►
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
Good
morning,
I'd
like
you
to
welcome,
welcome
everyone
to
today's
public
hearing.
If
anyone
at
present
is
planning
on
presenting
testimony,
please
sign
up
with
the
sheet
in
the
back.
The
hearing
room
today
is
Wednesday.
The
4th
of
January
time
is
10
o'clock
set
for
this
public
hearing.
A
Commissioner
Davidson
and
I
are
present
here
in
the
building
and
commissioner
Kenyon
is
online.
Are
there
any
changes
to
the
agenda?
Madam
clerk?
No.
B
B
A
Motion
carries
okay,
so
we
have
be
before
us
now:
application
number
202-102,
816
appeal
of
the
Planning
and
Zoning
commission's
approval
of
a
conditional
use
permit
for
a
commercial
cell
tower.
The
property
is
located
at
5410
West
Beacon
Light
Road
contains
5.35
acres
in
the
rural
transition,
District,
okay,
we
will
first
have
our
our
staff
report.
A
D
You
chairman,
commissioners,
I
will
present.
We
are
working
to
get
the
Consultants
here
to
also
speak
to
you
and
unfortunately,
WebEx
is
giving
us
some
fits
right
now.
But
I'll
start
with
my
presentation,
and
hopefully
we
can
resolve
that
by
the
time
I'm
done,
and
then
he
can
answer
questions
that
you
might
have
about
his
most
recent
report,
but
so
yeah
to
your
point
chairman.
This
is
an
appeal
of
a
commercial
cell
tower
of
planning
on
zoning
commission's
approval
of
a
commercial
cell
tower.
D
D
So
the
subject
property
is
at
5.35
acre
parcel
located
at
5410
West
Beacon
Light
Road
in
the
rural
urban
transition
District
on
the
subject.
Property
is
an
existing
single-family
residence
and
multiple
detached
accessory
buildings.
It's
highlighted
here
in
red.
F
D
All
right,
all
right
here
we
go
so
again.
The
project
includes
a
100
foot
commercial
cell
tower,
with
capacity
up
to
four
individual
carriers
to
co-locate.
Also
included
in
the
project
is
a
2500
square
foot
ground
lease
area
for
Associated
equipment,
which
would
be
screened
with
a
minimum
six
foot,
solid
fence,
parade
of
county
code,
yeah
uh-huh.
D
So
the
next
couple
slides
detail,
the
history
of
the
project
and
the
several
public
hearings
that
we've
been
through.
Originally,
this
was
approved
by
the
Planning
and
Zoning
Commission
on
March
10th
of
2022.
It
was
then
appealed
by
Mr,
Brad
Bentley
within
the
time
frame
on
March
25th
of
2022.
D
This
was
then
again
tabled
by
the
board
at
the
July
13th
hearing
to
September
14th,
and
you
request
the
following
information.
So
I'll
read
through
those
the
applicant
shall
further
research
and
provide
information
regarding
locating
the
proposed
cell
tower
on
Bureau
of
Land
Management
property,
approximately
1.25
miles
away
or
properties
closer
to
Highway
16.
development
services
staff
shall
hire
a
third
party
consultant
to
review
the
applicant
application
materials
submitted
for
the
project
to
verify
it
will
resolve
a
gap
in
coverage,
as
required
by
our
code.
D
Development
service
staff
will
provide
a
map
of
all
cell
towers
and
carriers,
as
well
as
all
existing
and
proposed
housing
within
a
10
mile
radius.
You
did
reduce
that
down
to
five
miles
because
the
10
miles
was
pretty
much
the
entire
Valley,
so
Ada
County
Legal
shall
research
the
television
Telecommunications
Act
of
1996
to
determine
how
Wireless
Broadband
is
regulated,
particularly
as
it
relates
to
requirements
associated
with
determining
and
resolving
gaps
in
coverage.
D
This
matter
was
discussed
with
you
during
an
executive
session
with
legal
staff
and
the
appellant
shall
provide
proof
of
diminished
land
values
in
the
surrounding
area,
resulting
from
the
proposed
cell
tower
and
then
finally,
Development
Services
dashlaw
Research,
the
city
of
eagles
reasoning
for
recommending
denial
of
the
proposed
cell
tower.
So
at
our
last
hearing
on
this,
we
walked
through
all
of
those
things
I'm
happy
to
rehash.
Some
of
that
we
do
have
Ron
Valdez
the
consultant
here
to
speak
to
his
report.
D
But
let
me
continue
with
the
project
history
because
it
didn't
stop
there,
so
this
was
then
remanded
back
to
the
pnz
by
the
board
at
that
September
14th
hearing,
with
a
request
that
our
consultant
review,
all
additional
information
that
had
been
entered
into
the
record.
As
you
recall,
there
was
some
additional
drive
test
data
and
other
items
like
that
that
you,
you
felt
our
pnz
needed
to
consider
and
figure
out
if
their
original
approval
was
still
okay.
D
So
this
was
tabled
by
the
p
and
Z
on
October
13th,
to
allow
the
third
party
consultant
to
review
additional
information
that
was
entered
into
the
original
application
prior
to
and
at
the
September
14th
Board
hearing.
It
should
be
noted
that
the
third
party
consultant
did
review
all
additional
information
provided
by
the
original
applicant
following
that
September
Board
hearing
and
prior
to
the
October
13
PNC.
D
D
They
made
their
decision
based
on
these
two
conclusions
of
law
that
it
does
not
comply
with
the
specific
use
standards
for
commercial
cell
towers,
specifically
as
IT
addresses
gaps
in
coverage
and
other
items
like
that,
and
that
it
does
not
comply
with
the
required
findings
for
conditional
uses.
So
with
that
I'll
stand
for
any
questions
and
we'll
see
if
Mr
Valdez
is
available
to
speak
to
you
about
his
most
recent
review.
Okay,.
C
D
To
them
sure
yeah
well,
we'll
start
with
I
guess,
item
number
one
and
the
information
that
you
wanted.
Additional
you
wanted
us
and
the
consultant
to
look
into
Josh
Leonard
has
provided
an
analysis
of
the
BLM
property
that
was
also
covered
in
the
Ron
Valdez
review.
I'll,
probably
let
both
of
them
speak
to
the
conclusions
there.
D
The
third
party
consultant,
we've
obviously
hired,
and
we
rehired
for
a
second
phase
of
that
contract
to
review
that
additional
information
and
again
the
most
recent
version
of
his
memo
is
in
your
packet.
I
I
really
would
prefer
him
to
speak
to
his
own
memo.
I
think
that's
going
to
be
way
better
than
me.
D
Paraphrasing
someone
who's
an
engineer
and
and
More
well-versed
in
cell
towers
than
I
am
we
did
provide
you
the
information
on
the
housing
and
developments
in
the
area
and,
as
can
be
shown,
there's
a
lot
of
growth
occurring
in
the
valley
and
the
and
the
portion
of
the
valley
that
this
project
is
proposed
to
be
located,
and
so
you
know,
as
a
result,
demand
will
probably
continue
to
be
there
again.
D
This
is
something
that
Mr
Valdez
will
speak
to
when,
hopefully
we
get
him
in
and
then
the
diminished
land
values
I'm
going
to
skip
over
the
legal
one.
Because
again,
that's
just
subject
to
you
and
legal's
conversation.
D
The
appellant
did
provide
an
Assessor's
report
which
they
can
speak
to
during
their
testimony
as
to
the
impact
of
a
cell
tower
on
a
property
in
the
area
not
directly
their
properties
but
I,
believe
another
property
and
close
proximity
and
then
finally
city
of
Eagle's
reasoning
for
recommending
denial.
As
we
previously
discussed,
they
found
that
the
tower
would
not
comply
with
their
code
in
the
event
that
they
annexed
it.
They
don't
allow
cell
towers
in
residential
districts
and
they
don't
allow
them
of
the
height
requested
by
the
applicant.
D
So
for
those
reasons
they
recommend
the
denial
they
did
say
if
we
were
going
to
approve
it.
The
city
of
Eagle
would
prefer
a
stealth
design,
probably
a
mono
Pine
or
something
along
those
lines.
So
we've
had
lots
of
discussions
about
Stealth
options
for
this
Tower
and
that's
certainly
something
that
you
can
discuss
in
Greater
detail
with
the
applicant
yeah
beyond.
