
noaa
weather
tower
the
big
bulb,
one
that
you
saw,
and
there
is
the
well.
The
fire
protection
plan
is
the
same
as
it
is
for
most
places
that
are
in
rural
ada
county.
R
Let's
go
on
to
next.
As
far
as
the
tower
location,
you
can
back
up
one.
It
is
0.7
miles
to
the
birds
of
prey
who
had
no
comment
on
the
application,
and
it's
almost
one
full
mile
to
the
nearest
residential
home
as
robert
will
talk,
or
I
can
talk
a
little
bit
about
it.
These
operate
in
a
this
sort
of
radio
antennas.
They
operate
in
a
line
of
sight.
R
They
don't
propagate
in
the
cone,
shape
they're
like
a
cell
tower
necessarily
would
this
is
more
like
line
of
sight
line
of
sight
and
where
these
lines
of
sight
are
it.
Actually,
one
of
them
is
going
straight
east
off
across
the
gravel
area,
and
one
is
going
more
to
the
north
a
little
bit
to
the
west,
but
so
they're
not
actually
line
of
sighting
over
either
the
birds
of
prey
or
over
this
residential
development.
R
One
comment
that's
been
made
raised
by
mr:
I
believe
it
was
di
haas
I
didn't
catch.
His
last
name
for
sure
is
the
requirement
that
this
be
needed,
that
there
be
some
sort
of
gap
in
coverage,
because
this
isn't
a
commercial
wireless
cell
phone
coverage.
It's
a
different
situation,
that's
not
part
of
the
requirements.
This
is
more.
These
radio
antennas
are
governed
under
regulations
that
have
to
do
with
safety,
with
mining
operations
with
fire
services.
R
R
The
general
standards
for
the
criteria
they
have
been
met.
This
is
a
private,
not
a
commercial
use.
It's
accessory
to
an
a
permitted
or
approved
use.
It's
the
rest
of
the
property
is
being
used
for
agriculture
purposes.
It
is
in
compliance
with
the
regulations
of
it's
in
compliance
with
the
regulations
and
requirements
of
the
faa.
They've
issued
a
determination
of
no
hazard
to
air
navigation
letter.
This
is
not
going
to
be
affecting
the
airspace
around
the
airport.
R
They
are
going
to
be
required
to
paint
it
and,
I
believe,
put
a
red
flashing
light
on
the
top
of
it
because
of
the
air
issues.
Itd,
a
notice
was
sent,
they
did
not.
The
bureau
of
aeronautics
did
not
respond
the
boise
airport,
they
have
to
have
a
navigation
easement
over
the
property,
and
so
they
have
filled
that
out.
I
believe
they're
working
with
them
right
now
to
get
that
sort
of
thing
signed.
R
This
is
also
within
the
area
of
military
influence.
Overlay
area.
This
was
submitted
to
lieutenant
colonel
christopher
borders
at
the
national
guard
and
they
had
no
objection
to
it.
Finally,
in
the
private
tower,
they
talk
about
a
licensed
amateur
radio
operator,
and
that
is
not
what
this
is.
We
are
not
a
private
we're,
not
a
radio
operator,
private
amateur
radio
operator.
R
As
far
as
the
tower
construction
standards,
it
complies
with
all
the
faa
regs.
Once
they
go
to
begin
construction,
they
do
have
to
submit
a
notice
of
construction
to
the
faa.
It
exceeds
all
of
the
setback
requirements.
They're
set
back
one
foot
for
every
10
feet
of
total
tower
height.
There
is
an
engineered
site.
Plan
has
been
submitted,
the
fall
zone
requirements
are
also
met,
which
is
one
foot
for
every
10
feet
of
tower.
The
fall
zone
is
all
completely
with
on
this
property.
R
R
R
It
is
jub
engineering.
Does
this
and
it's
not
just
them
saying?
Oh,
I
think
this.
I
think
that
they
pull
all
the
reports.
The
state
federal
reports
on
what
are
the
soils
in
this
area.
What
are
the
ada
county
maps
on
the
topography?
They
really
look
at
all
those
things
and
in
this
area
it
determined
that
there
would
not
be
there'd
be
an
inconsequential
impact
to
the
surrounding
area.
R
Wildlife
in
existing
natural
terrain,
the
landscaping
they
are
asking
that
they
not
be
at
required
to
landscape
this,
that
they
do
want
to
leave
it
in
its
natural
state,
which
is
surrounding
it.
Just
the
sage
that
you
saw
the
pictures
of
they
also
meet
the
parking
requirements
they
simply
just
want
to
be
able
to
park
on
the
gravel.
R
That's
already
there,
they're
only
going
to
have
one
person
out
there
once
or
twice
a
week,
just
doing
monitoring
checking
the
wells
that
sort
of
thing
they
comply
with
all
the
base
standards,
the
overlay
district
standards,
it's
consistent
with
the
ridge
through
rivers
pathway
plan,
and
they
really
don't
need
their
utilities
and
public
services
are
available
and
to
the
extent
that
they
need
them
they're
there.
This
doesn't
really
significantly
affect
anything.
It's
mostly
it's
really
just
a
self-supporting
radio
tower
south
of
town
that
really
doesn't
require
a
lot
of
extra
utilities.
R
It's
not
detrimental
to
the
public
health
safety
or
welfare.
As
we've
discussed,
there
is
adequate
fire
suppression
out
here.
There
are
wells
on
the
property.
There
are
hydrants
on
the
property.
A
truck
could
get
in
and
turn
around.
R
Also,
by
having
this
be
able
to
be
done
remotely
this
sort
of
monitoring,
it
does
tend
to
make
water
more
affordable
for
the
residents.
There
are
no
undue
adverse
impacts
on
the
surrounding
properties.
This
is
designed
to
be
unobtrusive.
There's
going
to
be
approximately
like,
I
mentioned
one
site,
maybe
two
site
visits
a
week.
It's
consistent
with
the
comp
plan.
R
There
are
still
another
300
acres
that
could
be
developed
outside
of
this
one
little
pad,
and
then
those
will
also
be
able
to
be
sufficiently
buffered
from
this
use,
and
there
really
isn't
going
to
be
any
there's
adequate
public
and
private
services
to
the
extent
they're
required
and
the
political
subdivisions
again
to
the
extent
that
they
would
ever
be
needed
are
able
to
provide
services.
Here,
let's
go
one
issue
that
was
raised
is:
why
do
we
need
a?
R
Why
does
suez
need
a
second
tower
here
and
the
first
tower
is
used
currently
for
suez
purposes.
They
also
have
co-located
other
similar
critical
service
infrastructure
on
it.
I
believe
actually
ada
county
may
have
something
on
there
for
its
radio
services
boise
fire
at
one
point,
did
I
don't
know
if
they
do
anymore
intermountain
gas
has
located
some
of
its
similar
scada
monitoring
equipment
on
it
as
well,
so
it
is
used
for
other
similar
non-commercial
purposes
for
utilities
and
local
government
entities
to
be
able
to
have
this
necessary
communication.
R
It
meets
all
the
required
conditions
of
approval.
This
and
applicant
is
absolutely
is
willing
to
accept
all
of
the
conditions
of
approval.
They
don't
have
any
problem
with
any
of
those.
It
complies
with
the
fcc
regulations,
the
faa
regulations,
basic
district
standards,
the
overlay
districts
and
the
ada
county
specific
youth
standards.
It
is
not
detrimental
to
the
public
health
safety
and
welfare,
there's
no
real
significant
impacts
on
the
surrounding
area
and
all
agency
and
staff
comments
have
been
reviewed
and
the
applicant
can
and
will
comply
with
all
of
the
conditions
listed
in
the
staff
report.
R
D
I'll
stand
for
questions.
Yes,
mr
chair
go
ahead,
so
I
couldn't
find
in
the
original
application,
the
appropriate
fire
district
or
whoever
would
respond.
What
would
be
the
response
time
out
here?
Do
we
have
that.
N
N
R
R
No,
I
actually
believe
it's
less
we're
required
to
provide
less
and
you
consider
less
much
of
what
was
mentioned.
It
was
not
like
a
propagation
study
that
sort
of
thing
they
had
to
do
for
the
fcc
licensing,
but
that's
just
not
required
under
the
code
for
a
private
tower,
so
you're,
actually
looking
at
less
it's
significantly
less.
D
A
Okay
sure
we
want
to
get
some
fire
because
it
it
dawns
on
me
that
cell
towers
are
they're
called
cell
towers
because
they're
just
a
small
small
area
and
they
go
from
one
cell
to
the
next-
is
that
not
correct?
That
is
a
cell
tower
is
correct,
mr
chairman,
but
yours
did
not.
Yours
is
just
a
radio
tower
with
signals
out
to
your
to
your
people,
correct.
S
Correct,
but
what
this
one?
It's
a
point-to-point
microwave
system,
so
it's
more
just
of
a
pipe
between
two
locations
and
it's
a
very
small
pipe,
so
you
can't
go.
You
know
100
feet
away
from
it
and
you'll
pick
up
like
you
would
for
like
a
cell
phone
or
something
like
that,
there
is
sensitive
equipment
that
you
might
be
able
to
see
some
very,
very
low
signal
out
there
I
mean
extremely
low,
but
the
way
this
system
works
is
that
those
two
dishes
from
the
two
different
points
have
to
be
exactly
aligned.
S
If
they're
not
aligned,
it
doesn't
work.
So
that's
what
that's
what
it
is?
It's
not
like,
a
a
cell
phone
or
your
broadcast
radio
that
you
can
pick
up
all
over
the
place
just
between
two
points
and
actually
to
clarify
on
this
tower.
It's
a
relay
tower
between
a
point,
one
of
our
our
plants
on
the
east,
end
of
town
to
one
of
our
offices
on
the
northwest
and.
S
A
I
understand
that
from
a
previous
testimony,
mr
de
haas
that
there's
11
000
megahertz
of
electricity
being
used
at
that
site.
S
S
It's
the
wave
pattern
is
what
he's
talking
about.
The
radios
themselves
are
fairly
low
wattage.
I
don't
have
the
exact
number
of
the
radio
itself,
but
our
license
for
the
fcc
license
allows
us
to
do.
I
think
it's
anywhere
from
say
about
a
little
bit
over
200
watts
to
300
watts,
going
out
60
feet
up
in
the
air,
and
it's
a
small
signal
going
to
the
other
other
side.
E
S
What
your,
what
your
job
was,
I'm
the
project
manager
on
this,
but
I've
worked
for
suez,
boise
water
for
37
plus
years
before
that
I
worked
for
a
cable
company
working
on
satellite
and
communication
systems
also
did
the
scada
control
systems
for
30
plus
years
here.
So
it
was
all
telemetry
radio
phone.
B
S
There's
many
ways
that
you
can
read
these
on
different
licenses:
the
the
fcc
license,
but
when
you
kind
of
convert
it
into
like
a
wattage
type
thing,
the
output
of
the
antenna
that
our
license
is
in
is
within
say
about
200
to
300
watts.
Now
that
doesn't
mean
that
we'll
be
at
that
there
was
some
discussion
earlier
about.
Are
we
making
sure
that
we
do
the
minimum
and
we
will
do
the
minimum,
the
propagation
study
that
was
done
through
the
radio
provider?
S
I
think
it
was
somewhere
in
the
neighborhood
of
around
200
watts
that
we
would
need
to,
and
that's
just
at
the
one
site
at
the
at
the
other
site.
It's
barely
you
know
the
wattage
is
very,
very
low
so
and
then
one
thing
that
I
kind
of
explained
to
some
people
too.
They
always
you
know.
What
does
that
mean
or
something
like
that,
especially
with
the
do
you
want
to
just
keep
turning
up
the
power
somebody
said.
Well,
it
doesn't
work
right
or
something
you
got
in
here
for
it's
turning
power.
S
My
analogous
to
that
is
that,
like
you're
talking
to
somebody
and
if
you
keep
turning
up
the
power
you're,
just
raising
your
voice
and
you're
just
screaming
at
somebody
also,
you
just
can't
understand
what
they're
saying
because
they're
screaming
at
you.
So
you
do
want
to
have
it
to
the
bare
minimum
to
get
that
signal
across
to
the
other
side
and
that's
where
we
we
go
and
all
our
radios
are
within
our
fcc
licenses.
B
S
S
So
you
know,
like
our
fm
radios,
are
you
know,
97
points
something
megahertz
frequency.
This
is
way
up
there
in
the
gil
gigahertz
radios,
so
that
so.
B
S
S
But
what
again
going
back
to
the
point
that
if
it
is,
if
you
start
using
too
much
turning
up
the
application
on
that,
the
other
side
doesn't
understand
what
you're
saying
it
just
doesn't
it
just
doesn't
work
and-
and
these
are
fixed
locations
and
they're
about
anywhere
from
probably
this
one's,
I
think,
is
about
six
miles
apart.
So
you
know
it's
not
going
to
help
turning
up
the
power.
If
the
power
ever
would
go
up
so
yeah,
so
they
would
be
used
at
the
minimum
power
that
we
needed
to
get
across
to
the
other
side.
S
S
Yeah,
the
cell
phone,
if
you
think
of
cell
phone
that
right
now,
I
could
bring
my
cell
phone
in
and
pick
it
up
in
here.
Most
likely,
these
are
even
though
the
tower
would
be
outside
someplace.
Let's
say
just
right
outside
this
building
and
it's
going
to
another
tower,
you
would
not
be
able
to
pick
it
up
in
here
with
just
generally,
you
know
you,
you
could
get
test
equipment
and
you
could,
if
they're
sensitive
enough,
you
could
probably
say
there's
something
in
in
here,
but
not
you
would
never
be
anything
really
in
detectable
levels.
B
S
The
I
couldn't
give
you
the
an
exact
answer
of
what
it
is,
but
the
you
know
the
farther
you
get
away
from
those
dishes.
You
know
the
less
that
you
know
less.
That
beam
is,
is
there,
so
it's
not
like
you
know,
like
a
microwave
or
something
that
somebody's
going
to
fly
into
it.
No
somewhere.
S
You
have
a
cooked
bird
or
something
like
that,
but
it
might
affect
them.
I
don't.
I
don't
really
think
so.
We
we
have
birds
out
there,
all
the
time
set
on
equipment.
We
don't
see
any
dead
birds
sitting
out
there,
the
biggest
probably
problem
for
birds
out
there.
Is
there
there's
power
lines
out
there.
They
got
actually
the
birds
roosts
on
them
and
stuff
so
yeah.