All
of
that.
Again,
I
I
think
there's
been
a
lot
of
memos
a
lot
of
information
back
and
forth.
D
D
The
the
drive
test
data
that
Mr
Leonard
provided
Ron
valdez's
ability
to
review
kind
of
all
of
that
information,
as
well
as
all
the
testimony
heard
at
the
hearing.
So
with
that
I
I
can
answer
more
specific
questions.
If
you'd
like.
A
D
A
D
D
G
C
Yes,
I
did
want
to
apologize
to
everybody
for
having
to
table
this
after
the
last
public
hearing
ran
very
long,
so
I
know
a
lot
of
you
were
here
at
that
one
both
sides
and
were
very
gracious
with
us
to
allow
us
to
reschedule
it
and
I
know.
This
has
been
a
long
process
and
appreciate
everybody
coming
back
and
being
able
to
work
with
us.
We
really
didn't
anticipate
the
RV
hearing
from
the
last
meeting
going
as
long
as
it
did.
But
again,
thank
you
for
for
your
patience
with
us.
D
Well,
Commissions,
in
the
in
the
interest
of
keeping
the
hearing
moving
forward.
You
know
we
can
continue
to
try
to
reach
Ron
if
you'd
like
to
take
testimony
from
other
individuals,
there's
a
rebuttal
that
is
offered
to
both
sides:
Sony,
okay,
any
information
shared.
Even
if
it's
not
right
this
minute,
people
will
get
a
chance
to
address
so
I
will
continue,
trying
to
reach
Mr
Valdez.
So.
A
All
right
well
we'll
we'll
start
off
by
hearing
about
15
minutes
from
the
applicant
and
then
15
minutes
from
the
opposition.
So
the
applicant
would
like
to
come
forward.
I
I
think
the
if
you
don't
mind
the
appellant
going
first
yeah,
that's
fine!
Well,
thank
you,
and
commissioner
Davidson
appreciate
you
a
comedy
this
morning.
I
think
we
learned
a
lot
about
affordable
housing
and
RVs,
and
some
of
us
are
thinking
about
starting
some
businesses
around
that
and
commissioner
Kenyan.
Thank
you
for
joining
I
know.
You
went
out
with
the
bang
with
a
a
long
evening,
but
to
join
remotely
is,
is
very
meaningful
for
us.
You've
been
a
big
part
of
this
journey
in
this
process.
I
So
I
just
want
to
thank
the
Commissioners
for
the
process.
You
guys
have
established
so
Leon.
If
you
can
bring
up
my
slides
as
I
started.
This
is
way
of
introduction.
My
name
is
Brad
Bentley
I
live
at
4176
West
Morgan
Creek
Court
in
Eagle
I'm
building
a
new
home
which
I'll
show
you
which
is
right
adjacent
to
where
this
cell
tower
is
being
proposed,
I'm,
actually
Pro
infrastructure
and
telecommunication.
I
I
was
actually
a
senior
Executive
Vice
President
at
ATT
reporting,
directly
to
the
CEO
for
four
years
spent
20
years
at
DirecTV
and
satellite
Communications
in
terms
of
satellite
television
and
broadband,
and
so
I'm
Pro
I'm,
Pro
infrastructure,
but
I'm
also
Pro
trying
to
do
in
a
very
thoughtful
way
in
a
design
that
that
benefits
the
community
and
what
I
want
to
walk
through
today
is
I,
don't
think
that's
what's
before
us,
and
so
I
want
to
walk
through
that
level
of
information.
I
So
again,
thank
you
for
for
hearing
us
out
and
we
have
many
neighbors
here
that
would
like
to
speak
as
well.
One
thing
I
can
commit.
There
will
be
no
one
on
the
other
side
in
favor
of
the
cell
tower,
unlike
the
last
one,
where
there's
50
people
on
both
sides.
You've
got
all
these
Neighbors
in
opposition,
but
no
one
is
here
citing
that
they
think
we
need
more
towers
and
explain
why,
because
we
don't
have
a
gap
in
coverage.
If
you
can
go
to
the
next
slide.
I
I
This
is
just
the
the
thoughtfulness
of
of
this
commission
willing
to
get
a
third-party
consultant,
not
just
for
one
round
but
as
Leon
touched
for
two
rounds,
and
if
you
recall,
commissioner
Kenyon,
you
know
some
information
in
the
11th
hour
and
at
that
time
this
commission
was
this
Kenyan.
Commissioner
Kenyon
was
in
favor
of
approving
this
appeal,
but
then
I
think
you
guys
caucus
and
said
you
know
what,
with
all
the
new
information,
let's
send
it
back
down
to
the
pnz.
I
I
This
is
what's
on
the
table.
A
hundred
foot
Tower
right
here
in
our
residential
Community.
This
picture
is
from
the
porch
of
Thomas
and
Jordan's
front
yard.
This
is
also
good
life
Farms,
a
business
that
not
only
we
have
diminishing
property
values,
but
a
small
business
is
impacted
by
where
this
Tower
is
going.
I
It's
been
positioned
as
it
will
blend
in
it
does
not
blend
in,
and
this
isn't
just
about
the
neighbors
that
are
here
within
this
footprint,
but
this
is
Beacon
Light
in
which
we
have
thousands
of
residents
that
drive
through
this
area
every
single
day
that
are
impacted
by
this
unsightly
tower
now
I'm
Pro
communication.
The
question
is:
do
we
need
the
tower?
And
if
we
do,
is
this
the
right
location
and
that's
the
piece
that
I'd
like
to
walk
through
next
slide?
I
This
is
my
son
and
I
in
hot
air
balloon
here
in
September
or
August
of
21.
and
I
just
used
this
bird's
eye
view
for
two
reasons:
one.
This
is
very
rural
areas.
You
guys
know
you
can
see
in
the
bottom
Beacon
Light,
it's
highlighted
on
the
vertical
and
to
the
right.
You
can
see
if
you
guys
can
see
this
okay.
I
Is
right
there
right,
and
so
everyone
represented
here,
the
Millers,
the
dustins,
the
Deckers,
the
velos
Barbies.
All
those
neighbors
are
here
today,
as
well
as
a
few
neighbors
on
the
other
side
that
are
part
of
Homestead,
but
this
is
a
very
real
area.
What's
in
red,
is
you
see
I,
don't
know
if
you
can
see
that
red
dot
right
above
the
word,
Beacon
Light,
the
B,
that's
where
the
proposed
cell
tower
is
going
or
is
proposed
to
go
next
slide.
I
When
this
first
came
up,
it
was
clear
in
the
pnz
which
is
you
know,
even
the
applicant
said
we'd
like
to
have
this
for
the
West
meaning
this
isn't
where
we
actually
need
the
tower,
but
this
was
the
only
place
that
they
could
get
someone
who
was
willing
to
accept
it,
and
that
process
was
very
light.
As
the
pnz
pointed
out,
they
sent
out
a
few
letters.
This
is
the
only
one
that
responded,
not
a
lot
of
diligence
in
terms
of
looking
at
BLM
land
and
others.
I
The
commissioner
Ralph
said
I
have
reservations
of
what
is
the
true
necessity
of
this
application.
Commissioner,
Wickstrom
there's
not
a
lot
of
improved
coverage
to
the
West.
It's
on
the
north,
where
no
one
lives.
That's
why
I
showed
you
the
photo?
That's
BLM
land,
that's
north
of
us
and
the
applicant's
responsible,
it's
better
to
have
something
than
nothing
the
watch
out
there
is
that's
not
how
I
think
we
need
to
plan
our
infrastructure
as
a
County
and
then
the
last.
I
I
So,
as
you
guys
know
better
than
me-
and
we
have
our
eternity
here,
so
she
can
keep
us
all
honest,
but
there
are
two
requirements
to
lean
on
the
federal
the
telecommunication
act.
One
is:
do
you
have
to
prove
that
there's
significant
Gap
in
coverage?
Second?
Is
that
that
this
is
the
the
least
intrusive
means
of
providing
that
coverage?