So
we
we
don't
see
any
dead
birds
out
there
all
right.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
A
S
Yeah
one
of
the
first
things
we
have
to
do
you
know
try
to
get
this
accomplished
is
that
we
have
to
make
sure
that
those
paths
are
available
to
us.
So
again,
it's
some
type
of
radios,
you,
you
could
put
an
antenna
structure
somewhere
and
it
really
doesn't
matter
because
you
can
get
the
that
propagation
of
that
frequency
out
to
different
locations.
S
We
have
to
make
sure
that
that
line
of
sight
is
available,
because
maybe
some
other
company
has
that
that
path,
there's
actually
invisible
path
in
between
those
two
dishes
and
if
we
were
at
the
same
level
or
same
height,
that
it
would
cause
interference
and
usually
with
the
propagation
studies
it's
within
a
certain
well
area
too,
so
you
don't
get
any
problems
with
someone
crossing
stuff.
So
so
that
was
the
very
first
thing.
We
did
to
make
sure
that
those
paths
were
available
and
then
we
applied
for
the
fcc
licenses
and.
S
They
and
then
also
for
your
license.
Then
we
have
to
tell
the
fcc
or
the
integrator
who
did
the
licensing
for
us.
This
is
the
wattage
that
the
study
came
up
with.
So
again,
it's
not
an
arbitrary
number
that
we
come
up
with
to
say:
okay,
we're
going
to
do
this
wattage,
it's
they
give
us
a
study
says
between
these
two
points.
S
This
is
what
the
power
level
you
need
and
they're,
usually
pretty
conservative
and
then,
when
we
put
it
in,
we
make
sure
that
we'll
we'll
be
probably
likely
below
that.
S
R
A
All
right
now
we
will
open
it
up
for
discussion.
I
have
a
number
of
people
that
are
that
have
already
signed
up.
I've
already
heard
from
mr
rock
so
we'll
take
the
next
person
is
robert
barrett
already
spoke.
Okay,
I'm
sorry.
A
Any
if
you
have
any
further
questions,
we'll
we'll
ask
you:
okay,
then
we
have
on
webex.
We
have
hank
allen.
A
We
can
hear
you
fine
go
ahead,
mr
you
have.
You,
have
three
minutes
go
ahead
so.
U
V
A
Okay:
okay,
we
have
jesse
shockley.
M
X
I
am
the
structural
engineer
on
record
for
this
project.
I
did
the
foundation,
design
and
the
site
plan
and
I
will
stand
for
questions.
D
I
guess
if
you
could
address
the
appellants
concerns
that
these
catch
on
fire
they're,
not
structurally
sound
or
I'm
not
sure
there
wasn't
really
any
hard
evidence
submitted
to
that
effect.
But
there
was
testimony
given.
X
The
tower
itself
is
designed
by
a
tower
manufacturer
and
they,
the
manufacturer,
has
licensed
engineers
in
the
state
of
idaho,
so
they
actually
do
the
design
of
the
tower
itself.
I
did
the
design
of
the
foundation,
and
so
the
foundation
is
designed
for
gravity
loads
and
when
in
seismic
loads,
so
it
cannot
overturn
from
that
kind
of
loading.
So
that's
that's
what
I
looked
at
for
design
per
the
international
building
code.
A
Do
you
work
for
for
suez
or
do
you
work
for
an
engineering
company
or
who
do
you
work
for
I.
A
Are
you
familiar
with
any
corresponding
cell
radio
tower
that
has
had
any
structural
problems
with
wind
or
otherwise?
I.
B
Y
Y
We
not
only
provide
potable
drinking
water
and
irrigation
water.
We
provide
fire
protection
water
for
our
entire
service
area,
which
is
a
large
portion
of
ada
county.
We
have
hydrants
along
the
10
mile
ridge,
including
in
the
birds
of
prey
center
and
right
at
this
10
mile,
well
site
where
the
tower
would
go.
Y
I
got
buzzed
so
so
for
fire
safety
having
the
scada
controls
and
having
our
pipeline
and
wells
and
hydrants
up
there
is
is
a
big
plus
for
fire
safety.
There
is
a
big
turnaround
area
right
in
front
of
that
well
house
that
our
crews
use
and
the
farmer
uses,
and
so
a
wildland
fire
can
turn
around
right
there
as
well.
D
Yeah
kathy,
if
you
wouldn't
mind
just
under
the
fcc
and
under
nepa
section
332
c7,
the
communications
act,
local
state
and
local
authorities
need
to
identify
when
there
could
be
impact
into
and
I'll
just
quote
it
located
in
a
wildlife
preserve
or
an
affected
threatened
and
endangered
species
area,
habitat
okay.
So
knowing
this
is
next
to
the
birds
of
prey
habitat,
I'm
a
little
concerned
that
they
didn't
respond
number
one.
Y
Y
Y
D
I
would
just
ask
that
you
try
to
reach
out
and
and
see
if
there's
anything
that
they
would
want
you
to
accommodate
in
terms
of
what
they
normally
put
on
these.
So
they
don't
nest
on
them,
because
I
think
that's
been
a
problem
in
the
past
is
when
they
nest
on
them.
But
there's
apparatus
that
I
think
you
can
put
on
them,
so
they
don't.
D
But
that
is
an
area
because
I
I
don't
want
to
have
to
order
an
environmental
assessment
if
you
guys
can
just
make
sure
that
you've
communicated
and
there's
no
issues
or
concerns
from
their
end
sure.
N
The
chairman
commissioners,
just
to
weigh
in
during
my
presentation
the
conservation
area
itself
is
about
six
miles
southwest
of
this
site.
The
birds
of
prey
center
is
the
so
it's
not.
The
center
is
not
actually
in
the
conservation
area.
Z
Z
Z
So
in
the
jub
letter
detailed
letter
and
the
project
information
page
two,
the
purpose
of
the
tower
is
to
support
internal
communications
pursue
as
water
technicians
as
they
provide
service
and
operations
throughout
ada
county-
and
I
just
wonder,
is
after
this
discussion
about
about
it's
communicating
providing
communications
between
one
plant
in
the
east
end
of
town
to
another
in
the
northwest
part
of
town.
Is
this
truly
the
only
site
that
can
provide
that?
Z
Z
Co-Location
is
always
preferable
to
building
a
new
tower,
so
I
understand
that
that
there's
a
lot
of
remote
monitoring
and
and
needs
that
need
to
be
filled,
but
is
this
actually
the
location
and
the
and
the
only
appropriate
location
for
this
tower?
Z
For
this
purpose,
and-
and
I
I
guess
I
just
don't-
understand
the
reasoning
that
there
can't
be
co-location
or
other
locations
considered,
so
we've
heard
that
this
tower
is
within
a
hundred
feet
of
the
internationally
acclaimed
world
center
birds
of
prey
headquarters
for
the
peregrine
fund,
and
you
probably
know
that
the
pere
peregrine
fund
is
is
known
for
its
worldwide
conservation
and
recovery
efforts
of
rare
and
endangered
raptors.
So
and
so
this
facility,
we
know
houses
raptors
in
decline
and
their
important
work
is
brought
back
endangered
species
from
the
brink
of
extinction.
Z
Z
You
know
you
have
full
authority
to
deny
a
conditional
use
permit
based
on
location
not
on
health
or
environment,
but
you
can
on
location,
and
this
authority
has
never
been
taken
away
from
you
by
the
telecommunications
act,
the
fcc
or
anyone
else.
Z
David
daha
spoke
about
the
1996
telecommunications
act,
specifically
giving
local
authority
on
on
two
towns
and
and
counties
to
deny
conditional
use
permits
based
on
location
or
aesthetics.
So
thank
you.
Thank
you.
A
D
Have
a
question
yeah
sure,
so
that
was
my
question
was
where
the
conservation
area
is
in
relationship
to
the
actual
birds
of
trade
birds
of
prey
to
where
this
proposed
tower
site
is
and
it's
six
miles
away.
Z
So
the
center
itself
is
less
than
third
six
miles
away.
It's
the
the
entire
the
conservation
area
that
you're
speaking
of
is
yes,
it's
farther
away.
I
you
know
I
there's
there's
a
plethora
of
peer-reviewed
studies
on
the
effects
on
birds
and
pollinators
of
environment,
of
radio
frequency
emissions,
and
you
know
I
don't
have
those
available
for
you,
but
I've
provided
them
to
the
idaho
conservation,
league
and
and
and
other
organizations
concerned
with
with
birds
and
and
other
environmental
concerns.
Z
A
AA
My
name
is
kevin
kluss.
I
live
at
1634
marth
street
at
boise,
idaho.
Thank
you.
First
I'd
like
to
thank
the
honorable
board
here
for
allowing
me
to
testify.
AA
I'm
a
former
captain
united
states
air
force,
and
I
served
as
an
air
force
physicist
for
the
program
executive
office
for
intelligence,
electronic
warfare
censors
directorate.
I
was
also
at
the
national
air
space
intelligence
center
and
I
also
served
as
chief
of
operational
test
evaluation
at
edwards
air
force
base
and
I
evaluated
a
variety
of
telecommunications
systems,
electronic
warfare
systems
and
also
surveillance
sensors.
AA
AA
I
frankly,
I
would
have
probably
been
skinned
alive
if
I
had
a
test,
something
like
this
out
and
actually
a
a
missile
site
at
white
sands.
So
I'm
quite
concerned
measurements
is
especially
a
detailed.
Propagation
study
requires
actual
measurements
in
the
field.
You
cannot
just
require
just
do
simple
computer
calculations
as
trying
to
determine
where
power
and
range
is
and
what
type
of
power
is
affected.
AA
The
gentleman
before
talked
about
watts,
usually
in
the
industry,
standard
decibels,
are
used,
so
this
particular
tower
is
not
only
operating
at
11
000
megahertz,
but
is
as
acting
at
a
power
of
17
decibels.
That's
positive,
17
decibels.
This
phone
here
is
operating
about
at
negative
70
decibels,
so
this
tower
is
22
387
times
more
powerful
than
this
phone
that
I'm
holding
in
my
hand.
AA
AA
Okay,
I
have
absolutely
well.
I
have
absolute
confidence
that
such
hastily
rushed
implementations
of
these
types
of
technology
will
be
a
great
regret
in
the
future.
Tonight
we
have
the
opportunity
to
haul
at
least
this
one,
and
so
I
please
ask
you
that
you
grant
the
appeal
for
mr
roth.
A
A
AA
Yes,
so
this
is
so
this
is
seems
to
be.
I
mean
this,
then
this
goes
back.
I
mean
something
like
this.
This
has
to
be.
You
have
to
have
data
like
this,
provided
the
public,
so
residents
especially,
can
be
aware
of
what
type
of
frequencies
and
waveforms
this
is
an
emergence
technology.
We
don't
know
the
effects.
I
know
some
of
the
effects
of
what
they
can
be
used
in
certain
applications
in
warfare,
so
this
is
where
also
I'm
concerned.
Also,
the
security
implications.
AA
Is
this
network
connected
and
who
can
potentially
take
over
the
network?
Is
there
safety
guards,
for
that
is
another
concern,
I'm
quite
quite
frankly,
terrified
that
such
a
private
application
can
get
away
with
so
much,
especially
if
it's
with
a
commercial
company
I
mean
because
right
now,
I'm
just
thinking
any
joe
schmoe
if
they
have
enough
money
can
build
whatever
monstrosity
on
the
apartment
emit
whatever
at
various
residents
or
land.
AA
So
this
is
this
is
this
is
alarming
that
has
gotten
this
far
without
oversight,
and
so
yes,
I
have
used
systems
like
that
before
line
of
sight
before
and
misalignment
that's,
if
it's
hit
at
the
wrong
place,
you
have
things
like
havana
syndrome.
You
have
all
sorts
of
problems,
especially
if
you
have
high
power
and
heat.
AA
If
you
hold
down
to
this-
and
you
have
this
in
your
pocket
for
a
long
time,
you'd
feel
the
heat
yourself
all
day,
so
imagine
that
at
22
387
times
more
than
that,
so
this
is
this
is
a
potentially
dangerous
technology
fortune.
Unfortunately,
the
legislation
has
not
caught
up,
and
so
we
have
to
wait.
AA
This
is
why
the
court
of
appeals
in
dc
has
put
a
halt
on
this
in
august,
and
this
is
the
going
back
to
the
6
000
megahertz,
because
anything
above
they
don't
know
yet
we
know
from
private
service,
but
it
hasn't
been
revealed
yet.
So
we
have
to
be
very
careful
with
this,
and
so
this
causes
a
lot
of
panic
and
rightfully
so,
but
I
hope
clearheads
prevail
and
I
thank
you
for
handling
these
difficult
decisions.
AB
My
name
is
dr
ann
hike.
I'm
at
1003
north
orchard
street
in
boise.
I've
had
30
years
experience
as
an
emergency
room
doctor
30
years
experience
as
a
family
practice
doctor.
My
concerns
about
this.
The
needs
study
is,
I
think,
critical.
Why
do
we
need
another
tower
without
a
need
study,
and
my
question
is,
I
think,
a
lot
of
this
could
be
very
could
be
easily
discovered
by
looking
at
dropped,
calls
or
drop
information.
AB
That's
that
is
missing
from
suez,
as
sue
has
given
us
that
data
and
again
that's
another
way
to
do
a
needs
test
or
another
bit
of
data
for
us
out
in
the
country.
This
is
going
to
be
next
to
a
bird
rehabilitation
center,
an
endangered
species
center.
AB
There
have
been
reports
of
birds
when
self
cell
towers
get
turned
on
nest,
nesting,
behavior
being
altered,
including
things
like
not
taking
care
of
the
babies
in
the
nest
or
abandoning
the
nests
all
together.
So
what
what
is
the
effect
of
two
towers
together?
AB
I
suspect
it's
not
inconsequential,
but
it's
going
to
need
some
type
of
physicist
to
look
at
that
that
and
it's
not
just
additive.
But
what
is
the
effect
of
two
towers,
and
I
also
feel
that
we
need
to
know
what
the
lowest
power
is,
and
this
should
be
part
of
the
proposal.
It
shouldn't
be
something
that
we're
talking
about.
It
needs
to
be
in
the
proposal
of
the
lowest
affected,
radiated
power
that
can
get
the
job
done
if
this
tower
is
in
the
proper
site.
B
A
B
N
Chairman
christian,
certainly
if,
if
you
at
some
point,
wanted
us
to
start
requiring
a
propagation
study
for
these
private
towers,
I
mean
that
sounds
like
they're
already
happening.