I
What
I
want
to
show
you
next
is
proof
that
there
is
no
Gap
in
coverage
and
the
beauty
of
this
next
slide
is
it's
not
my
slide,
but
it's
actually
the
slide
from
the
applicant,
and
it's
only
exists
because
of
this
commission's
diligence
of
making
sure
that
we
get
the
right
data
to
make
an
informed
decision
because
of
the
work
that
this
commission
did
in
Ron
Valdez.
We
have
the
following
slide
that
shows
with
or
without
the
cell
tower.
I
If
you
recall,
this
is
because
there's
a
silo
tower
being
removed
due
to
development,
it's
a
60-foot
tower
that
only
has
Verizon
and
what
the
commission
or
what
the
applicant
implied
that
if
we
remove
that
Tower
you're
no
longer
going
to
be
able
to
make
cell
calls,
you
can't
call
9-1-1
if
you're
driving
through
the
area,
you
may
drop
a
call,
and
so
what
was
really
important
to
know
is
well
what
happens
to
coverage
when
that
Tower
goes
down
well
in
in
I.
Guess
appreciate
this
commission.
I
The
applicant
actually
did
the
work
and
work
with
Verizon
to
take
that
Tower
down,
and
we
have
the
data.
Now,
let's
go
to
the
next
slide
again,
this
is
their
data
on
the
top
right
in
the
green.
That's
the
drive
study
with
the
tower
and
at
the
bottom
right
is
without
the
tower
now.
This
is
specifically
for
751
megahertz
frequency
now
you'll
hear
later
from
the
applicant
that
the
higher
frequencies
are
not
as
adequate,
but
751
gives
you
the
ability
to
have
coverage
to
make
a
call
to
make
a
text
and
have
some
Broadband.
I
The
higher
frequencies,
as
I'll
show
in
a
few
slides,
is
about
getting
more
faster
data,
more
streaming
data,
but
in
terms
of
coverage,
which
is
what's
protected
by
the
telecommunication
act.
There's
plenty
of
coverage
the
moment
that
Tower
goes
down.
The
notion
that
you
can't
make
a
9-1-1
call
is
not
true
the
notion
that,
as
you're
driving
through
this
area,
you'll
drop,
a
call
is
not
true,
because
cellular
is
able
to
move
frequencies
up
and
down.
I
There
is
coverage
with,
and
without
that
Tower
and
the
engineer,
Buster
Kenny
who's
in
the
audience
here
even
said
in
the
hearing,
we're
not
going
to
see
a
significant
difference
in
751..
Now
you
will
see
there
is
difference
in
the
higher
frequency,
but
that
is
not
what's
protected
by
the
telecommunication
act.
If
we
go
to
the
next
slide
prior
case
law
well
and
just
to
highlight,
I
guess
this:
this
is
with
it
off.
The
drive
study
is
green
everywhere.
I
What
I've
circled
is
where
the
existing
Verizon
sites
are,
so
you
can
see
in
the
bottom
they're
in
the
right
in
the
top
right,
where
I
think
we'll
ultimately
need
coverage.
I'll
show
in
a
few
slides
as
closer
to
16,
where
we're
going
to
have
a
lot
more
density
and
a
lot
more
throughput
as
we
widen
that
road
and
as
there's
more
dense
commercial
and
residential
communities
next
slide
prior
case
law.
I
underlined
this.
I
I
This
is
just
something
I
pulled
off
the
internet.
You
can.
You
can
get
this,
but
just
to
give
us
perspective
the
far
right
and
purple
is
the
700
megahertz.
The
reason
I
show
this
is
that's
what
gives
you
coverage
at
the
top?
You
know
it's
a
longer
range,
it's
better
for
building
coverage.
It
is
slower
speeds,
but
it's
perfectly
fine
for
calls
texts
and
some
browsing.
I
What
you
need
the
higher
frequencies
for
is
to
penetrate
buildings
and
for
faster
speeds,
and
so,
but
that
is
what
is
not
necessarily
not
protected
by
the
telecommunication
act
and
by
the
way
we
as
homeowners.
All
of
us
have
high-speed
Broadband
at
our
houses,
so
we're
not
in
need
of
of
the
additional
and
that's
what
everyone's
here
to
testify
in
that
chart.
You
only
have
50
some
odd
homes.
I
I
This
is
probably
where
I
think
we
would
need
a
additional
capacity
at
some
point.
Circled,
where
there's
higher
density
going
out
and
16,
because
you
can
see
where
the
Verizon
towers
are,
but
it's
not
where
the
proposed
site
I,
don't
know
if
you
can
see
a
green,
existing
and
proposed,
but
it's
too
far
east
it's
not
to
the
west,
where
all
the
density
and
again
that's
just
because
it's
the
best
site
that
they
could
come
up
with
at
the
time
next
slide.
I
So
in
this
case
the
court
explicitly
noted
that
improved
capacity
and
speed,
although
desirable
and
no
doubt
profitable
goals
of
the
of
the
age
of
smartphones,
they
are
not
protected
by
the
telecommunication
act.
The
second
far
regions
of
termination
made
by
the
federal
court
in
this
Flower
Hill,
is
that
the
Court
ruled
that
the
carrier
not
cannot
establish
a
significant
gapping
coverage
of
its
wireless
service
simply
by
claiming
that
it
has
a
gap
in
one
of
the
multiple
frequencies
through
which
it
provides
its
wireless
service.
Again
just
stating
as
long
as
there's
coverage.
I
There's
coverage,
they
don't
have
the
right
to
telecommunition,
have
every
single
frequency
that
they
would
like
and
prefer
next
slide.
The
second
substantial
evidence
is
least
intrusive
means
they
did
not
explore
the
BLM
land
as
an
alternative.
That
process
is
not
a
letter,
but
an
application
that
was
never
applied
for,
nor
is
there
any
analysis
that
they
provided
that
that
space
would
not
work.
That
was
a
big
part
of
the
pnz.
I
Overturning
of
this
is
that
there
wasn't
proper
diligence
on
using
BLM
land
as
a
potential
site.
For
this
all
we
heard
through
the
process
is
it
won't
work,
but
we
have
no
data
on
it.
No,
it
was
an
application
ever
filed
next
slide
for
perspective.
I
You
can
see
the
existing
site,
the
post
site
and
where
BLM
land
is
it's
basically
the
same
distance
where
the
proposed
site
is
that
they're
looking
to
put
in
and
where
I've
circled
is
probably
where
we
need
more
coverage,
which
is
further
the
East,
which
was
also
validated
by
their
own
applicant
next
slide.
I
Ron
Valdez
first
analysis:
this
is
his
words,
not
mine,
so
I
just
cut
and
pasted,
but
we'll
read
the
highlighted,
says
after
reviewing
the
position
of
the
applicant
and
the
appellant
I
believe
it
comes
down
to
a
lack
of
strong
evidence
on
why
the
new
cell
tower
is
required.
Collecting
signal
levels
at
various
points
in
the
area
does
not
provide
enough
information
about
the
overall
Wireless
environment.
A
comprehensive
drive
test
is
needed
in
the
second
analysis,
we
did
that
and
I'll
read
his
findings.
I
He
also
noted
Verizon
could
add
even
bigger
need
for
coverage
west
of
eagle,
which
I
pointed
out
next
slide.
I
Now
we
did
a
second
analysis
and
thanks
to
Mrs
Kenyon,
commissioner
Kenyon,
who,
who,
after
reading
all
the
society,
a
lack
of
data,
lack
of
data
and
push
this
down
to
the
pnz.
There
was
a
second
analysis
done
and
that's
why
that
meeting
took
a
month
to
get
together,
and
this
is
the
second
analysis
from
Valdez
or
from
Val
Technologies.
The
focus
of
the
applicant
was
to
demonstrate
the
impact
of
how
losing
The
Silo
would
affect
the
surrounding
areas
where
civilians
or
citizens
live
and
commute
again.
I
These
were
not
continuous
sample
points
along
design
routes,
but
we're
fixed
tests
on
various
locations
because
of
the
limited
number
of
samples
over
a
given
area.
There's
a
wide
variety
of
variability
of
uncertainty
in
other
areas
where
testing
was
not
concluded
again
in
yellow
I
highlighted.
However,
more
comprehensive
testing
is
required
to
obtain
a
complete
view
of
the
environment
and
then
the
last
Point
BLM
site
3
could
be
a
valid
candidate.