Pardon
me
that
that
could
be
something
we'd
have
to
amend
our
code.
There'd
be
a
full
process
involved
with
that,
but
that
is,
if
that's.
A
The
discretion
of
the
board
again
to
the
staff.
They
indicated
that
they
did
do
a
propagation
study.
But
but
it
sounded
to
me
like
it,
was
a
different
kind
of
a
propagation
study
than
for
a
cell
tower.
N
Yeah
chairman,
commissioner,
I
will
not
pretend
to
be
an
expert
on
propaganda
studies,
but
I
it
does
sound
different
than
what
we
normally
require
for
the
for
the
commercial
towers,
and
I
guess
I
would
also
say
I
got
buzzes.
N
There
is
a
there
is
a
large
scope
of
what
fits
into
the
private
tower,
so
some
low-level
tower
may
not
be
you
know.
A
propagation
study
might
not
even
be
a
requirement
based
on
fcc,
whereas
a
more
robust
one
like
what
we're
hearing
about
tonight
may
require
that.
So
all
that
to
say
is
staff
would
certainly
want
to
research
this
before
we
start
requiring
propagation
studies
for
private
towers,
so.
E
A
On
all
right,
we
have
mr
david
dahash
you've
already
spoken.
Do
you
want
to
speak
again.
E
Q
Thank
you,
commissioners.
So
a
couple
of
things
you
mentioned
are
there
you
know:
are
there
fires
across
the
country?
Well,
I
just
did
a
simple
google
on
my
computer
I'll
pull
up.
There's
thousands
of
pictures
of
these
things
catching
on
fire.
You
ask
about
data,
harming
the
birds
and
the
bees.
I've
done.
Five
radio
shows
with
experts
across
the
country
and,
quite
frankly,
it
depresses
the
heck
out
of
me
as
dr
martin
paul
who's.
An
expert
in
this
area
says
david,
we're
we're
headed
towards
extinction.
Q
If
we
continue
to
allow
this
many
towers,
I
know
it's
hard.
If
you
understand
it's
an
invisible
pollution,
you
can't
see
it.
You
can't
touch
it
like
I've
told
somebody
it's
harder
to
explain
it
than
it
is
to
sell
somebody
a
life
insurance
policy.
It's
that
nebulous
right.
So
there's
just
some
of
the
pictures
that
you
can
google
these
do
catch
on
fire,
one
of
the
ways
that
could
be
changed
out.
There
is
actually
take
that
dirt
road
and
put
some
rock
in
there.
So
a
fire
truck
could
get
in
there.
Q
That
would
improve
the
fire
protection
capabilities
there,
but
look
we're
in
doubt.
They
said
they
have
a
propagation
study
you
haven't
seen
it.
I
haven't
seen
it
if
you're
in
doubt,
you
should
vote
it
out.
Your
basic
code
says
we
need
to
keep
private
property
owners
and
individuals
safe
and
right
now,
based
upon
the
testimony
of
the
physicist,
you
can't
do
that.
The
fcc
says
all
rf
frequencies
should
be
at
the
minimal
amount
of
power
possible.
Q
The
minimum
amount
of
power
possible
and
already
the
dc
courts
have
appealed,
have
ruled
that
hey.
We
know
that
you're
not
safe
up
to
six
thousand
megahertz
and
you
shouldn't
go
in
over
that
whatsoever.
So,
like
we,
the
physicist
mentioned,
we
don't
know,
what's
going
to
happen
there.
Well,
we
do
know,
but
we
shouldn't
allow
that
amount
of
power,
but
here's
the
solution
to
all
of
this
look.
They
want
to
do
this
because
it's
cheap,
it's
cheap,
to
send
the
signals
via
these
towers.
Q
Q
But
I
think
this
needs
to
be
remanded
back
when
they
come
back
again
with
actually
data
propagation
studies,
so
they
can
show
the
citizens
that
it
is
safe,
but
I'm
saying
let's
go
fiber
optics.
Let's
do
the
right
thing,
as
we
mentioned
the
fire
problem
and
the
public
sa
the
public
safety
and,
like
dr
martin
paul
says,
look
at
david,
I'm
driving
across
the
eastern
oregon
last
eastern
washington
last
year.
There
was
no
bugs
on
my
windshield
there's
so
many
towers
out
there
right
now
that
we
don't
have
bugs
on
windshield.
Q
D
Q
A
Okay,
we
have
on
webex
betty
ash.
A
E
N
A
AC
A
After
that,
no.
A
S
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Yes,
commissioner,
ryan
and
ken
cameron,
I
just
wanted
to
respond
to
some
of
the
questions.
I
guess
came
about
the
the
alternative
sites
and
the
co
mounting
on
their
other
ones.
This
site
was
picked.
We
already
have
some
facilities
out
there,
so
we
don't.
It
is
a
good
site.
S
S
S
I
think
it
is
part
of
the
regulations
that
they
have
to
have
two
or
three
other
spots
for
other
cell
service,
so
they
don't
allow
us
to
be
on
there
with
with
our
equipment
we've
tried
in
the
past,
but
that
doesn't
work
the
out
of
alignment,
how
those
work,
the
the
signals
between
those
line
of
sights
again,
I
I
kind
of
explained
that
they
have
to
line
up
perfectly
for
them
to
work.
If
they
do
start
wandering,
we
will
get
alarm
they
will.
S
They
do
have
technology
in
there
if
they
are
so
far
out
of
alignment
that
they
aren't
communicating
back
and
forth,
they
will
disable
themselves.
So
we
have
that
propagation
study.
We
do
pro
other
propagation
studies
for
like
our
automated
meter
reading
systems
and
how
that
kind
of
works.
It's
kind
of,
like
that's
kind
of
like
a
cell
itself,
that
they
they
do
have
computer
models
that
they
can
say.
S
Okay,
if
you
have
an
antenna,
this
height
over
in
this
area,
that
they
know
from
the
train,
what
meters,
it'll
read
and
that's
kind
of
how
we
will
set
up
some
of
our
towers
at
different
locations
and
it'd,
be
similar
to
what
the
cell
service
would
be
and
that's
how
they
could
see
if
they
have
a
dead
spot
or
something
like
that.
This
is
a
little
different
again,
because
it's
two
line
of
sight.
So
what
they're?
S
Looking
in
the
propagation
studies
is
there
any
obstructions
in
between
those
lines
of
sight
and
there's
other
concern
or
other
factors
that
are
in
there?
That
they've
got
to
be
so
much
above
the
bottom
of
those?
You
know
any
obstructions
to
get
a
full
signal
and
to
get
a
complete
signal.
So
we
do
propagation
studies,
but
it's
more
at
the
radio
manufacturer
level
to
say.
Yes,
our
system
will
work
and
that's
kind
of
what
we
have.
S
S
We
have
the
the
the
data
from
say
the
study
data
from
the
radio
manufacturer
and-
and
I
would
think
they're-
probably
a
little
conservative,
so
they're,
probably
being
a
little
higher
than
what
you
would
need.
We
would
we
would
be
able
to
give
something.
You
know
at
the
end
that
what
we
have,
but
we
would
be
below
anything
that
fcc
requires
us
or
allows
us
to
be.
S
Yeah
on
some
of
our
other
systems,
we
we
do
we'll
go
out
and
we'll
at
some
of
our
other
well
sites,
we'll
see
what
the
reading
is
and
we
we
mark
that
down.
A
Hank
allen
wants
to
speak
on
this
application.
U
All
right,
perfect,
hey!
Thank
you
so
much
for
letting
me
chime
in
here
as
I'm
listening.
This
is
completely
different
than
a
normal
commercial
cell
tower,
like
the
star
cell
tower
that
we're
going
to
talk
about
next,
and
this
is
a
point
to
point
relay
antenna
which,
in
my
opinion,
is,
is
a
lot
better.
A
lot
safer
and
a
propagation
study
doesn't
really
apply
when
we're
talking
about
a
repeater,
because
it's
not
like
a
you're,
not
just
showering
out
cell
phone
rf
radiation
everywhere.
U
This
is
going
from
a
point
to
point
so
more
of
my
concern
to
to
one
of
the
the
project
managers
there
would
be.
Are
you
far
enough
above?
Are
these
towers
high
enough
so
you're
over
all
the
houses,
because
it's
gonna
be
a
high?
I
guess
it's
a
high-powered
beam
of
energy.
That's
going
to
be
going
between
these
two
towers,
so
in
both
directions.
Where
this
this
beam
of
energy
is
going.
Are
you
substantially
above
residences
and
houses?
And
then,
if
that
beam
of
energy
goes
past
the
receiving
antenna?
U
What's
the
backstop
look
like?
Are
there
houses
behind
it
or
what?
What
causes
that
beam
of
energy
to
stop
right
there
when
it
hits
the
next
the
next
antenna,
or
does
it
continue
infinitely
and
hit
houses
down
down
down
the
stream?
And
if
and
if
that's
done,
with
the
lower
amount
of
energy
and
we're
able
to
know
exactly
where
that
energy
is
going
it,
it
makes
a
lot
safer.
In
my
opinion,
I'm
done
thank.
D
S
Okay
in
the
propagation
study
that
we
we've
done,
it
has
the
height
on
the
tower
where
it
has
to
be
so.
The
two
have
to
be
a
certain
height.
I
said
there
was
other
conditions
that
require
those
being
up
at
a
certain
height
for
so
those
are,
you
know
it's
a
line
of
sight,
so
there
can't
be
any
obstructions
in
there,
so
it
can't
be
going
through
houses
or
trees,
or
anything
like
that.
So
it's
well
above
any
of
that.
The.
S
S
The
the
wattage
or
the
the
signal
is
is
like
minus
57
and
it's
hard
to
you
know
what
is
minus
57
db
or
something
like
that,
but
it's
nothing
like
what
it
is
at
the
at
the
input
or
the
output
of
this,
the
one
transmitting
on
there,
which
is
still
you,
know,
fairly
low,
it's
low,
but
at
the
other
end
it's
it's
not
it
dissipates
quickly.
This
signal
at
this
frequency
is
susceptible
to
a
lot
of
fog
and
rain.
So
there
are
some
things
that
we
do
that.
So
that's
how
easy
it's
dissipated.
A
Okay,
I
have
some
people
that
have
signed
up.
Is
there
anybody
else
that
I
didn't
call
on
would
like
to
speak.
I
have
some
other
people
that
might
want
to
speak
on
this
particular
application.
A
AD
A
Okay,
barbara
you're,
welcome
just
you're,
welcome
to
speak.
You've
got
three
minutes,
give
your
name
again
for
the
record,
so
we
have
it
now.
AD
It's
barbara
parsley,
p-a-r-s-h-l-e-y,
okay
and
I
work
as
I
work
as
an
entomologist
at
a
north
at
the
orchards
out
further
west,
so
I
am
real
familiar
and
very
involved
with
insects.
One
of
the
things
that
my
research
shows
is
that
5g
wavelength
is
short
enough,
that
it
really
does
damage
the
insects.
AD
It
increases
their
body,
temperature
and
microbes
cook
them
as
if
you've
stuffed
them
in
a
microwave
there.
The
pulses
damage
the
wings
and
the
antennae
it
decreases
their
colony
strength
when
it
comes
to
bees,
the
honeybees
honeybees
are
vital
and
yet
we're
killing
them.
I
wish
I
I
could
lay
my
hands
real
quickly,
although
I
can't
show
them
to
you.
I
have
a
picture
of
somebody
who
has
a
honey
hive,
a
honey
bee
hive
and
when
the
5g
tower
turned
on
near
his
home,
all
the
bees
were
dead.
AD
All
of
them
were
killed
it
if
they're
not
killed,
it
decreases
their
colony
strength.
It
decreases
their
fertilization
rate.
These
are
significant
things.
We
know
we're
getting
low
on
bees
in
this
united
states,
and
you
know
here
we
are
going
to
in
add
additional
problems
to
it.
It
affects
it,
causes
swarming
of
those
insects.
AD
It
reduces
the
hatching
of
honeybee
queens.
It
could,
if
it
causes
it
to
be
difficult
for
the
honeybees
to
return
to
their
hives
and
they
end
up
with
a
massive
loss
of
honeybee
workers.
The
end
exp
of
the
experiment
on
the
bees
exposed
to
these
emfs.
They
had
no
honey
or
pollen
in
their
hives.
In
the
end
of
the
experiment.
AD
This
is
a
very
serious
issue.
Obviously
you
realize
that
if
you
kill
off
the
honey
bees
you
kill
off
the
food,
the
5g
has
been
studied,
purposely
to
kill
insects
that
we
don't
want,
such
as
you
know,
tobacco
worms
and
stuff
like
that,
but
obviously
they
can't
use
it
because
it's
going
to
kill
off
the
beneficial
insects
too,
but
we're
dealing
with
a
food
chain
issue.
Here
we
kill
off
these
honeybees
they're.
AD
I
mean
we're
going
to
kill
off
our
ability
to
create
food,
and
once
you
also
kill
off
the
honey
bees
you've
affected
the
plant
life,
you
affect
the
sexual
reproduction
of
plants.
You
will
affect
diversity
and
composition
of
plant
communities
we
and,
and
when
you
think,
about
plants,
what
they
found
in
colorado
is
that
trees.
It
damages
the
trees
itself,
they
have
the
aspen
trees
in
colorado.
AD
The
tall
trees
that
are
in
line
with
the
the
microwave
towers
have
lesions
on
them
from
from
the
microwaves
itself.
The
smaller
trees
do
not
have
them,
because
they're
not
tall
enough,
but
as
soon
as
they
get
taller,
then
they
did.
AD
I'm
finished,
okay,
all.
A
A
D
AD
No,
I
I
can't,
I
don't
know
how
your
I
will
admit.
I
do
not
know
how
your
line
of
sight
tower
is
a
it
affects
these
things,
so.
B
A
Part.
Okay,
thank
you
sure.
Thank
you,
barbara
okay.
Are
there
others
that
the
wish
too,
to
testify?
We
managed
to
get
betty
ash
online.
Oh
okay,.
A
Can
hear
you
just
fine
betty,
could
you
give
your
name?
Could
you
give
your
name
for
the
record
for
us.
A
Okay,
go
ahead.
You
have
three
minutes.
K
AE
AE
Okay,
I'm
gonna
go
ahead
and
skip
that
first,
one
with
the
three
minutes
and
we're
gonna
come
back
to
that
question
number
three.
But
if
you
can
click
through
the
powerpoint,
you
all
will
notice
just
different
incidents
that
involve
cell
towers
and
fires
and
damage
to
structures.