That
was
his
second
analysis
and,
in
my
mind,
the
last
analysis,
because
if
you
timeline
States,
this
was
after
you
pushed
the
pnz.
I
This
is
the
analysis
that
was
prepared
that
we
sent
to
the
pnz
to
to
rule
on.
There
was
a
third
one
which
I
don't
know
exactly
who
commissioned
it
but
seems
to
contradict
the
First
two
and
I
bring
the
first
two
up
just
so,
you
can
read
the
verbatims
of
what
was
said
by
Mr
Valdez.
Hopefully,
Leon
can
get
them
on
later,
but
it
seems
to
reverse
some
of
his
positions
but
In
fairness
to
Mr
Valdez.
You
know
he
hasn't
been
to
the
site.
He
doesn't
know
how
rule
it
is,
and
second
thing
I.
I
I
Substantial
evidence.
Substantial
evidence,
as
you
guys
know,
is
relevant
evidence
as
a
reasonable
mind
might
accept
as
adequate
to
support
the
conclusion.
In
a
prior
case,
the
court
finds
that
if
even
one
reason
given
for
Don
isle
is
supported
by
substantial
evidence,
the
decision
by
the
local
zoning
body
cannot
be
disturbed
in
this
case.
There's
not
just
one
but
there's
multiple,
so
I'll
go
to
my
last
slide.
I
think
I
have
a
minute
left
conclusion.
Substantial
evidence
has
provided
that
there
is
no
Gap
in
coverage.
The
beauty
of
this
is
not
my
data.
I
It's
their
data
number
two.
The
applicant
provided
no
evidence
they
perform
proper
diligence
and
least
intrusive
means
some
specifically
referring
to
the
BLM
as
an
opportunity.
To
put
this,
that
would
be
less
disruptive.
The
third
is:
we've
put
on
the
record,
a
third
party
appraisal
that
was
done
in
Eagle,
just
down
the
street,
that
a
cell
tower
can
have
an
impact
of
9.91.
You
can
review
that,
but
it's
on
recorded
in
the
file
and
I
think
Steve
Barbie
may
be
touching
on
it.
I
The
fourth
is,
the
city
has
requested
a
4-0
that
Ada
County
deny
the
tower
and
then
the
last
point
is
after
viewing
650
pages
of
documents.
Fifth
trial,
the
pnz,
as
you
guys
push
it
back
down,
reverse
their
initial
decision,
and
they
did
so
citing
the
following
things.
They
still
have
coverage
in
those
areas
by
commissioner
Wickstrom.
There's
not
adequate
consideration
for
BLM
from
commissioner
Birch.
I
There
is
an
adverse
impact
on
property
values
and
it
harms
citizens
you'll,
hear
from
Jordan
and
her
good
life
Farms.
The
study
that
she's
done
on
the
impact
of
her
Farm.
This
is
not
the
right
place
for
the
tower
commissioner
Burge.
This
is
this
is
the
only
site
Works
should
have
been
in
quotes,
does
not
support
the
applicant's
comments,
you'll
hear
it
many
times
and
even
Valdez,
there's
not
enough
proper
work
on
that.
This
is
the
best
site.
I
The
adverse
effect
of
the
Miller's
Farm
operations
failed
to
go
through
exhaustive
search
for
best
location
for
Passive,
just
sending
out
passive
letters,
and
then
the
last
one
was
agreement
with
the
city
of
eagle
and
our
residents
to
deny.
So
thank
you
for
the
time
appreciate
it
bye.
Thank
you
any
questions.
Any
questions.
K
C
K
Thank
you
Commissioners
sure
my
name
is
Josh
Leonard.
My
address
is
251
East
Front,
Street
Suite
310
here
in
Boise
I'm
here
with
with
Stephen
Kennedy
of
the
wob
coast
Consultants,
and
he
is
here
as
an
expert
on
radio
frequency.
He
was
hired
by
the
by
the
applicant.
We
represent
the
applicant
intermax
Towers
I
appreciate
commissioner
Davidson
you
earlier
talking
about
the
long
journey
that
we've
been
on
here.
It's
we
were
calculating.
K
K
We're
going
to
bounce
back
and
forth
a
little
bit
as
we
as
we
go
through
and
and
present
our
our
presentation.
Commissioner
Davidson
I'm
also
grateful
that
you
asked
about
the
the
County's
expert
being
online
and
able
to
hear
I'd
look
forward
to
his
comments
on
on
Mr
Bentley's
comments.
Earlier
too,.
L
Next
slide,
please
Steve
Kennedy
11142
Northwest,
165th,
Drive,
Suite,
343,
Surprise
Arizona.
So,
as
everybody
knows,
Mr
Vol
had
a
report
that
was
prepared
in
November
based
upon
the
drive
test
data
that
I
provided.
One
thing
to
note
is
the
Planning
and
Zoning
commission
did
not
have
this
latest
report
when
that
was
made,
so
they
did
not
utilize
that
for
the
November
17th
public
hearing,
so
all
they
provided
the
updated
Drive
testing
analysis
well
before
the
deadline.
Staff
did
not
pass
that
along
to
you.
L
So
the
key
thing
is
Mr
Val
provided
expert
testimony
and
it
happens
to
coincide
with
the
applicant
next
slide.
These
are
directly
from
Mr
valdez's
report.
I,
don't
see
any
other
viable
option,
other
than
Beacon
Light
Road
to
Beacon
Light
Towers.
The
best
option
for
the
community
as
a
whole
application
doesn't
just
meet
the
standards
and
required
Freight
account.
According
to
the
County's
own
expert,
there
is
no
other
viable
option
and
our
proposed
site
is
the
best
option
next
slide.
L
The
applicant
has
certainly
gone
above
the
requirements
to
show
the
impact
of
how
losing
existing
Silo
site
will
negatively
impact
Verizon
service.
A
thing
to
note:
there
was
discussion
that
only
phone
calls
where
I'm
on
a
phone,
I,
dialed
digits
I,
get
to
a
phone
number
on
the
public
switch
telephone
Network
that
that
only
happens
in
700
megahertz.
It
doesn't
calls
phone
calls
9-1-1
happen
in
all
frequency
bands,
so
the
frequency
bands
are
not
allocated
some
for
Broadband
some
for
phone
calls.
L
They
all
do
both
it's
just
the
way.
It
is
so
whether
it's
700
850
1900,
2100,
2500,
3800,
megahertz,
3,
500
megahertz.
They
all
make
phone
calls,
so
it
is
a
cell
phone
site
across
all
Spectrum
bands,
so
the
applicant
has
certainly
gone
above
and
beyond
requirements
to
show
the
impact
of
how
losing
existing
Silo
will
negatively
impact
service.
When
we
talk
about
applicant
in
green,
we
mean
the
original
applicant
intermax
Towers.
We
talked
about
the
appellant.
That's
the
people
opposed
to
the
application.
K
K
I
I'd
first,
like
to
before
jumping
into
this
slide
I'd
like
to
to
note
that
that
Mr
Bentley
only
quoted
from
the
first
couple
of
reports
by
the
by
these
the
County's
expert.
He
didn't
quote
from
the
the
most
recent
one
with
the
most
up-to-date
information
and
I
think
that's
very
telling
we're
quoting
throughout
this.
Every
time
you
see
a
quote.
That's
from
the
most
recent
updated
report
by
the
County's
expert.
I'd.
Also
note
that
what
happened
is
he
didn't?
K
Have
our
information
prior
to
the
November
17th
hearing,
and
it
was
through
no
fault
of
our
own
or
no
fault
of
staffs.
It's
the
staff,
didn't
produce
a
new
staff
report
to
go
with
that,
because
we've
been
here
a
few
times,
and
so
they
didn't
provide
the
updated
information
that
was
already
in
the
record
to
Mr
Valdez.
K
He
didn't
review
it,
but
he
did
testify
about
it
at
the
last
hearing
and
then
he
he
promised
during
the
last
hearing
during
his
testimony
to
produce
a
new
report
and
that's
what
we're,
quoting
from,
which
includes
the
most
up-to-date
information
this.
This
is
the
existing
site.
This
is
the
set
Silo
we're
talking
about.
Even
if
you
look
closely,
you
can
see
the
the
at
T
antennas
at
the
top
or
excuse
me
Verizon
antennas
at
the
top
using
those
antennas
it
current
Verizon
currently
has
satisfactory
coverage.
K
K
When
Mr
Bentley
says
that
we
don't
have
a
gap
in
coverage
in
this
area.
That's
because
these
are
in
operation
right
now,
it's
the
Gap,
that's
created
when
these
go
away
that
we
we
need
to
fill
next
slide.
K
In
his
first
report,
the
the
the
counties
expert
recommended
requiring
additional
coverage,
data
and
information
from
the
applicant.
In
this
most
recent
updated
report,
Mr
Valdez
acknowledged
that
we
provided
that
information.
He
said
the
applicant
provided
the
information
needed
to
show
the
coverage
hole
created
by
losing
The
Silo
site
and
not
building
the
Beacon
Light
Road
Site
I
think
that's
important
from
an
independent
third
party
consultant
and
expert
hired
by
the
county
he's
telling
you
that
we
have.
We
have
proven
a
gap
that
will
result.
K
He
also
in
his
latest
report,
mentions
that
the
other
carriers
have
as
big
a
need
as
Verizon
will
have
and
that
the
other
carriers
need
is
current.
We'll
talk
a
little
bit
later
about
the
other
carriers.
This
site
will
be
fully
leased
up
almost
from
day
one.
The
other
carriers
are
very
anxious
about
putting
and
very
interested
in
putting
putting
antennas
on
this
site.
L
Okay,
next
slide,
so
the
applicant's
maps
have
been
proven
proven
to
show
a
realistic
view
of
expected
coverage.
So
this
is
once
again
from
Mr
valdez's
report.
L
Next
slide
the
appellant
attempted
to
provide
their
own
technical
justification
by
third
party
sources,
which
has
proven
to
be
any
inaccurate
and
show
the
lack
of
Industry
experience
for
valid
technical
input.
So
from
your
own
consultant,
he
said
the
appellants
data
doesn't
stand
next
slide,
all
right,
so
BLM
properties
lots
of
talk
about
BLM
properties,
so
the
towers
are
too
far
away
for
Verizon,
certainly
too
far
away
for
carriers
like
T-Mobile,
which
do
not
utilize
the
lower
band
Spectrum
for
coverage.
So
right
now,
Verizon
customers,
yeah.
L
All
the
customers
that
live
in
the
area
around
have
great
service.
It's
a
Verizon
sites
live
it's
on
air.
It's
working,
it's
right
in
the
middle
of
where
all
the
customers
are
just
like
when
you
have
to
run
electrical
or
gas
or
anything
to
houses.
It's
it's
part
of
the
infrastructure,
so
we
analyzed
the
BLM
property.
But
once
again,
it's
too
far
away.
L
Mr
Bentley
talked
about
Highway
16
needing
a
site
over
there.
There's
an
SBA
Tower
already
there
and
it
has
both
T-Mobile
and
ATT
on
it,
and
we
still
have
the
issues
to
the
east,
where
the
existing
Verizon
tower
sits.
Once
again
that
goes
away.
The
new
site
come
proposed
site,
possibly
comes
in
all
three
carriers
get
better,
so
an
existing
tower
on
Highway
16
does
not
provide
the
service
on
the
western
side.
Well,
do
you
want
two
towers,
or
what
this
this
site
will
help
resolve
that.
K
L
Right
so
the
BLM
site
locations
are
not
optimal,
providing
5G
and
4G
and
5G
service
to
existing
areas.
We
can
get
all
excited
about
4G
5G,
all
that
other
fun
stuff.
The
simple
fact
is
phone
calls
where
I
dial
the
public
switch
telephone,
Network
and
I
connect
to
a
phone
or
I
dial,
9-1-1
and
I
connect
to
a
psap.
L
K
Giving
it
for
the
record
Josh
this
is
thank
you
Leonard,
and
the
the
counties
consultant
in
that
latest
report
also
noted
some
of
the
concerns
that
have
been
raised
by
the
opponents.
He
said
with
regard
to
the
alleged
health
risk,
with
the
alleged
impact
on
property
values
and
alleged
loss
of
business
Revenue.
He
said,
and
there
has
been
no
factual
data
presented
by
the
appellant
to
justify
any
of
these
claims.
Again.
K
That's
not
us
saying
that
that's
the
the
third
party
independent
consultant
saying
that
they
have
not
proven
This
concerns,
are
not
evidence
and
again
the
Planning
and
Zoning
commission
when
they
recommended
approval
of
the
of
the
appeal.
Didn't
have
this
latest
report
through
no
fault
of
their
their
own,
but
they
didn't
have
this
most
updated
Report.
With
these
strong
recommendations.
K
One
thing
I
also
want
to
mention:
we've
heard
a
lot
of
testimony
over
the
past
year
or
so
from
opponents
who
say
they
live
near
the
site.
At
the
November
17th
hearing,
there
were
several
people
who
testified
they
lived
near
the
site.
In
fact,
only
one
person
who
lives
within
one
thousand
feet
of
the
tower
testified
Mr
Bentley.
Today
testified
that
he
lives
immediately
adjacent
to
the
site.
He
lives
2200
feet
away
more,
almost
a
half
mile
more
than
more
than
a
third
of
a
mile
away.
K
We
ask
we
would
recommend
you
asking
them
to
identify
exactly
how
far,
not
by
estimating
the
distance
but
by
showing
on
a
map
where
they
live.
So
you
can
see
how
far
they
are
from
this
site.
Mr
Bentley's
concerned
with
this
site
is
that
the
entrance
to
his
10-acre
lot
development
is
near
the
site,
not
that
his
home
is
next
slide.
K
K
He
also
said
that
it
shows
the
applicant
is
doing
all
they
can
to
compromise
with
the
local
community
from
its
earliest
planning
stages.
This
Tower
the
carriers
wanted
125
feet
and
even
150
feet.
The
tower
company
said
we're
not
going
to
go
into
this
community
with
125
foot
or
150
foot
Tower
we're
going
to
put
it
at
100
feet
because
that's
what
is
absolutely
minimal?
That's
the
lowest
height
that
we
can
do
and
make
it
work,
and
we
came
with
that
without
as
a
proposal.
But
that's
why?
K
K
This
is
just
to
to
to
show
the
the
what
it
would
look
like
when
built
we'd
note
on
page
three
of
the
updated
report,
the
consultant
recognizes
that
a
taller
Tower
would
allow
the
carriers
to
provide
better
coverage,
but
we're
again
only
asking
for
a
a
100
foot,
and
while
this
slide
is
helpful,
it
doesn't
provide
context
if
we
go
to
the
next
slide
on.
K
The
left
is
a
photo
that
captures
The
View,
looking
West
down
Beacon
Light
Road
past
the
proposed
Tower,
which,
in
this
view,
is
going
to
be
on
the
right
in
that
field.
You
can
see
up
above
the
arrow,
pointing
to
where
the
the
green
X
is
where
I
was
standing
when
I
took
the
photo.
The
arrow
is
the
direction
I'm
looking
and
the
green
box
is
the
site.
This
is
the
view.
If
you
look
at
this
I'm
going
to
point
something
out
that
I
just
noticed
as
we
were
sitting.
K
K
We
are
immediately
adjacent
to
Beacon
Light
Road
and
we
are
only
24
feet
higher
than
that
entire
row
of
towers
that
run
by
there.
So
when
Mr
Bentley
mentions
that
the
visual
impact
on
drivers
through
this
community
will
be
great,
they
already
see
this.
It's
infrastructure,
it's
necessary.
It's
it's
what's
important
to
make
sure
that
we
can
continue
to
have
the
the
information
and
data
services
and
telephone
services
we
need
next
slide.
K
This
is
looking
the
odd
the
other
way.
This
is
looking
East,
as
you
can
see
from
the
road
that
goes
up
to
Mr
Bentley's
development.
You
can
see
there
same
Towers
this
time,
they're
on
the
right
hand,
side
of
the
frame
on
the
south
side
of
Beacon,
but
also
the
ones
that
are
that
are
adjacent
to
the
road
on
the
north
of
Beacon.