AE
AE
I'm
gonna
talk
about
values
at
risk
which
are
the
structures
rangelands
grazing
lands,
the
infrastructure,
that's
every
house
shed
watershed
plants,
animals.
So
my
first
question
who
who
has
jurisdiction
for
the
fire,
suppression,
prevention
and
field
field
mitigation
in
the
area
that
this
tower
is
going
up
and
then
is
there
a
fire
plan
developed
and
or
approved
by
the
agency
or
department
responsible
for
fire
suppression
in
the
area
of
that
tower?
And
if
so,
is
it
signed
and
dated
and
approved
by
them?
AE
AE
AE
It's
with
the
wildlife,
the
vegetation
any
and
everything
to
do
with
that
area,
including
cultural
resources
and
then
with
cup
question
number
three,
which
was
on
slide
number
one
who
has
ultimate
liability
responsibility
for
those
values
at
risk
that
are
consumed
by
a
fire
in
which
it
has
been
proven
that
the
ignition
point
started
at
that
tower.
AE
Is
it
the
landowner?
Is
it
the
person
that
or
the
agency
that
provides
the
power?
Is
it
the
cell
company
antenna
company
or
is
it
we,
the
taxpayers
of
ada
county?
Anything
can
start
an
ignition,
an
electrical
surge
wind
event.
Bird
strikes,
yes,
pelicans
have
started
fires
before
equipment
failure
and
it's
not
about.
If
a
fire
starts
it's
when
and
are
they
adequately?
AE
AE
Last
one
malibu
fire
2007
14
to
22
structures,
lost
powerful
failure,
electrical
and
cellular
2020
silverado
fire
over
6,
000
acres,
burn,
33
structures,
lost
liability,
power
company
and
the
cell
tower
just
want
to
make
sure
that
these
things
are
addressed,
as
you
guys
go
forward
with
the
permit.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
Thank.
A
You
betty
and
your
your
whole
presentation
will
be
on
the
record.
A
All
right,
thank
you
all
right
are
there,
others
that
wish
to
testify
on
this
tower
on
the
suez
tower
hearing.
None
okay
is
mr
rob
here.
Would
you
like
to
close
you
out?
You
get
five
minutes
to
do
any
rebuttal
if
you'd
like.
Q
Q
Go
ahead
all
right
so
as
you've
listened
tonight
to
the
evidence,
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
doubt.
Look
we're
not
going
to
not
get
water
tomorrow.
If
this
tower
goes
up
or
does
not
go
up,
that's
not
going
to
happen
right.
This
is
to
make
it
less
expensive
cost
for
them
to
monitor
their
facilities.
I
get
that.
I
understand
it,
but
there's
a
safer
way
to
do
it
and
that's
simply
fiber
optics.
Q
This
needs
to
be
denied.
You
never
saw
a
propagation
study.
You
didn't
have
that
data
before
you.
I
don't
know
how
you
can
make
the
decision
on
that.
So
I
would
say:
let's
look
at
doing
something
safer,
this
chemical
doing
something
safe,
they're,
a
pretty
big
company,
they're
international
and
put
fiber
options
in
the
ground.
It's
safe
and
it's
fast
without
our
rest.
E
N
P
P
When
you
apply
for
something-
and
you
need
this
information
in
it
and
it's
not
in
there,
then
your
application
is
not
complete.
You
can't
say
this
without
it
documented
in
your
application.
That's
that's
one
thing.
I'd
like
to
say
the
other
thing
is
did
they
is
the
there's
at
our
house,
and
you
know
where
my
house
is
now
from
the
map.
It's
on
the
other
side
of
birds
of
prey.
I
see
birds
of
prey
sanctuary
from
my
house
and
we
have
fiber
optics
in
my
house.
P
It's
called
centurylink
my
phone
and
all
my
telecommunications
work
off
this
cell
tower,
but
it's
in
the
ground,
it's
it's
fiber
optics
and
they
came
out
and
made
sure
all
those
whistle
pigs
didn't
chew
it
up
and
made
sure
the
line
was
steady
before
and
we
had
to
put
in
three
years
ago
and
it's
still
working
fine.
We
get
all
those
scam
phone
calls
on
our
phone
all
the
time
we
have
a
landline,
and
so
I
know
they've
got
it
close,
so
it's
not
going
to
take
much
to
have
it
put
in.
A
P
It
goes
into
ground,
yes
yeah,
but
the
fiber
optics
is
at
the
corner
and
then
it
runs
with
the
phone
line
under
it
which
they
could
run
under
the
ground.
Over
there
I
mean
you
have
the
it's
available
in
our
whole
neighborhood,
and
so,
if
it's
available
in
our
neighborhood,
how
come
it
isn't
next
door?
You
know.
A
D
Right,
mr
chair,
yes,
I'd
like
for
suez
to
come
back
up
and
address
the
broadband
that
was
that
was
raised
if
it's
already
out
there
there's
fiber
in
the
ground,
wouldn't
that
be
a
better
way
to
go
and
if
not,
why
not?.
R
R
Six
miles
that
we
would
not
be
able
to
do
that.
Additionally,
although
it
seems
that
it
would
be
more
affordable.
As
you
know,
suez
is
a
utility.
Ultimately,
those
casts
all
get
passed
on
to
the
rate
payers,
and
this
seems
like
a
much
better,
more
affordable,
simple
solution
to
this
on
a
tested,
time-tested
true
system
for
relaying
this
sort
of
information
that's
been
used
for
years.
Thank
you.
A
A
On
this
application,
I
got
to
get
my
papers
here
all
right
on
application.
Number
two,
one:
zero
three
one,
six
one,
a
john
robb,
the
appeal
of
the
planning
is
on
the
commission's
approval.
I'm
gonna
close
that
public
hearing
and
the
board
will
take
this
into
consideration.
Is
there
public
hearing
being
closed?
All
testimony
being
presented
that
wanted
to
present
is
their
discussion
amongst
the
board.
B
Well
sure,
mr
chair,
I
guess
I
can
start
off
okay,
so
obviously
we're
gonna
hear
an
actual
5g
application
immediately
after
this.
This
is
obviously
not
going
to
be
the
last
tower
application
and
we're
going
to
hear
more
as
we
go,
and
I
think
you
know
the
commissioners
are
very
cognizant
of
a
lot
of
the
concerns
that
have
been
raised
and
recognized.
B
This
is
kind
of
an
evolving
area
of
law
and
an
evolving
area
of
science,
and
you
know,
we've
heard
we
just
don't
know
what
all
the
effects
are,
and
you
know
what
the
actual
proof
is
that
to
substantiate
some
of
the
allegations
being
made.
E
B
Of
the
valley
and
and
what
all
these
towers
are
going
to
do,
but
as
far
as
as
the
hearing
tonight
goes
in
and
on
this
very
specific
tower,
which
is
not
a
5g
tower,
so
a
lot
of
the
considerations
that
you
know
we've
been
hearing,
don't
really
apply
to
this,
but
there
are
concerns
and
concerns
were
raised.
B
You
know
from
what
I
saw.
I
think
that
I
would
possibly
like
to
put
an
additional
condition
of
requirement
regarding
fire
suppression,
so
it
sounds
like
we're
not
actually
in
a
fire
district
and
there's
just
sort
of
a
general
plan,
but
not
a
specific
plan
regarding
fire
suppression
and
just
based
on
some
of
the
testimony
we've
heard.
B
I
would
think
that
I
would
like
to
you
know,
discuss
putting
a
condition
of
approval
that
a
fire
suppression
plan
be
drawn
up
and
signed
off
on
by
one
of
the
one
of
the
fire
agencies
and
I'm
not
sure
which
one
that
would
be
whether
it's
whitney
or
blm
really
any
of
them.
I
think
if
we
had
some
kind
of
a
fire
marshal
sign
off
on
the
plan,
go
inspect
the
site.
I
think
that
would
make
a
lot
of
people
feel
more
comfortable.
B
I
mean
we
did
hear
testimony
that
there's
not
really
full-time
workers
there.
So
if
you
know
my
concern
is
that
if
something
did
spark
up
that
there
may
not
be
somebody
there
to,
you
know
even
call
the
911
contact
the
sheriff's
department
who
would
have
to
either
contact
blm
or
whitney
to
to
dispatch
somebody.
B
B
Now
we
did
hear
you
know
a
lot
of
talk
about
propagation
studies,
we've
heard
from
staff
that
it's
not
required
under
under
the
code.
That
seems
to
be
more
applicable
to
the
pri,
the
public
towers,
which
we're
going
to
be
hearing
about
next
and
just
in
general
to
the
public.
You
know,
I
think
we
again
we're
going
to
be
hearing
a
lot
more
of
these
applications
as
as
years
go
on
just
fyi
to
the
public.
We
probably
need
to
start
approaching
these
hearings
more
like
a
court
trial
than
just
a
hearing.
B
So
that
means,
if
you
have
evidence,
if
you
have
studies,
if
you
have
test
results,
anything
that
really
does
need
to
be
submitted
to
the
commission
first,
because
it
really
it's
tough
to
evaluate
statements
that
aren't
backed
up
by
proof
or
evidence
or
sworn
testimony
or
study
results.
Anything
like
that.
So
it's
it
is
very
hard
just
to
consider.
You
know
the
anecdotal
evidence
without
having
something
in
front
of
you.
B
I
think
suez
did
a
lot
of
work
to
you
know
address
the
concerns,
but
obviously
there
are
still
going
to
be
concerns
so
with
that,
mr
chair
I'd
hand
that,
back
over
to
you.
D
I
think
commissioner
davidson
covered
it
nicely
and
I
think
if
you
include
those
conditions
of
approval
in
your
motion,
I'd
be
inclined
to
go
along
with
it.
You
have.
B
B
So
I
would,
I
would
move
to
deny
the
appeal:
uphold
the
planning
and
zoning
commission's
determination
and
add
additional
conditions
of
approval,
yep.
Okay,
the
conditions
of
approval
would
be
that
a
recognized
fire
agency
sign
off
on
a
fire
suppression
plan
and
that
we
have
a
one-year
review
to
review
for
any
issues
related
to
whether
or
not
this
is
detrimental
to
the
health,
safety
or
welfare
of
the
public.
B
D
We
could
add
to
that.
I
think
the
the
habitat,
the
wildlife,
the
birds
of
prey,
as
well
as
part
of
that
not
just
the
public.
B
Any
of
it
is
a
detriment
to
the
the
birds
of
prey
specifically
in
any
wildlife
insects.
Things
like
that,
and
that
would
be.
That
would
be
the
motion.
L
Mr
chairman,
commissioner,
kenyon
technically
to
add
conditions
of
approval.
We
would
be
able
to
do
that
with
a
motion
like
this.
There
is
some
concern
from
obviously
from
the
original
applicant,
with
the
fire
condition
of
approval,
so
that
may
be
an
option
to
table,
so
we
could
look
at
the
language
to
come
up
with
something
that
that
that
works
for
them.
That
doesn't
cause
concern,
but.
D
So
we
could
do
that,
we
could
table
it,
so
we
could
further
discuss
this
with
the
applicable
fire
district,
local
closest
fire
district,
so
they
can
come
up
with
the
plan
that's
put
in
the
application
and
make
sure
that
they
have
access
and
training
yeah.
Mr.
D
L
D
B
Only
issue
with
the
specifics
is
because
it's
not
in
the
actual
district,
which
one
should
we
require,
should
that
be
blm
or
should
that
be
whitney?
Does
staffing
have.
N
Yeah,
chairman
commissioners,
I
believe
it's
the
state
farm
marshall
here
newt
and
I
cannot
remember
his
last
name.
I
think
I
tried
to
give
it
to
you
during
our
briefing
and
I
apologize.
We
can
certainly
reach
out
to
newt
to
talk
about
what
that
what
the
details
of
that
could
include.
I
think,
if
you
are
looking
to
table
this,
just
knowing
I'm
being
selfish,
but
thinking
of
all
of
our
hearings
moving
forward,
we
might
want
to
table
it
to
like
a
development
services
staff
meeting
which
is
open
to
the
public.
N
We
could
have
the
applicant
there
and
members.
You
know,
however,
that
works,
but
but
we
can
certainly
coordinate
with
the
county
engineer
and
state
fire
marshal
on
what
that
looks
like
and
get
some
specifics
for
you,
for
you
know
forcing
them
to
sign
off
on
something
might
not
be
exactly
what
they
do,
but
it
would
be
probably
a
discussion
as
to
what
their
emergency
response
looks
like
to
the
site
and
and
making
sure
that
the
board
of
commissioners
is
comfortable
with
that.
N
So
I
don't
know:
if
that's
what
you
you
know,
I
don't
necessarily
say:
have
them
sign
off
on
a
fire
plan,
if
that's
not
what
their
agency
already
does
they
might?
That
might
not
be
a
thing.
That's
an
option,
but
I
think
we
can
have
a
conversation
with
them
about
what
emergency
response
to
the
site
looks
like
and
who's
involved
and
to
provide
that
overview
to
the
board
and
to
the
public.
So.
N
To
reiterate
points
made
earlier,
county
engineer
does
have
we'll
do
a
final
inspection
and
they
do
enforce
idapa
rules
for
development
services,
native
county
and
idapa
is
also
kind
of
the
same
standards
that
the
fire
departments
use
to
inspect
sites
as
well.
So
there's
there
is,
you
know,
consistency
between
fire
access
widths,
how
they're
designed
turnarounds
all
those
things
so
so
I
think
it
could
be
a
coordinated
effort,
punitive
county
engineer
and
that
state
fire
marshal
if
that's
suitable,
for
the
board.
B
N
Yes,
chairman
commissioners,
I
wasn't
saying
I
only
hesitate
with
the
term
sign
off
if
that's
not,
I
just
want
to
use
whatever
their
process
is,
and
I'm
not
sure
the
name
of
it,
but
if,
in
general
I
think
you
want
the
okay
that
this
will
work,
and
so
I
think
we
can
whatever
that
is,
that
occurs
with
the
state.
We
can
work
to
get
that
for
the
board.
L
Chairman
we
could
target
our
development
services
staff
meeting,
which
is
on
may
19th
at
2
30
and
our
agenda's
due
tomorrow.
But
we
can
certainly
add
that
to
it
and
and
then
assigned
folks
to
to
take
a
look
well.
L
Mr
chairman,
that
is
again
an
open
meeting.
I
believe
you
can
put
action
items
on
it
and
adopt
those
findings.