K
Again,
quoting
the
County's
expert,
the
opportunity
to
build
less
towers
by
building
just
a
single
location
is
more
favorable
and,
and
his
quote
was
it
becomes
highly
beneficial
to
all
parties
involved
in
this
case,
that's
what
we're
proposing
a
single
location
with
all
of
the
major
carriers
next
slide,
in
addition
to
intermax
networks,
which
will
be
on
the
tower.
We
also
have
the
co-location
application
on
the
left
from
Verizon
the
the
formal
letter
of
interest
from
at
T
and
the
letter
of
interest
from
T-Mobile's
site
acquisition,
specialist.
K
K
Hopefully
it
doesn't
get
that
that
far
with
a
lawsuit
in
federal
court,
if
we
get
there,
the
two
elements
are
Gap
in
coverage:
significant
Gap
in
coverage
and
least
intrusive
means
to
fill
that
Gap.
The
consultant
has
said:
we've
proven
that
there
will
be
a
gap
in
coverage
and
we
have
proven
that.
It's
not
just
the
least
intrusive.
K
It's
the
only
viable
option
by
doing
that,
the
your
consultant
has
has
made
this
decision
easy,
but
he's
also
made
it
in
a
way
difficult
and
he's
he's
made
it
so
that
if
this
is
not
approved
and
we
end
up
in
federal
court,
your
own,
the
the
County's
own
independent
consultant,
has
said
they've
they've
the
applicant
meets
those
two
qualifications.
Those
two
standards
that
are
that
are
the
requisite
for
having
a
court
order.
This
Tower
to
go
in
in
place
and
again
we
don't
want
it
to
go
that
far.
K
We
we
believe
we
meet
all
of
the
requirements
next
slide
from
the
county
code
and
that,
as
the
consultant
said,
the
Beacon
Light
Tower
is
the
best
option
for
the
community
as
a
whole.
We
would
stand
for
questions
all.
C
Chair,
yes,
could
you
touch
on
maybe
from
a
legal
perspective,
difference
between
Gap
and
coverage
and
significant
Gap
in
coverage,
and
why
you
feel
you
have
a
significant
Gap
versus
just
a
gap.
K
K
It
takes
it
from
being
a
gap
in
coverage
that
exists
when
the
top,
when
there
are
existing
towers
that
will
stay
there.
That
will
be
touching
and
there's
overlapping
coverage
to
being
a
significant
Gap
in
coverage
and
as
quoted
by
or
quoting
the
latest
report
from
the
consultant,
we've
demonstrated
that
significant
Gap.
C
Mr,
chair
yeah,
so
I
another
question:
do
you
have
any
idea
what
an
additional
cost
to
to
your
client
would
be
if
they
tried
to
to
do
the
I
guess:
make
the
Pole
look
like
a
Christmas
tree
or
whatever
kind
of
you
know
sure.
K
It's
a
way
to
hide
that
yeah,
yeah,
absolutely
and
I
can
tell
you
against,
or
commissioner
Davidson.
It
is
a
significant
cost.
I
can
also
tell
you
that
if
this
board
says
as
a
condition
of
approval
you're
required
to
to
what
do
they
call
it
stealth,
camouflage
it
as
a
as
a
as
a
100
foot,
tall,
Conifer
or
pine.
My
clients
would
would
agree
with
that
and
agree
to
do
that.
C
C
L
This
has
to
be
transcribed.
We
need
to
know
who's
talking.
I
just
did
he
said
this
is
this
is
Steve
Kennedy,
so
you
have
coverage
issues
within
Northwestern,
Ada,
County
right
now,
it's
to
the
to
the
Northeast
to
the
Northwest.
When
I
was
Drive,
testing
I'd
have
a
lot
of
people
pull
up
and
say
what
are
you
doing
out
here?
Checking
out
things
and
I'd
say
I'm
doing
a
coverage
analysis
we're
trying
to
get
a
tower
approved?
Oh
great
coverage,
sucks
up
here.
Okay,
so
there's
problems
in
Northwestern,
Ada
County.
L
K
As
far
as
height
you
probably
saw
Steve
was
shaking
his
head,
no,
that
it
wouldn't
matter
and
I
was
shaking
my
head.
Yes,
that
it
would
matter
if
it
were
higher.
That's
because
the
answer
is
yes
and
no.
It
provides
a
better
signal
or
a
further
signal
and
reaches
areas
outlying,
but
it
doesn't
change
the
fact
that
there
they
may
need
additional
capacity
sites
for
the
number
of
users
as
as
it
grows
out
in
that
area.
C
So
question
for
for
Josh,
as
far
as
the
other
potential
clients
going
on
to
the
the
tower,
do
you
think
that
they
would
also
have
to
provide
a
evidence
of
significant
Gap
in
coverage
to
be
approved
to
be
on
that
Tower
or
does
our
finding
here?
Would
that
apply
to
the
other
carriers
as.
K
Well,
my
position
and
again
this
is
Josh
Leonard.
My
position
is
that
they
wouldn't
have
to
demonstrate
additional,
because
they
they
don't
have
the
need.
A
co-location.
Application
doesn't
require
a
conditional
use
permit.
K
With
that
said,
based
on
the
the
the
County's
Consultants
findings,
they
all
have
a
significant
Gap
in
coverage
and
I'm
not
going
to
put
words
in
his
mouth,
but
it
seemed
from
the
even
the
earlier
reports
that
he
was
somewhat
surprised
that
it
was
Verizon
asking
for
this
site
until
it
was
recognized
that
obviously
Verizon
site
existing
site
is
coming
down
because
it
the
other
carriers,
need
the
coverage
at
least
as
much,
if
not
more
than
Verizon.
In
this
area,.
K
Very
much
so
in
fact,
the
the
written
lease
is
being
passed
back
and
forth
right
now
between
me
and
and
the
and
Verizon
for
their
to
bind
them
to
their
Tower
site.
The
at
T
is
involved
in
lease
negotiations
as
well.
To
be
candid,
T-Mobile
has
backed
off
on
a
on
a
few
sites
around
the
area.
K
I
think
Financial
purposes,
as
opposed
to
needs,
I
think
they're,
just
recalibrating
with
that
said,
though
they
they
still
have
have
inquired,
even
recently
about
the
the
status
of
this
site
and
whether
whether
and
when
it
will
be
approved,
so
they
can
start
adding
it
to
their
budget.
All.
B
Yeah,
follow
up
to
Commission
commission
query
the
question
for
staff
as
well
so
I'm
interested
in
the
are
they
letters
of
Interest?
Are
they
you
said
that
there's
one
that's
negotiating
a
lease
other
than
that,
though,
do
you
have
anything
substantial
that
has
been
put
into
the
record
for
co-locators.
K
Thank
you,
commissioner,
Kenyon
and
and
chairman
Beck.
This
is
Josh
Leonard
again
there
are
actually
two
that
are
in
the
process
of
negotiating
a
lease.
A
t
and
Verizon
are
both
Verizon's
a
little
bit
ahead
of
the
game
on
that
one
they're
we're
actually
passing
back
a
back
and
forth
a
draft
lease
with
each
side
making
edits
right
now
at
T's
negotiating
the
terms
of
that
lease
both
of
those
I
I'm
I'm,
confident
in
saying
both
of
those
will
be
on
this
Tower,
given
the
procedural
posture
where
those
are
at
in
their
negotiations.
K
I
also
know
that
intermax
will
be
on
this
Tower
and
and
although
not
a
national
carrier,
more
of
a
niche
carrier
here
in
the
the
area
that
they
will
be
on
it.
So
there
will
be
three
and
based
on
what
I
know
about
the
industry
and
T-Mobile,
and
the
fact
that
T-Mobile
does
need
coverage
in
this
area.
M
B
You
and
then
just
to
follow
up
I
think
you
made
a
statement
that
are
planning
a
zoning
commission
did
not
have
an
opportunity
to
review
the
Valdez
updated
report.
Is
that
correct?
Is
that
the
correct
statement.
K
That
is
a
correct
statement.
He
testified
and
again
Josh
Leonard.
He
testified
after
reviewing
the
the
most
up-to-date
information,
so
here
just
a
little
timeline
of
how
it
went
on
October
3rd.
We
submitted
a
new
letter
with
updated,
Drive
testing.
K
We
then
the
submitted
after
the
October
14th
hearing
I
think
it
was.
We
submitted
testing
that
had
occurred
the
night
before
Steve
lives
out
of
town
and
was
in
town
the
night
before
and
did
some
testing
That
Was
Then
set
over
to
a
November
hearing
and
the
updated
information
was
submitted
to
staff.
But
staff
didn't
do
a
new
staff
report
for
that
November
hearing,
and
so
the
consultant
didn't
receive
that
stuff.
K
The
the
updated
information
until
we
I
actually
called
Leon
in
early
November
and-
and
he
said
he
hadn't,
provided
it
because
he
hadn't
done
a
new
staff
report.
He
reviewed
it.
The
consultant
reviewed
it
prior
to
that
hearing
is
my
understanding
and
he
did
testify
briefly
at
that
hearing,
but
the
report
that
that's
before
you,
the
most
updated
and
recent
report
with
the
quotes-
we've
been
sharing.
The
Planning
and
Zoning
commission
did
not
have
that
for
the
November
17th
hearing.
D
Chair
Commissioners,
Josh,
Leonard's,
recount
of
of
how
that
played
out
is,
is
accurate.
There
was
a
memo
provided
by
Mr
Leonard,
almost
at
the
exact
same
time
that
we
decided
to
have
the
item
tabled,
and
so,
as
a
result,
the
final
memo
and
the
additional
drive
test
data
that
Josh
and
his
his
partner
provided.
It
was
ultimately
provided
to
the
pnz
but
Val's
valve
Technology's,
updated
memo
didn't
occur
until
after
the
PNC
hearing.
D
But,
yes,
there
was
not
the
November
valve
technology
memo
that
is
the
first
item
in
your
packet
was
produced
after
the
pnz
hearing
just
to
formalize
Mr
valdez's
comments
that
he
made
at
the
PNC
public
hearing.
So
again
our
PNC
commission
heard
his
viewpoints.
D
A
lot
of
the
things
said
here
are
quoted
here
by
Mr
Leonard.
Were
you
know,
on
the
record
by
Mr
Valdez
and
the
commission
still
opted
to
deny
or
ultimately
approve
the
appeal
and
to
and
overturn
their
original
approval
of
the
CU?
So
again,
that
is
that
isn't
a
the
recount
here
by
Mr
Leonard
is
accurate
in
terms
of
the
updated
Memo
from
biotechnologies.
B
Yeah
follow
up
so
Leonard
or
Leon
Leonard
Leon.
So
what
you're
saying
is
they
received
testimony,
but
not
the
written
report
and
as
a
staff
member?
Can
you
kind
of
tell
the
commission?
Was
there
a
significant
Gap
in
information
that
was
shared
verbally
versus
what
was
shown
in
the
report
that
came
later.
D
Yeah,
commissioner
Kenyan
that's
correct,
so
Val
Technologies
did
State
at
the
hearing
that
their
belief
now
after
reviewing
that
information
again
I'd
like
Ron,
to
give
this
directly
versus
me
paraphrasing
him
that
there
was,
they
do
see
a
need
for
a
tower
in
the
area.
They
see
continued
growth
and
other
things
along
those
lines,
necessitating
additional
towers
and
and
the
need
for
more
cell
coverage
in
the
future.
So,
yes,
valve
Technologies
did
State
at
that
hearing
that
they
think
there
is
an
issue
in
the
area
regarding
coverage.
So
the
again
the
commission.
D
They
opted
to
still
deny
ultimately
deny
the
cell
tower.
So,
okay,
all.
K
I
would
note
that,
although
he
did
make
some
of
the
some
of
the
or
allude
to
some
of
the
the
findings
that
he
put
in
his
writing,
his
virtual
testimony
was
not
anywhere
near
as
direct
as,
what's
before
you
today
in
writing,
and
obviously
virtual
testimony,
as
opposed
to
it
being
in
black
and
white
before
you
it's
far
more
impactful
in
the
written
form
than
it
was
virtually,
especially
because
at
that
Planning
and
Zoning
hearing
three
of
the
Commissioners
were
brand
new.
It
was
their
very
first
ever
planning
baptism
by
fire.
K
M
Yes,
yeah
just
a
quick
question
staff
or
do
we
have
Mr
Valdez
is
going
to
testify
today.
D
Yes,
chairman,
commissioner
Ken,
we
do
have
Ron
we've
finally,
patched
him
through
via
WebEx,
so
he's
ready
to
speak.
Whenever
you
have
a
chance,
I
would
probably
recommend
doing
that
before
General.
Testimony
sure
sure
we'll
do.
A
That
but
I
I
did
have
a
couple
questions.
I
think
you
indicated
that
the
these
higher
megahertz,
the
telephone
conversations
actually
go
over
those.
G
A
Well,
but
I
think
what
I
heard
from
the
previous
speaker
was
that
the
the
750
Mega
megahertz
is
what
is
required
to
make
a
phone
conversation.
Is
that
not
correct.
L
Steve
Kennedy
these
750
megahertz
carrier
can
do
phone
calls
or
it
can
do
Broadband
either
way.
It's
it's
moving
data
across
the
network
in
packets,
so
all
frequency
bands
provide
both
Services,
whether
it's
a
phone
call
I'm
dialing,
9-1-1,
I'm,
dialing,
public
switch
telephone
Network
or
it's
I'm,
surfing
the
web
and
downloading
a
website.
All
frequencies
provide
both
types
of
so.
A
I,
don't
think
that
was
I.
Don't
think
that
was
a
question
that
that
they
don't
I
think
what
was
in
question
was
the
750
megahertz
is
what's
provided
is
what
is
where
there's
demonstration
of
not
a
lack
of
coverage,
because
there
there
is
a
750
megahertz
throughout
broader
area.
Am
I
not
correct
in
that.
L
There
are
750
megahertz
if
that
Verizon
site
comes
off
the
air,
there's
still
enough
overlap
from
the
other
surrounding
sites
to
provide
750
megahertz
coverage
within
that
area
and
not
have
a
significant
impact
where
it
well.
That
was
the
question.
Yes,
sir,
and
that's
correct,
but
remember
it's
also
the
850,
the
1900,
the
2100,
the
3800
megahertz.
L
The
original
carriers
or
the
original
frequency
band
that
was
allocated
in
the
80s,
was
the
850
megahertz
carrier.
The
700
megahertz
carry
didn't
didn't,
come
into
service
I
think
until
about
2000
I'm,
relying
on
memory
I
apologize,
2004
2005..
That
was
the
initial
when
they
talked
about
Advanced
Services
marketing
wise.
That
was
when
the
750
megahertz
auction
happened
and
they
actually
overlaid
equipment
that
worked
in
that
band.
Okay,.
A
Do
you
have
any
evidence
that
it's
going
to
go
down
because
I
know
you
said
it's
a
month
to
month
and
so
forth,
but
and
and
I
guess
that's
what
the
the
some
of
these
recommendations
are
based
on
the
fact
that
that
one's
going
to
be
gone
is
that
correct?
That's.
K
Correct
and
also
I
can
tell
you
that
that
Verizon
especially
isn't
going
to
put
up
put
antennas
on
this
tower
on
our
Tower
until
right.
Before
that
one
comes
offline,
because.
K
Of
offline
so
far
the
landlord
has
been
really
patient.
With
us
I
know
there
was
a
prior
application
submitted
for
a
dense,
single-family
residential
subdivision
over
there
at
with
the
city
of
Eagle,
because
it's
been
annexed,
my
understanding
and
Leon
correct
me
I
think
you've
probably
had
the
most
up-to-date
conversations
is
that
that
had
been
to
hearing
and
planning
and
zoning
and
was
sent
back
to
the
applicant
to
make
some
revisions
and
they're
retooling
their
application.
K
A
That,
as
I
recall,
the
some
of
the
discussion
we've
had
previous
is
to
is
to
encourage
a
co-location
on
that
app
at
that
site.
No
can
do
well
I'm
hearing
that
now,
but
I
didn't
know
that
no.
K
No
on
the
existing
site,
you
mean
on
The,
Silo
side
yeah.
No,
it's
structurally
unsound.
They.