If,
if
you
choose
to
do
so
or
we
could
table
it
at
that
point
to
another
meeting
if
needed
as
well.
B
Address
the
issues
related
to
the
fire
plan,
one
year
review
and
how's
that
sound.
A
Right,
you've
heard
the
motion,
it's
been
moved
and
seconded
and
I
guess
all
parties
are
clear
on
the
and
that's
not
a
public.
A
I've
closed
the
public
caring
around
there's
no
more
testimony
on
this
issue.
Okay,
so
with
that
I'll
call
for
a
question
I'll
fail,
you
for
the
motion,
all
in
favor
say:
aye
motion
carries
the
issue
will
be
tabled
until
may
19th
at
the
at
the
at
a
staff
hearing
or
staff
meeting.
A
Okay,
I'm
gonna
use
my
prerogative
and
take
about
a
five
minute
break.
We've
been
sitting
here
since
six
o'clock.
A
A
G
Thank
you
chairman.
You
said
it
correctly
application
two
zero
two
one:
zero
three
zero
four
eight:
this
is
the
appeal
of
the
conditional
use
permit
the
app
the
appellant
is
william
lind.
This
is
an
appeal
of
that
planning.
Zoning
commission's
approval
of
the
conditional
use
to
construct
a
hundred
foot
tall
commercial
cell
tower
clark.
Wardell
llp
was
the
original
applicant
who
is
working
with
vertical
bridge
on
the
project.
G
G
So
the
leased
area
for
the
tower
will
contain
2
500
square
feet.
That's
that
area
there
in
in
red,
more
or
less
and
will
be
to
the
north
of
where
it
was
previously
proposed.
It
was
proposed
more
to
the
southwest
corner
of
the
property,
but
the
city
of
star,
achd
and
compass
instructed
that
the
floating,
feather
extension
cannot
be
infringed
upon.
There
are
future
plans.
It
sounds
like
to
extend
floating
feather
road
to
the
west.
G
The
tower
is
proposed
to
improve
service
for
wireless
users
and
devices
in
the
area.
As
identified
in
the
propagation
map,
there
were
towers
identified
within
a
two-mile
radius
of
the
property,
but
co-location
was
not
granted.
The
proposed
tower
will
be
able
to
accommodate
up
to
three
individual
carriers.
G
Filezone
and
setback
requirements
meet
ada
county
code
and
the
pnz
commission
approved
the
application
at
their
february
10th
hearing
mr
lin
has
appealed
the
pnc
commission
decisions
at
his,
and
his
comments
are
those
to
start
here
and
then
staffs
has
responded
to
those
with
those
statements
here
underlines
so
I'll
just
go
through
them.
Real
quick,
read
them
off.
G
The
appellant's
first
comment
was
that
no
report
was
included
with
the
application
from
a
qualified
and
licensed
professional
engineer
that
describes
the
facility's
capacity
to
transmit
cell
tower
signals
and
other
related
information
necessary
to
fully
evaluate
the
requests.
Those
staff
responded.
The
tower
engineering
professionals
inc
is
a
licensed
engineer
that
has
provided
required
plans
and
reporting.
G
They
also
noted
that
a
distorted
propagation
map
was
submitted
in
support
of
the
application,
with
no
sufficient
supporting
evidence
of
how
they
establish
the
existing
coverage
range
and
how
they
are
to
achieve.
The
proposed
coverage
range,
a
propagation
map
and
written
analysis,
demonstrating
that
the
facility
cannot
be
accommodated
on
an
existing
or
approved
tower
within
a
two
mile
radius
has
been
included
with
the
applicant's
proposal.
The
coverage
in
the
area
will
increase
as
a
result
of
the
cell
tower
next,
the
appellant
state
that
nothing
in
the
supporting
documents
indicates.
A
nepa
review
has
been
performed.
G
G
The
next
county's
authority
is
derived
from
idaho
state
constitution
and
the
local
land
use
planning
act,
not
the
federal
communications,
commission
or
federal
telecommunications
act.
Staff
will
note
that
section,
332c
7
of
the
communications
act,
preempts
local
decisions
promised
directly
or
indirectly
on
the
environmental
effects
or
radio
frequency
emissions.
G
Assuming
that
the
provider
is
in
compliance
with
the
commission's
rf
rules,
both
the
board
of
county
commissioners
and
planning
zoning
commission
have
heard
the
application
tonight
and
the
pnc
commission
the
last
hearing,
and
you
have
the
ability
to
place
conditions
on
the
project.
As
you
see
as
you
see
fit.
Lastly,
not
compatible
with
surrounding
uses.
G
The
application
is
for
a
commercial
cell
tower,
it's
a
conditional
use
in
the
rural
residential
zone.
It
is
compatible
with
the
comp
plan
for
the
city
of
star
and
their
future
land
use
map,
and
the
tower
will
provide
improved
phone
and
internet
services
to
surrounding
residents
and
businesses
in
the
area.
G
D
Did
the
applicant
attempt
to
place
this
first
on
federal
land,
state
land,
county
achd?
All
of
the
above.
G
Chairman
back
commissioner
kenny,
yes,
it
is
a
requirement
that
they
reach
out
to
all
the
various
agencies,
achd
federal
agencies
and
other
towers
as
well,
to
see
if
they
can
place
their
tower
on
their
lands
or
co-locate.
That
is
a
requirement
and.
D
Oh,
you
can't
scroll,
okay,
sorry
could
staff
possibly
look
that
up
and
let
us
know
how
far
the
lm
land
is
to
this
proposed
site.
D
And
then
so
we
had
letters
back
that
they
could
not
co-locate.
What
were
the
reasons
that
the
other
cell
tower
owners
provided,
why
they
wouldn't
allow
them
to
co-locate.
G
G
Many
of
those
entities
did
not
provide
them
with
the
letters
saying
whether
or
not
they
could
or
could
not
co-locate
it's
more
so
they're,
just
not
letting
them
they
provided
their
certified
mail
slip
showing
that
they
get
received
the
notification
but
for
whatever
reason,
they're
not
allowing
co-location.
Hopefully,
the
applicant
can
also
address
that
further.
D
Right
well,
mr
chair,
I
think
this
is
something
for
the
board
and
for
staff
to
note
that
we
have
been
approving
some
of
these
cell
towers.
The
recent
cell
towers
on
the
premise
that
they
will
allow
co-locating
and
now
they're,
just
sending
a
receipt
saying
they're
not
going
to,
and
that's
not
good
enough
for
me,
because
that
was
part
of
the
application
approval
process.
So
I
don't
know
how
we
want
to
handle
that,
but
I'm
not
happy
with
them
just
sending
a
blank.
No.
A
You
can
keep
looking
and
we'll
keep
when
you
get
it
we'll
yeah,
we'll
pause
and
listen
to
it
or
watch
it
see
where,
where
the
blm
is
and
that.
A
Yeah,
okay
is
mr
lind
in
okay,
you
could
you
state
your
name
again
for
the
record
and
you
have
15
minutes.
Are
you
going
to
share
that
with
mr
de
haas?
Yes,
I
am
okay.
D
Mr
chair,
can
I
just
kind
of
set
the
table
here
tonight.
We've
all
been
kind
of
through
this
before
you
know
that
the
county
cannot
make
a
denial
based
on
health
issues
or
concerns,
and
so
it
doesn't
do
us
any
good
to
hear
testimony
along
those
lines.
We
know
there
are
concerns
out
there.
We
may
agree
with
those
and
we
actually,
this
prior
board
did
deny
on
that,
just
to
see
how
far
it
would
go
and
and
we
lost
in
court.
D
AF
My
name
is
william
lind
and
I
live
I'm
a
resident
of
star
idaho,
good
evening,
ada
county
commissioners.
I
bring
to
your
attention
the
following
points
to
consider
in
the
appeal
of
202
103048
cu,
100
foot
commercial
cell
tower
in
the
star
area.
AF
Well,
we
just
heard
from
staff
that
the
responses
back
to
the
applicant
were
not
definitive
in
and
know
and
why
they
were
denying
the
co-location
requests.
So
I
really
don't
feel,
and
we
don't
even
know
if
blm
land
is
available
or
not.
So
I
don't
think
all
the
alternatives
were
exhausted
before
applying
for
the
site.
AF
If
the
applicant
has
the
burden
of
proving
such
for
the
federal
telecommunications
act
is
a
proposed
location,
the
only
appropriate
location
for
this
tower,
and
what
is
the
reasoning?
Can
there
be
co-location?
Co-Location
is
always
referred
to
a
new
tower.
There
are
towers
that
are
within
two
miles
of
this
proposed
site.
There
have
been
maps
and
submitted
by
public
testimony
that
show
sites
for
co-location
and
there's
existing
wireless
network
coverage
with
no
gap
in
coverage.
AF
And
a
copy
of
a
propagation
study
that
show
that
there
is
no
gap
in
coverage
and
I
can
definitely
say
tonight:
there
is
no
gap
in
coverage
in
our
area,
so
we
have
covered
cell
phone
coverage.
We
have
wireless
coverage
there,
you
can
turn
on
your
phone
and
you
can
download
things
from
the
internet.
You
can
get
cell
phone
calls
and
text
messages
no
problem.
AF
There
were
existing
homes
already
built
and
in
that
area
very
close
to
where
the
tower
is
proposed
to
be
built,
I
have
a
photo.
I
have
a
couple
photos
here
that
I'd
like
to
put
in
to
exhibit
that
demonstrate
what
kind
of
at
and
show
what
a
hundred
foot
tower
looks
like
plopped
into
a
middle
of
a
rural
residential
area
where
I
live
so
I'll.
Give
those
to
you
these.
AF
AF
One
of
the
things
that's
important
for
granting
a
conditional
use
permit
is
whether
it's
going
to
cause
some
type
of
hazard,
nuisance
or
problem.
You
can't
get
a
guaranteed
loan
fha
fa
loan
in
a
fall
zone
because
it's
hazardous.
This
is
federal
law.
Stars
proposed,
100,
foot
cell
towers,
adjacent
to
property
designated
for
a
90
home
subdivision.
AF
The
proposed
tower
would
be
less
of
a
blight
in
an
industrial
complex
instead
of
an
adjacent
to
a
residential
zone.
Instead
it
should
be
co-located.
The
federal
telecommunications
communications
act
specifically
provides
preserves
all
planning
and
zoning
authority
in
ada
county,
and
that's
includes
making
sure
that
this
is
actually
needed.
Is
there
a
gap
in
coverage?
It's
not
our
job
to
demonstrate
that
it's
the
applicant's
burden
under
federal
law
that
demonstrate
there's
a
gap
in
coverage,
and
this
is
the
least
intrusive
way
to
handle
it.
The
application
the
applicant
failed
to
do
this.
AF
AF
I
appealed
this
project
to
you
in
the
hopes
that
you
will
exercise
your
autonomy,
involving
the
review
of
this
cell
phone
tower
conditional
use,
permit
and
overturn
the
approval
by
planning
and
zoning.
I
realize
I
can't
tell
you
how
to
do
your
job,
but
I
can
petition
you
with
a
complaint
and
ask
that
you
take
action.
Please
take
a
step
back
look
at
the
merits
of
the
appeal
and
I
urge
you
to
deny
202-103048
cu
permit.
D
D
B
AF
D
Don't
know
this,
but
I'm
going
to
ask
anybody
just
in
case
you
do.
Commissioner
davidson
mentioned
before
that
we've
created
a
coalition
with
our
sister
cities
and
with
ada
county
to
provide
a
broadband
loop.
Do
you
know
if
that
broadband
loop
goes
by
this
area.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
No
now
you're
going
to
finish
yeah,
mr
de
haas
you're,
going
to
finish.
Yes,
I'm
going
to
finish.
Q
In
the
original
application,
you
did
not
get
the
data
you
needed.
You
needed
a
propagation
study,
I'm
going
to
talk
speak
to
that
specifically
today,
because
the
very
first
paragraph,
the
telecommunication
act
of
1996,
paragraph
c7a,
was
entitled
general
authority
under
general
authority
congress
deliberately
preserved
to
you,
the
general
authority
to
regulate
the
placement
of
these
wireless
facilities.
Wherever
you
want
is
what
that
means.
Q
Q
In
order
to
enable
this
board
to
determine.
Is
this
a
good
spot
for
a
wireless
facility?
You
need
the
data.
The
most
common
form
of
the
data
is
the
drive
test.
If
you
get
the
drive
test
data,
which
is
very
simple,
they
take
a
recording
device,
attach
it
to
a
phone
drive
through
the
area
and
that
recording
device
gives
you
the
actual
signal
strengths
throughout
the
jurisdiction
that
data
that
actual
probative
data
shows.
You
number
one.
Q
Q
Here
so
for
years,
applicants
have
provided
basically
these
generated
maps,
and
so
the
fcc
said
you
know
how's
this
working
out,
so
they
did
a
study.
They
did
10
000
miles
of
drive
testing.
This
is
the
fcc
they
conducted
24
000
tests
in
nine
states
and
what
the
fcc
found
was
that
the
propagation
maps
that
were
submitted
by
companies
like
the
companies
submitting
tonight
the
accuracy
of
those
computer
generated
propagation
maps
range
from
a
low
of
16.2
percent
to
a
maximum
of
64
accuracy,
and
so
the
staff
advise
the
fcc.
Q
They
should
no
longer
accept
computer
generated
propagation
maps
without
hard
data.
You
have
no
hard
data
in
this
application.
For
that
reason
alone,
this
should
be
denied
because
they
failed
to
provide
that
it's
incomplete
application.
To
begin
with,
they
want
to
claim
that
the
tower
is
needed
for
capacity
deficit
deficiency.
The
most
common
form
of
data
they
can
provide
is
dropped,
call
records.
Q
If
they
claim
att
has
a
capacity
deficit.
The
att
can
use
a
computer
and
print
on
a
list
of
all
dropped,
calls
for
any
specific
location
for
any
period
of
time.
It's
a
few
keystrokes.
None
of
that
has
been
submitted
here
simply
put.
The
applicant
has
failed
to
give
you
enough
data
to
put
you
in
a
position
to
determine
if,
in
fact,
this
tower
is
necessary
at
all
much
less
at
this
location
or
at
this
height.
B
B
A
A
D
G
Yes,
I'm
going
to
submit
into
the
record
mr
lin's
presentation
that
is
exhibit
21a
and
then
mr
de
haase's
paper
that
I
just
gave
you
is
22a.
Okay,.
A
A
All
right
now
we
have
allowed
the
original
applicant.
If
you
would
like
to
to
present,
you
have
15
minutes,
go
ahead.
AG
Went
for
the
record
yeah,
absolutely
joshua,
leonard
and
my
address
is
251
east
front
street
suite
310.,
I'm
just
right
across
the
street.
A
Sure
and
you
you
represent
somebody.
AG
A
E
AG
AG
AG
We
didn't
get
any
responses
back
from
carriers
and
that's
not
unlikely
or
that's
not
uncommon,
that
it's
not
how
business
is
done
among
the
carriers.
What
they
do
is
they
see
a
tower
go
up.
They
notice
that
they've
got
a
deficiency,
and
then
they
contact
the
tower
operator
by
me
sending
a
letter
to
them
in
advance,
even
a
certified
letter.
They
get
it.
It
probably
gets
bend.
It
probably
gets
thrown
right
away.
AG
AG
If
you
could,
let's
start
through
the
really
quickly
a
presentation
outline,
we
don't
need
to
spend
much
time
there.
Facts
at
a
glance
is
next
staff's
covered
that
it's
also
covered
in
in
the
the
documentation
in
front
of
you
in
the
record.
If
we
can
go
to
the
next
top
left
hand
corner
the
orange
arrow,
that's
where
this
is
the
location,
we're
talking
about
next
slide
and
a
zoomed
in
picture
of
the
the
site.
AG
AG
This
is
our
original
site
plan.
I'm
not
going
to
spend
very
much
time
on
it,
because
it's
already
outdated
next
slide
city
of
star
was
sent
our
application
for
comment
and
provided
comment.
Next
slide,
they've
adopted
an
economic
corridors
and
access
and
roadway
connection
management
plan.
AG
Star's
comment
included
this
image,
showing
the
the
alignment
approximately
in
orange,
of
where
floating
feather
would
be
extended,
and
you
can
see
where
they
wanted
us,
where
star
wanted
us
to
move
the
location
in
order
to
avoid
potential
conflict
with
that
future
alignment.
Next
slide,
that's
exactly
what
we
did.
We
moved
it
north
and
east
to
accommodate
a
floating,
feather,
ada
county
highway
district
staff
weighed
in
and
blessed
this
location
and
said
it
would
not
be
a
conflict
for
floating
feather
next
slide.
AG
This
shows
our
tower
at
full,
build
out.
It
depicts
the
tower
with
one
anchor
tenant,
that's
at
t
and
then
three
co-location
tenants.
So
we
have
a
total
of
four
opportunities
for
co-location
or
excuse
me,
three
opportunities
for
co-location
for
location
opportunities
for
for
antenna
at
this
site.
Next
slide,
as
I
mentioned,
we're
required
by
aydah
county
code
to
show
the
the
existing
towers.
We've
got
that
here
next
slide
and
also
distance
to
existing
towers.
The
closest
2.7
miles,
the
other
towers,
are
6
miles,
6
miles,
4.9
and
3.9
miles.
AG
So
we
were
asking
other
carriers
if
they
would
want
to
locate
on
our
tower
next
site,
really
quickly
about
an
alternate
site
analysis.
We
discussed
an
alternate
the
alternate
sites
before
the
planning
and
zoning
commission,
but
not
at
any
great
length,
because
alternate
site
wasn't
raised
as
an
issue
there.
We
knew
it
would
be
here,
so
we
prepared
an
alternate
site
analysis
first
step
in
that
is
to
determine
a
search
ring.
The
carrier
provides
us
a
ring
around
which
they
want
or
within
which
they
want
to
provide
additional
coverage
or
that
their
coverage
is
lacking.
AG
The
next
thing
we
look
at
is
zoning.
Is
there
a
way
to
to
to
build
a
tower
on
this
property?
Is
it
a
an
approved
use
as
a
matter
of
right,
or
is
it
a
conditional
use
either
of
those
were
were
good
compliance
with
dimensional
standards?
We
need
to
have
a
property
that
doesn't
just
it
doesn't
just
have
correct
zoning.
It
has
the
right
dimensions.
We
need
to
meet
setbacks.
One
thing
that
was
mentioned
during
one
of
the
comments
was
that
the
federal
government
won't
write.
AG
Loans,
won't
write,
fha
loans
on
properties
within
the
fall
zone.
In
this
instance,
the
fall
zone
is
entirely
within
this
property.
It's
not.
It
doesn't
overlap
onto
other
property
owned
by
other
people.
Next,
oh
excuse
me
I'll
go
a
little
bit
further
practical
concerns
existing
improvements.
We
don't
want
to
do
a
do
a
lot
of
upgrade
to
existing
improvements.
For
example,
if
there's
a
house,
we
don't
want
to
have
to
relocate
it
or
move
it.
AG
We
don't
we
also.
If
there's
a,
if
there
is
a
canal
as
there
or
a
ditch
as
there
is
in
this
case,
we
don't
want
to
have
to
tile
that
or
move
or
move
around
that,
and
then
the
last
one,
which
is
often
the
most
important
and
the
most
difficult
to
find,
is
a
willing
landowner.
Somebody
who
will
lease
us
a
55
50
by
50
foot
pad
on
their
property
next
slide.
AG
These
are
the
alternative
sites,
the
only
ones
within
the
area
that
were
available
or
that
we
considered
and
the
reason
why
we
considered
these
is
because
they
met
all
of
the
first
four
of
the
the
conditions
or
criteria
I
mentioned
to
you,
the
the
problem
with
with
a
couple
of
these,
and
and
it's
it's
noted
on
there
was
that
they
were
too
far
outside
the
search
ring.
They
didn't
provide
the
coverage
that
was
necessary
to
be
improved
in
these
areas.
AG
The
one
of
them
the
city
of
star,
didn't
want
a
wireless
facility
in
their
park,
because
there
just
wasn't
a
place
to
to
locate
it,
and
one
of
them
was
a
middle
school
where
the
west
data
school
district
doesn't
doesn't
sublease
their
property
next
slide.
AG
Rf
justification
people
go
where
or
excuse
me
towers
go
where
people
are.
We
heard
in
the
last
public
hearing
there's
a
lot
of
undeveloped
land,
and
I
hear
this
at
every
cell
tower
meeting
that
I
go
to
our
cell
tower
public
hearing.
There's
a
lot
of
vacant
land.
Why
do
they
have
to
locate
in
an
area
that
has
houses?
It's
because
that's
where
the
people
are
and
that's
where
the
people
are
using
their
cell
phones?
AG
AG
One
thing
I
wanted
to
point
out
here:
detailed
rf
justification
was
included
in
our
information
that
we
submitted
to
give
you
the
short
version,
though
this
facility
is
necessary
to
expand
or
to
facilitate
an
expanded
network
in
particular,
though,
and
I'll
get
to
it
in
just
a
second.
AG
AG
AG
AG
AG
This
area
has
good
outdoor,
it
does
not
have
good
vehicle
and
it
does
not
have
good
in
building
the
the
reason
why
that's
important
federal
court
in
federal
courts
have
now
determined
that
in
building
coverage
or
a
lack
of
inbuilding
coverage
is
sufficient
to
prove
a
substantial
gap
in
coverage.
In
this
case,
the
lack
of
in-building
and
in-vehicle
coverage
is
a
significant
gap
in
coverage
that
needs
to
be
filled
in
our
parlance
in
in
the
industry.
AG
They
very
rarely
use
their
cell
phones
in
the
backyard
when
they're
in
the
backyard
they're
mowing
it
when
they're
in
the
house
they're
using
their
cell
phone,
and
this
will
improve
the
ability
in
this
area
and
the
capacity
and
the
signal
strength
in
this
area
for
in-building
coverage.
The
next
slide.
AG
This
is
after
you
can
see
that
good
in-building
coverage
is
provided
and
is
available
after
this
tower
is
built.
Seeing
this
in
a
vacuum.
Isn't
that
helpful?
The
next
slide
shows
it
a
side-by-side
comparison
next
slide
so
before
we
have
good
outdoor
and
spotty
in-vehicle
and
and
very
and
no
good
in
in
building
coverage,
and
then
after
we
have
good
in-building
coverage,
we
fill
that
coverage
hole
next
slide.
AG
AG
The
appeal
is
without
merit
on
each
of
the
six
points
raised
by
the
appellant,
he
was
incorrect
and
and
we
actually
comply
with
what's
required
by
aydah
county
code
and
and
we
and
we
conform
to
the
star
city
comprehensive
plan
next
slide.
AG
The
opponents
submitted
a
a
prop
a
propagation
map,
they're,
not
a
map,
but
they
submitted
what
they
call
data.
I
want
to
talk
to
you
a
little
bit
about
that.
First,
though,
they
used
a
carrier
website
map
to
show
that
there
was
coverage
you
can
see.
This
is
from
this
is
from
their
their
submittal
next
slide.
AG
They
failed
to
include,
however,
and
their
dispen
they
conveniently
cut
off
from
their
image
the
disclaimer
that's
at
the
bottom
of
the
website,
just
below
where
they
cut
it
off
it's
there.
It
says
the
one
on
the
right
is
the
one
that
I
took
from
their
their
website,
showing
those
those
initial
primary
disclaimers
where
it
says,
for
example,
see
if
I
can
read
that
it's
too
blurry
up
here,
oh
approximate
outdoor
coverage,
it
doesn't
talk
about
in
building
coverage
and
that's
what
we're
trying
to
improve
next
slide.
AG
If
you
click
on
the
link
that
says
disclaimer,
there
are
10
more
disclaimers
for
the
coverage
they
didn't
mention
any
of
them.
I
want
to
point
to
two
in
particular
number
three
and
number.
Eight
number
three
says
this
is
outdoor
service.
This
is
not
in
building
number
eight
says:
service
may
vary
significantly
within
buildings.
AG
AG
On
their
plot,
the
plot
information
that
they
submitted
over
the
diocese
today,
they
plotted
the
wrong
location.
They
were
off
based
on
their
based
on
their
latitude
and
longitude
locate.
Our
coordinates
by
almost
600
feet
next
slide,
not
only
that
they
aimed
at
the
wrong
coverage
area.
The
data
they
provided
is
not
representative
of
the
coverage
area.
AG
As
I
mentioned,
we
meet
the
counter
standards
run
and
low
on
time.
I'll
come
back
to
this.
Go
ahead.
Next
slide
photo
sims.
One
thing
I
wanted
to
point
out
about
the
photo
simulation
that
was
provided
to
you.
It
was
not
performed
by
an
engineer.
It
was
performed
by
photoshop
by
a
photoshop,
and
it
approximates
a
250
foot
guide
tower.
We've
we
extrapolated
it
out.
AG
It
is
two
and
a
half
times
depicted
on
what
you
what
you
receive
today
from
the
opponents,
what
the
actual
tower
will
be,
if
you
look
at
this
on
the
left,
it's
as
is
the
landscape
looking
south
on
the
right,
it's
with
a
tower
with
one
carrier
next
slide
again
existing,
as
is
on
the
left,
looking
west
and
with
the
tower
in
the
distance
on
the
right
next
slide.
These
by
the
way,
are
two
scale
performed
by
engineers,
extrapolating
out
the
height
to
exactly
100
feet
with
a
four
foot,
lightning
rod
next
slide.
AG
No
basis
the
appellant
questioned
the
evidence
in
the
record,
but
provided
no
substantive
or
competent
evidence
of
their
own.
I
want
to
impress
this
on
you.
This
is
something
I
hear
and-
and
I
it's
almost
as
though
the
appellant
and
the
the
opponents
read
from
a
script
that
I
hear
at
every
one
of
these
meetings-
and
I
have
to
tell
you
concerns-
are
not
evidence.
AG
AG
The
opponents
rely
on
false
narratives
and
misinterpretations
next
page
fellow
federal
telecom
act.
You've
already
mentioned
this,
commissioner
kenyon
did
this.
Is
the
environmental
effects
of
radio
frequency
emissions
can't
be
considered
next
slide
again
meets
county
standards,
as
noted
in
the
staff
report,
in
the
findings
of
fact,
conclusions
of
law
and
order
of
the
planning
and
zoning
commission,
as
well
as
in
our
narrative
letter,
we
detail
how
we
meet
that
and
meet
all
those
standards
next
slide.
AG
This
is
the
part
of
the
federal
telecom
act
that
they
don't
want
to
talk
about
and
that
you
haven't
been
informed
about.
Yet
this
is
the
prov.
It's
called
an
effective
prohibition
of
of
telecom,
and
this
is
the
provision
that
says
even
if
we
don't
meet
ada
county
standards,
even
if
we
came
in
and
didn't
meet
any
of
them,
but
we
established
that
this
was
a
significant
gap
in
coverage
and
we
are
the
least
intrusive
means
of
filling
that
gap.
AG
AG
We've
not
just
proposed
the
least
intrusive
means
of
filling
that
coverage
hole
or
that
significant
gap
we've
produced
and
suggested,
and
and
provided
the
only
one
within
that
area
that
can
do
this.
We've
asked
other
landowners,
we've
looked
at
other
situations
and
none
of
them
have
worked,
and
none
of
them
have
been
willing
next
slide,
based
on
the
facts
in
the
record,
we'd
ask
you
to
deny
the
appeal
and
uphold
the
planning
and
zoning's
approval
of
our
of
our
application.
E
B
AG
AG
The
the
calculation
that
I
came
up
with
to
to
a
site,
that's
large
enough
to
accommodate
a
tower
like
this-
was
2.94
miles.
Staff
found
one
a
little
bit
closer
that
I
was
unaware
of.
AG
Is
it's
a
it's
outside
the
outside
of
the
carrier,
search
ring
that
they
provided,
and
so
it
it
doesn't
work
to
provide
coverage
to
the
area
that
we're
seeking
to
provide
coverage.
What
it
would
do
is,
it
would
result
in
additional
towers.
We'd
need
to
do
that,
one
and
others.
It
just
means
more
towers.
B
And
how
do
you
test
for
the
in
home
signal
strength.
AG
That's
a
really
good
question.
I'd
leave
that
to
our
to
our
rf
engineer,
I'm
a
lawyer!
Well,
we
can
come
back
to
him
sure
perfect.
Thank
you,
commissioner.
David
all
right.
What's.
AG
A
E
A
J
B
Well,
I
guess
we
could
probably
bring
up
since
we
brought
it
up
in
the
last
one.
You
know
fire
suppression
plans,
sure.
AG
The
the
first,
let
me
tell
you
this
isn't
a
this-
is
in
a
populated
area,
you're
going
to
get
1500
calls
from
people
when,
if
you
were,
if
they
were
to
see
fire
coming
out
of
this,
to
answer
a
question
that
was
asked
earlier
in
in
a
what
the
you
know
whether
that
people
have
heard
of
or
seen
one
of
these
I've
I've
been
in
idaho
now
for
almost
20
years.
I've.
AG
AG
AG
There
are
maybe
thousands
of
pictures
but
they're
of
the
same
five
towers,
burning
and
and
the
the
information
that
was
gleaned
from
the
the
fires
that
caught
in
the
very
early
generation
towers
have
been
used
to
engineer,
better
towers
that
we
have
today
and
that
this
is
one
of
them
as
far
as
fire
suppression.
Again,
I've
just
never
heard
of
one
happening.
We
have
we
gravel
the
the
ground
in
the
compound
around
it,
so
that
it's
not
gonna.
AG
AG
AG
Yes,
the
fiber,
the
fiber
for
floating,
feather,
that's
fun
to
say
the
fiber
for
floating
feather
would
serve
the
tower,
not
the
wireless
devices,
the
the
why
the
the
benefit
of
fiber
is
to
support.
Why
wi-fi
and
is
to
support
wired
applications,
not
something
as
portable
as
your
phone,
where
you
aren't
going
to
be
trailing
it
a
wire
behind
you?
Would
you
leave
the
the
house?
Obviously
so,.
AG
G
And
chairman
beck
I'm
going
to
enter
in
mr
leonard's
presentation,
as
exhibit
23a.
A
D
Mr
chair,
yes,
if
I
may
I'd
like
to
hear
from
neighbors
testimony
first
before
we
have
non-neighbors
come
up
and
testify.
Z
A
You
got
one
all
right,
could
you
give
us
your
name
for
the
record.
W
W
So,
even
though
it
might,
the
words
were
that
this
is
consistent
with
star's
comprehensive
plan.
I
have
a
different
argument
that
it's
actually
not
county
code
states
towers
are
to
be
architecturally
visually
compatible
with
existing
structures,
vegetation
uses
or
those
likely
to
list
in
the
air
exist
in
the
area
under
the
terms
of
the
applicable
comprehensive
plan.
Star's
comprehensive
plan
from
2020
shows
the
entire
west
side
of
star
will
soon
become
residential.
W
W
Click
please,
and
most
of
the
area
around
the
proposed
site
is
either
neighborhood,
residential
or
estate
residential.
Next,
please,
that
pink
box
that
just
came
in
is
where
our
friends
at
toll
brothers
are
building
next
place.
That's
the
next
subdivision!
That's
going
to
come
in,
so
the
residential
conversions
occurring
next
place.
Okay.
So
this
is
my
argument
here,
based
on
county
code.
Nothing
in
any
residential
neighborhood
area
is
going
to
be
architecturally
or
visually
compatible
with
a
100
foot
cell
tower,
with
up
to
four
antenna
arrays
upon
it.
Next,
please
for
perspective.
W
W
If
you
look
and
how
the
power
pole
next
to
the
cell
tower
lines
up
with
the
third
power
pole
down
they're
just
about
at
the
same
40
foot
height,
it's
pretty
darn
close
scale
wise
and
then,
since
you
wanted
neighborhood
people
looking
down
finsbury
towards
where
this
cell
tower
is
going
to
be
based
on
the
height
of
the
trees,
the
height
of
the
power
poles,
that's
about
what
we're
going
to
get
to
see
is
our
view,
except
we
could
have
another
array
of
antennas
next,
please,
okay!
So
why
not
place
this?
W
In
the
light
industrial
commercial
area
trevor
chadwick
told
me
that
they
turned
down
having
this
soccer
park
next,
please,
that
was
the
site
they
rejected.
Well,
look!
It's
all
surrounded
by
residential
areas.
Maybe
appearance
was
important
to
the
mayor.
After
he's
told
me
this
that
they
rejected
that
site.
He
said
they
didn't
feel
they
could
do
anything
about
the
other
site
because
it
was
out
of
the
city
limits
and
beyond
that
I've
got
to
go.
Okay.
W
No,
I
it
if
you
want
me
to
go:
no,
no,
okay,
so
real
quickly.
We
had
our
meeting
in
february,
commissioner
james
burch
questioned
why
the
tower
wouldn't
be
near
albertsons
and
then
next
slide.
Please.
I
just
suggest
that
we
might
look
at
something
where
there's
already
light
industrial
commercial
zoning,
so
that
this
will
not
be
such
a
blight
on
the
community.
B
W
I
guess
if
you
could
make
it
look
better.
That
would
satisfy
the
the
only
excellent
argument
that
I
think
we
have,
but
according
to
what
I've
heard
in
february,
county
code
states
that
they
have
to
make
one
big
enough
to
bring
in
all
the
co-locations.
And
it's
almost
as
if
what
the
county
code
states
is
for
a
rural
area
where
the
aesthetics
aren't
so
appealing.
And
then,
if
you
want
to
put
one
that's
right
next
to
a
residential
area,
they'd
need
to
code
out
something
else.
W
Could
I
have
the
next
slide?
Please
I
was
saving
time
so
here
it
is.
We
have
the
republic
mini
storage
and
we
have
a
big
ugly,
commercial
building,
that's
being
built
on
the
left
side,
and
we
can
see
a
ambulance
company
cell
tower
in
the
front
and
a
regular
cell
tower
in
the
back
or
if
you
look
at
it
from
the
aerial
view,
you
even
get
to
see
the
gravel
kit
now
I
realize
this
isn't
exactly
where
they
wanted
to
place
one,
and
we
might
find
that
nobody
wanted
to.
W
Z
Lockery
resident
aveda
county
for
28
years,
so
I
spent
a
lot
of
time
reviewing
the
materials
under
this
application.
I've
read
the
letter
from
clark
waddle
the
firm
representing
vertical
bridge.
The
applicant.
As
far
as
I
could
tell
vertical
bridge,
is
the
site
developer.
They
don't
provide
personal
wireless
services.
You
can't
get
a
phone
contract
for
with
vertical
bridge.
If
you
get
a
contract
with
verizon
or
at
t
or
t-mobile
clark,
waddle
has
not
proved
that
an
identified
wireless
carrier
has
a
significant
gap
in
personal
wireless
services.
Z
At
this
location
it
sounds
like
the
tower's
gone
up,
but
where
are
the
wireless
service
providers?
Are
they
going
to
come?
Do
we
you
know,
build
it
and
they're
going
to
come?
Is
this
just
an
opportunity?
So
it's
not
the
appellant's
obligation
to
prove
there's
no
gaps.
The
applicant
has
the
sole
burden,
as
we've
heard,
before
improving
the
gap
in
coverage
for
the
federal
telecommunications
act
and
then
in
the
ada
county
code
for
commercial
towers.
There's
a
section
additional
application
requirements
for
facilities
that
require
a
cup.
Z
One
of
the
things
I
looked
at
was
the
exhibits
of
the
certified
letters
sent
to
verizon
a
t
and
t
and
t
mobile
and
those
are
those
are
not
requests
to
co-locate
on
their
towers
on
their
existing
towers,
and
there
is
a
large
tower
up
on
the
hill
and
star
that
doesn't
have
the
full
four
antennas
on
it.
So
there
it
does
seem.
There
may
be
an
opportunity
for
co-location
on
other
towers,
so
there
in
these
letters
that
were
sent
out
to
these
three
major
carriers,
it
was
asked
that
they
respond
within
15
days.
Z
I
did
not
see
any
response
from
either
carrier
in
the
documents
under
this
application,
so
I'm
suggesting
that
there
weren't
any
that
they
were
just
soliciting
and
all
they're
doing
is
building
the
tower.
There's
no
actual
wireless
carrier
identified
and
if
there's
no
wireless
carrier
identified,
how
can
there
be
an
identification
of
a
gap
in
service?
I
find
that
very,
very
curious.
Z
Z
D
Mr
chair,
I
have
a
quick
question
for
staff.
Okay,
to
the
point
that
that
she
just
made
the
letters
that
we're
sending
out
are
these
to
the
tower
owners
that
we
would
need
to
get
permission
if
so
or,
if
not
we're
sending
them
to
the
wireless
service
providers,
who
don't
own
the
towers.
L
Mr
chairman,
commissioner,
kennedy
to
your
question,
I
believe
the
applicant
in
their
the
original
applicant
in
their
explanation
was
they
were
not
able
to
find
any
towers
within
that
particular
distance,
which
is
why
they
went
the
opposite
direction
and
in
inquiring,
if
folks
would
be
interested
in
co-locating
in
this
new
location.
L
D
E
V
V
V
D
V
As
you
can
see,
I
believe
josh
provided
the
coverage
maps
that
our
engineering
firm,
our
engineering
representative,
who
is
on
the
webex
tonight
as
well,
applauded
those
engineering
studies
to
show
where
coverage
was
lacking
and
what
the
coverage
would
be
after
the
fact.
So
that
is
part
of
the
presentation
with
which
was
presented
to
the
committee.
D
And
how
do
those
computer
generated
proper
propagation
studies
account
for
the
in
building
coverage
or
lack
there,
because.
V
Because
we
have
to
all
all
18ts
antennas
and
all
of
their
equipment
are,
are
required
to
work
within
the
fcc
guidelines
and
the
fcc
guidelines
have
a
certain
amount
of
output
that
is
required
or
maximum
per
antenna,
for
example,
and
that
shows
the
distance
from
the
proposed
location
within
the
threshold
from
the
fcc
licensed
equipment.
So
it
shows
what
the
penetration
would
be
inside
of
a
building
outside
of
a
building
inside
of
a
car,
for
example.
V
D
V
When
you
do
have
one
who
is
probably
coming
up
after
me,
who
might
be
able
to
assist
with
that
as
well.
A
Jason,
if
not
chad,
rydulch.
A
AH
AH
I
am
the
engineer
that
provided
the
coverage
predictions
that
were
used
in
the
presentation
they
are
based
on
a
computer
calculation,
the
models
that
have
several
inputs.
I
think
the
the
data
source
inputs
that
are
most
critical
to
these
calculations
is.
We
have
a
terrain
model
that
represents
the
terrain,
the
elevation
of
the
ground.
Second,
we
have
inputs
for
describing
what's
on
the
ground,
is
it
a
road?
Is
it
a
field?
Is
it
light
industrial?
Is
it
a
home?
Is
it
an
airport?
AH
Is
it
a
venue,
homes
and
and
buildings
for
business
typically
have
different
construction,
wood
versus
concrete
or
metal?
We
send
out
a
team
that
drive
tests
in
the
area.
We
have
several
sites
throughout
the
state
we
calculate
an
average
of
the
transmitter
power,
the
free
space
loss
and
the
amount
of
energy.
That's
lost,
getting
a
radio
signal
inside
of
a
structure
there
again
it's
it's
qualified
as
what
is
at
that
particular
geographic
location.
We
do
an
average
of
a
a
space.
That's
a
hundred
meter
space.
AH
We
call
it
a
bin,
it's
just
a
dot
on
a
map
based
on
those
inputs.
The
calculation
returns.
How
strong
our
signal
is
expected
to
be,
and
from
that
data
we
can
show
our
existing
coverage
predictions
where
we
expect
to
have
good
coverage
outdoor
indoor
in
a
vehicle
versus
when
we
place
a
potential
new
site,
and
we
run
the
same
calculations
with
that
new
facility
added
in
we're
able
to
evaluate
different
locations
to
determine
which
location
will
fit
our
needs.
The
best
in
this
particular
application.
AH
A
U
Do
I
share
a
video.
U
U
I'm
sorry
guys
so
anyways.
I
know
we're
on
a
time
crunch.
This
is
really
killing
me.
I
can't
share
my
screen,
but
anyways
you
have
that
the
propagation
study
that
would
that
the
the
plaintiff
shared
with
you
I
actually
took
that
and
unlike
the
rf
engineer
or
the
attorneys,
I'm
kind
of
a
boots
on
the
ground
guy,
I
actually
own
a
meter
that
took
these
readings.
U
I
went
out
to
the
proposed
site
of
the
of
the
tower
and
I
put
my
meter
on
the
top
of
my
truck
and
took
a
reading
at
the
site
and
if
you
look
at
that
propagation
stud
you'll
see
the
r
ssi,
dbms
and
they're
all
very
high
they're
negative
37,
or
some
of
the
att
t-mobile's
negative
65
verizon's
negative
72.
Anything
higher
than
negative
80
is
sufficient
coverage
right.
So
there's
plenty
of
coverage
out
there.
U
I
just
went
on
to
my
onyx
gps
software
and
there's
a
there's
a
tower
just
sitting
right
up
on
top
of
blessing
your
lane
and
willis
road.
It's
about
a
100
foot
tower!
That's
to
the
north
and
it's
1.6
miles
to
the
north
of
where
this
proposed
tower
is.
U
I
went
up
there
took
readings
and
that
that's
the
ideal
place
to
collate
co-locate
to
the
attorney
didn't
even
mention
that
tower
and
that
one
is
to
the
north
it's
perfectly
located
and
it
would
for
surely
provide
any
kind
of
future
expansion
or
bandwidth
that
you
may
need
the
concept
of
in
in
building
coverage.
U
I
want
to
see
the
law
on
that.
That's
that's
a
that's
a
big
big
term
right
there
to
say:
hey
we've
changed
things.
I
want
to
see
where
that
law
is
from.
That
attorney,
because
in
building
coverage
versus
out
of
building
coverage
is
a
very,
very
big
difference
and
the
law
has
been
it's
been
outdoor
coverage.
Was
there
sufficient
coverage
there
on
site
right
now?
So
we
need
to
really
dive
into
that.
Commissioner,
kendra
kenyon,
you
made
comment
about
the
the
2019
eagle
cell
tower
and
that
ada
county
lost
that
one.
U
In
my
in
my
information
that
I
submitted
earlier,
I
actually
have
the
consent
order
judgment
from
that
case
when,
when
you
were,
you
were
talking
about
the
hayden
county
lost
because
they
denied
a
cell
tower
and
the
only
reason
ada
county
lost
on
that
case
was
because
they
did
not
bring
an
rf
engineer
with
them,
showing
that
there
was
sufficient
coverage
at
the
eagles
site
and
they
did
not
debate
this
fact
so
that
the
whole
premise
about
this
tower.
It
all
comes
down
to
this
significant
gap
in
coverage.
U
Is
there
a
gap
in
coverage
and,
as
you
can
see
from
my
information
that
I
that
I
presented
to
you,
I
wish
I
could
give
it
to
you
on
my
screen
here
there
is
no
gap
in
coverage.
I
would
be
more
than
willing
to
take
any
one
of
you
guys
out.
There
use
the
meter,
you
can
look
at
it.
There
is
no
gap
in
coverage
outside
you
can
make
a
cell
phone
coverage
from
all
or
a
cell
phone
call
from
all
three
carriers.
U
Now,
if
the
att
or
the
engineer
from
rigby
idaho
wants
to
come
down
and
stand
their
boots
on
the
ground
and
show
us
that
there
is
no
coverage
well
now
we
got
we
got
something
to
talk
about,
but
let's
see
what
that
drive
test
looks
like
and
prove
that
there's
no
coverage
and
even
beyond
that,
let's
go
back
to
co-locating,
there's
towers
within
location
that
you
can
collect.
Locate
on.
That
will
give
you
perfect
coverage.
Thank
you
all.
D
Was
the
tower
that
you
identified
that
you
thought
was
a
co-location.
U
Yeah,
so
if
you
go
up
blessings
your
road
north
and
you
go
just
past
willis
road,
you
can
see
it
sitting
up
there
on
top
of
the
mountain
there
and
actually
because
of
the
height,
it's
it's
much
safer
and
it's
at
a
perfect
location
and
there's
plenty
of
room
for
more
more
antennas
to
go
under
that
tower.
U
A
Okay,
we
have
ann
hike.
T
Yes,
kathy
cook,
I
live
in
boise
idaho,
so
I
am
a
building
biologist
and
electromagnetic
radiation
specialist
practicing
in
ada
county.
So
I
am
an
expert
in
measuring
and
mitigating
radio
frequency
microwave
radiation
exposures.
T
The
applicant
referenced
section
253
of
the
federal
communications
act,
which
is
a
common
reference
to
make,
but
he
conveniently
left
off
sub
section
c
of
the
telecommunications
act,
which
is
just
two
paragraphs
down
from
where
he
stated
subsection
c
says:
state
and
local
government
authority.
T
T
T
This
is
why
people
have
wi-fi
inside
their
homes
and
internet
coverage,
and
so
you
know
most
people
that
I
know
inside
their
homes,
if
they're,
using
their
phones,
they're
actually
connected
to
their
wi-fi,
not
cellular
data
for
multiple
reasons
and
then.
T
Lastly,
you
know
the
the
propagation
study
that's
been
brought
up
multiple
times
tonight
again.
That
is
a
very
accurate
thing
that
that
we
need
to
consider
here
and
I've
heard
industry.
Legal
teams
mention
this
numerous
times
that
these
propagation
studies
are
what
they
use,
but
they
are
clearly
not
adequate
at
all.
It's
just
the
game
that
they
play
to
get
something
in
front
of
you,
because
most
of
us
aren't
electrical
engineers
and
we
don't
know
the
difference.
T
We
need
data
here.
We
need
a
drive
study
and
it
is
perfectly
within
your
rights
to
require
that
in
order
to
you
know
as
part
of
the
application.
So
for
all
of
these
reasons,
I
recommend
that
that
the
application
be
denied.
D
The
appellant
mentioned
that
part
of
their
pro
their
study
did
include
a
drive
test.
T
Well,
yeah,
I
heard
that,
but
it
doesn't
appear
as
though
it
was
submitted
into
the
application.
A
That
concludes
the
app
the
testimony
from
the.
A
Those
that
have
submitted
online
or
signed
up
online
is
there
anyone
in
the
room
that
didn't
get
a
chance
to
sign
up
online.
That
would
like
to
testify.
A
Didn't
you
testify,
oh,
is
the
other
one?
Okay
go
ahead,
sure.
AA
My
name
is
kevin
kless,
1634,
west,
martha
street
boise,
idaho.
I
am
giving
testimony
so
you
have
heard
my
credentials
before
since
I
am
giving
testimony.
I
will
be
honest
that
I
am
tired,
but
I
will
do
my
best,
sir.
So
once
again,
thank
you,
the
honorable
commission,
for
having
me
testify.
AA
I
see
I
noticed
that
your
your
hands
are
bound
for
as
far
as
talking
about
health
risk
and
it's
it's
not
in
your
purview
as
mentioned
earlier
before,
but
I
do
think
it
is
necessary
to
mention
some
of
that,
because
it
is
a
real
issue.
It's
in
people's
hearts
and
it's
in
the
community's
minds,
and
I
hope
that
the
legislation
and
the
codes
can
it
can
evolve
for
that
to
handle
that
it
does
seem
that
the
tides
are
turning,
and
especially
with
the
recent
court
of
appeals
decision
in
august.
AA
I
think
that
this
is
a
great
opportunity
to
look
at
the
codes
and
to
actually
look
and
develop
how
to
adjust
for
thorough,
rigorous
propagation
studies,
and
that's
what
I
think
is
really
needed
here.
So
I
mean
it
gets
very
vague.
AA
I
was
not
only
just
a
chief
of
operational
test
and
evaluation,
I
was
also
an
acquisitions
officer,
so
we
had
tons
of
different
contractors
lockheed
martin,
raytheon
and
whatnot
come
to
our
table
and
pitch
through
wares
and
whenever
we
came
to
the
propagation
study
and
they
started
saying
computer
models
and
started
saying
the
word
prop
proper
proprietary.
AA
We
said:
there's
the
door,
we
need
actual
propagation
studies
that
actually
you
go
out
in
the
field
and
you
measure
physically,
and
we
need
that
data
because
that's
where
it
matters
I'd
like
to
bring
up
an
aspect
about
propagation
studies,
there's
a
phenomena
called
multicasting.
AA
That
means,
if
I
have
one
antenna
in
one
location,
it'll
affect
any
type
of
conductive
material
around
in
that
environment.
This
is
the
dangerous
thing
which
has
happened
with
5g
there's
a
big
huge
learning
curve
involved
with
this
technology
and
its
implementation,
and
one
thing
that
is
not
being
looked
at
thoroughly.
Is
this
impact
on
the
local
environment?
AA
So
I
think
that
there's
a
great
opportunity
to
to
further
advocate
for
an
independent
group
that
can
actually
do
these
propagation
studies
and
prep
in
the
future
right
now,
but
I
think,
as
of
now,
this
does
not
suffice
for
an
adequate
propagation
study.
So
I
think
that
this
this
this
tower
should
be
denied
and
the
appeal
should
go
across.
So
thank
you
for
your
time.
Okay,.
A
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Okay,
mr
lind.
If
you'd
like
to
wrap
it
up,
and
you
can
use
your
advisor
there,
mr
dahas.
AF
AF
There
are
existing
towers
within
a
short
distance
of
the
proposed
tower
that
that
that
the
carrier's
equipment
can
be
co-located
on
there
needs
to
be
more.
The
the
applicant
did
not
prove
that
there
wasn't.
They
sent
out
requests
to
co-locate
on
the
proposed
tower,
not
not
go
out
and
actually
see
if
they
can
run
down
a
location
to
co-locate
their
tower.
AF
AF
I
have
a
t
phone,
I
can
go
in
my
house,
I
can
turn
on
and
go
to
the
carrier's
network.
I
can
download
off
websites,
I
can
get
phone
calls
and
I
can
get
text
with
no
problem.
I
can
do
it
right
now.
I
can
drive
home
and
do
it
right
now,
so
that
is
physical
proof
that
there
is
no
gap
in
coverage
there.
AF
The
attorney
representing
the
the
applicant
is,
wants
that
tower
in,
but
I'm
the
one
and
others
in
that
area
are
the
one
living
there.
We
know
the
cell
phone
coverage,
what
the
cell
phone
coverage
is
not
an
engineer
in
rigby
idaho,
so
I
just
want
to
thank
you
for
your
time
tonight
and
I
see
the
rest
of
my
time
to
david
das.
Q
Yes,
to
follow
up
on
that,
there's
been
no
real
data.
Again
those
maps
were
nice
and
colored,
but
there
was
normally
a
drive
test,
be
done
by
an
independent
third
party
number
one
and
they're
being
drive
tests
with
a
meter
as
kathy
cook
mentioned
and
hank
mentioned.
So
we've
done
more
on
our
side
to
show
propagation
today
than
they
have
all.
They
have
is
a
nice
colored
map,
but
normally
would
say,
like
we
have
minus
93
db.
Q
Here
we
have
minus
70
dbm
here
they
didn't
show
any
of
that
in
this
application,
and
why
would
they
the
applicant
is
basically,
I
would,
in
terms
of
a
real
estate,
speculator
they're,
putting
a
tower
up
hoping
to
get
a
tenant.
Why
would
they
want
to
locate?
They
don't
want
to
locate
another
tower?
It's
not
in
their
best
interest.
Q
They
won't
put
the
tower
up,
so
they
can
get
tenants
to
pay
them
money
for
their
real
estate.
So
they
have
no
incentive
whatsoever
to
prove
this
and
they
have
done
not
they've
not
done
that
and
under
the
federal
communications
law
you
need
to
have
a
real
drive
test
with
real
data.
You
have
no
data
whatsoever
to
provide
to
you,
so
the
applicant
has
not
fulfilled
his
duty
to
prove
this.
They
talk
about
like
proprietary.
Q
A
Okay
hearing:
no,
unless
there's
anyone
else
that
would
like
to
that's
here
in
the
room
that
hasn't
spoken
yet
nope,
hearing
that
nobody
online
correct.
Okay,
with
that,
I'm
going
to
close
the
public
hearing
on
application,
202
103048.
A
A
william
lind,
the
appeal
planning
zone,
the
commission's
approval
of
a
conditional
use,
use
to
construct
a
100
foot
commercial
cell
tower.
Okay.
The
hearing
is
closed.
What
is
the
pleasure
of
the
board
or
anyone
wants
to
discuss
it.
D
The
other
thing
is,
I
think
that
the
original
applicant
failed
to
exhaust
all
possibilities
to
co-locate
like
what
was
stated
tonight
in
testimony
they
sent
out
letters
to
co-locate
with
them,
but
did
not
take
a
look
at
who's
out
there
that
they
could
co-locate
with,
and
that
would
be
the
the
carriers.
Obviously,
the
applicant
is
in
the
business
of
building
a
tower,
and
then
you
know
selling
it
to
the
providers,
the
services,
so
I
think
that
they
failed
to
make
those
attempts.
D
I
also
feel
like
they
didn't
take
a
look
at
a
potential
site
that
was
identified
by
mr
hank
allen
tonight
on
the
willis
road
and
I
think
that
needs
to
be
explored.
The
last
thing
I
want
to
do
is
put
100
foot
cell
tower
in
a
residential
on
a
residential
property.
Is
the
very
last
thing
we
want
to
do.
D
We
want
to
exhaust
all
other
possibilities,
and
I
just
don't
feel
that
that
the
applicant
has
has
done
enough
to
to
prove
that
this
is
the
best
location
or
to
prove
that
there
is
an
actual
need
from
the
carriers,
and
I
think
that
the
propagation
study
is
is
not
sufficient
in
my
mind.
So
I'm
going
to
be
wanting
to
make
a
motion
to
approve
the
appellant's
application,
overturn
planning
and
zonings.
B
G
So
chairman
bec,
commissioner
davidson
as
part
of
their
requirements.
Basically,
it
says
that
it
shall
be
the
burden
of
the
applicant
to
demonstrate
that
the
proposed
facility
cannot
be
accommodated
on
an
approved
tower
or
structure
within
two
mile
search
radius
due
to
one
of
the
more
following
reasons.
So
there's
different
reasons,
it
could
be
anything
from
unwillingness
to
the
property
owner
or
facility
owner
to
entertain
shared
use,
and
you
can
look
at
this
in
the
findings
as
well.
Everything
from
the
equipment
would
cause
additional
interference
with
materials
already
there.
G
So
there
are
reasons
just
you
know
other
than
just
they
don't
want
to
co-locate.
At
this
tower,
the
applicant
has
provided
that
they
are
they've
shown
that
there's
a
radius
of
two
miles
where
they
have
reached
out
to
the
federal
agencies
as
well
achd
government
agencies
that
were
not
willing
to
provide
them
a
location
to
place
a
tower.
B
No,
it
does.
I
just.
I
do
feel
like
we're
getting
to
a
place
where
we
might
need
to
be
a
little
more
stringent
on
making
the
applicant
meet
the
burden
of
proof,
and
you
know
there
is
obviously
a
community
interest.
A
lot
of
testimony.
People
want
more
data,
they
want
more
transparency,
more
information
on
to
know
that
you
know
all
other
remedies
have
been
exhausted,
and
so
it's
maybe,
if
we're
looking
at
this,
a
little
more
stringently
that
we
want
the
cell
phone
companies
to
provide
us
with
a
little
more
information.
D
Now,
based
on
what
we
heard
tonight,
testimony
and
documents
I'm
going
to
move
to
approve
the
appellant's
application
202103048-a
and
overturn
the
planning
and
zoning's
commission
decision
and
direct
staff
to
prepare
findings.
Facts
inclusion
is
a
lot
consistent
with
our
decision,
and
this
is
based
on
the
fact
that
again,
I
don't
feel
that
they've
exhausted
all
resources
to
co-locate
or
that
this
is
the
best
location
being
in
a
residential
area
and
we'll
table.
That's
it.
You
should
do
it.
B
I'll
I'll,
second,
that
and
I'll
also
add
on
there
was
concerns
with
the
aesthetics
of
it.
We
heard
the
testimony
but
probable
subdivisions
being
built
around,
so
the
aesthetic
aspect
of
this
was
taking
that
into
consideration
as
well,
but
I'll
go
ahead,
and
second
that
motion.
A
Okay-
and
one
thing
that
did
concern
me,
is
that
if
there's
another
adequate
cell
tower
within
1.6
miles
and
it's
higher
up,
that
would
provide
coverage
that
seemed
to
be.
That
would
be
a
co-location,
and
I
don't
I
don't
know
why
we
didn't
pursue
that.
But
anyway,
we've
heard
the
motion
and
it's
it's
newly
in
front
of
us
all
in
favor,
say.
G
L
Yeah,
mr
chairman,
commissioners,
if
you
would
let
us
table
that
to
an
open
business
meeting
we
could
table
it
potentially
to
the
31st,
give
connor
enough
time
to
write
those
findings
for
you,
the.
A
Okay,
is
there
a
second
to
that
motion?
Second,
okay.
You've
heard
the
motion
all
in
favor
say:
aye
aye
aye
aye.
Thank
you
we'll
be
adjourned.
Thanks.