They
don't
know
that
even
if
I
mean
it
would
cost
more
than
putting
up
a
new
tower
to
to
make
that
one
safe
to
put
any
more
antennas
on
okay,
it's
also
only
65
feet
tall
and
to
be
able
to
co-locate
on
that
with
the
10
feet,
spacing
that
would
put
the
next
highest
antenna
only
at
55
feet,
which
really
wouldn't
provide
enough
of
a
enough
of
a
coverage
area
to
Warrant,
putting
a
tower.
K
C
More
for
Josh
before
we
go
to
the
consultant,
but
could
you
address
the
city
of
eagles
Vote
or
position
on
this
matter.
K
K
My
understanding
is
that
there's
the
county
has
tried,
I
I
mean
I,
don't
want
to
exaggerate,
but
I
would
say,
maybe
half
a
dozen
times
to
get
Eagle
to
update
their
area
of
City
Impact
agreement
with
no
success
their
current
area
of
City.
Excuse
me.
Their
current
comprehensive
plan
for
the
area
is
the
2004
comprehensive
plan.
It
was
five
revisions
ago
they
instead
of
applying
county
code,
which
is
what
is
supposed
to
happen
under
that
area
of
City
Impact
agreement.
K
K
Here
today,
that's
not
the
case
in
under
eagle
or
under
Ada
County
code.
We
definitely
meet
all
of
the
all
of
the
requirements
and
and
even
those
extended
requirements
under
the
Telecom
act
for
a
tower
and
and
should
be
approved
if
I
can
also
go
back.
You
asked
chairman
back.
You
asked
a
question
about
whether
the
Telecom
Act
only
requires
750
megahertz
that
the
answer
to
that
is
no.
K
K
It's
a
it's
a
different
section
of
the
of
the
Telecom
act,
but
it
is,
it
does
require
that
and
that's
been
a
big
push
lately
at
the
federal
government,
with
the
with
the
infrastructure
bills
that
have
been
been
passed
is
to
extend,
extend
broadband
data
into
more
rural
areas,
and
we
saw
that
especially
when,
when,
when
kovid
shut
down
when
covet
shut
down,
schools
and
people
needed
to
be
at
home
or
or
were
required
to
be
at
home,
needed
that
that
broadband
data,
even
in
those
those
more
rural.
K
They
primarily
do
broadband
data,
that's
correct,
yeah,
obviously,
Verizon
at
T
and
T-Mobile
do
do
both
under
the
Telecom
act.
If,
if
it
were
only
700
megahertz,
it
would
do
what's
called
it
would
what's
the
word
that
they
use,
it's
not
a,
it
would
discriminate
against
other
carriers
and
other
bands,
which
is
prohibited
under
the
the
Telecom
act.
K
They're
not
allowed
to
to
local
governments,
aren't
allowed
to
say
well
this
one's
allowed
and
this
one's
not-
and
in
this
case
that
700
megahertz
is
the
one
that's
the
umbrella
that
provides
the
distant
coverage,
not
the
close-in
coverage,
so
it
would
provide,
as
shown
on
that
on
that
chart,
but
the
other
ones
are
are
are
far
less
and
they're
far
less
coverage.
I'd
encourage
you
to
ask
your
ask
your
consultant
about
it.
I'm
a
lawyer
talking
about
engineering
things,
okay,
whoa,.
A
All
right
well,
but
but
you
did,
you
did
point
out
something
that
I
do
have
a
question
about.
You
said
that
there's
the
eagle
city
is
annexed,
something
close
by
and
and
if,
if
they,
if
they
do
Annex
the
area,
then
their
code
does
apply
and
not
the
county
code.
K
It
could
I
I
believe
it's
actually
even
just
right
across
well,
it's
not
actually
right
across
the
street.
It's
down
the
road
about
a
third
of
a
mile,
but
there
is
Eagle
annexed
I.
Think
it's
divided
by
us
by
a
prop
one
property,
but
they've
got
a
pretty
close
path
to
annexation.
So,
although,
but
but
although
Eagle
code
would
then
apply
for
new
applications,
we
would
be
vested
under
yeah
yeah,
but
yeah
I,
don't
know
the
timeline
I.
There
is
a
reasonable
path
to
annexation
of
the
property.
M
A
B
B
Can
you
just
forward,
can
you
explain
to
this
board
why
you
can't
build
a
new
tower
on
the
existing
Verizon
site.
K
The
landlord
won't,
let
us
that's
been
approached
by
both
Verizon
and
at
T-
have
site
acquisite,
have
site
acquisition
teams,
as
well
as
the
tower
company
and
intermax
towers,
as
well
as
intermax
networks.
They've
all
tried
to
tried
to
find
other
Alternatives
in
order
for
a
for
a
site
to
go
forward
and
the
reason
why
the
consultant
says
this
is
the
only
viable
option.
Is
that
one
of
the
things
there?
One
of
the
elements
that
has
to
be
met
is
that
there
has
to
be
a
willing
landlord.
Obviously
we
we're
not.
K
We
can't
go
in
and
take
property
from
anybody
or
put
an
easement
through
their
property.
It
needs
to
be
willingly
given
and
in
this
area
only
one
property
owner
was
willing
to
to
lease
property
to
us
and
that's
the
site
that
we
have.
The
the
other
issue
is,
and
earlier
was
said
that
we
wanted
a
site
further
to
the
West.
That's
not
entirely
true.
We
we
actually
looked
at
putting
a
tower
on
the
in
the
power
substation.
K
That's
there
on
the
corner
of
what
is
that
Linder
and
Beacon
Southeast
corner
of
Beacon
Light
and
Linder
the
due
to
security
issues
as
I
guess,
we've
seen
recently
in
the
Pacific
Northwest
with
power
stations
they're.
Not
they
do
not
allow
anybody
else
within
their
Gates,
so
we
were
unable
to
put
one
there.
The.
K
Blm's
a
couple
of
things
with
BLM
as
the
as
your
consultant
put
in
his
his
most
recent
report,
it's
too
far
away
to
provide
the
coverage
to
the
areas
that
need
it,
even
though
it
would
sit
up
on
a
on
a
hill
and
it
could
be
a
taller
Tower.
It
just
doesn't
work.
K
The
I
would
ask
you
to
to
ask
your
consultant
that
as
well,
he
he
his
conclusion
was
that
it
wouldn't
work
based
on
the
data
that
we
submitted,
but
I'd
encourage
you
to
ask
him
I'd
also
point
out
that
to
get
fiber
optics
there
to
be
able
to
serve
the
tower,
we
would
have
to
cross
numerous
private
properties.
Again,
we
can't
just
go
in
and
say
we're
putting
an
easement
through.
K
B
K
While
he's
been
immensely
patient
as
we've
as
we've
worked
our
way
through
the
process
and
and
has
not
required
us
to
take
down
or
required,
Verizon
excuse
me
to
take
down
their
antennas.
He's
also,
to
my
knowledge,
not
not
been
interested
in
in
in
writing
anything
down
or
giving
us
anything
saying
that
he
wouldn't
do
it.
I
can
just
say
that,
based
on
the
representations
of
all
of
the
side
acquisition
teams
to
me,
there's
it's
just
been
a
non-starter.
K
Based
on
the
landlord's
unwillingness
to
to
allow
either
a
cell
tower
or
to
allow
us
to
shore
up
the
the
existing
Silo,
my
gets
conjecture.
But
my
conjecture
is
that,
because
he's
proposing
a
very
dense,
not
very
dense,
a
dense,
single-family
residential
development
in
there,
it
would
probably
be
more
valuable
to
him
to
use
that
the
property
that
would
be
used
for
a
cell
tower
to
sell
as
a
lot
than
it
would
be
to
lease
to
a
tower
company.
A
All
right,
unless
there's
any
other
questions
from
the
commission,
thank
you
and
you'll
be
getting
you
will
you
will
both
be
giving
a
rebuttal
perfect.
Thank
you.
After
the
testimony
is
over
so.
D
I
also
note
that
staff's
presentation
is
exhibit
44A,
Mr
Bentley's
is
45a
and
Mr
Leonards
is
46a
as
part
of
the
record
and
yeah.
We
I
think
we'll
have
Mr
Valdez
able
to
speak
to
you
here
in
just
a
second
okay.
N
C
N
Right
so
I
have
I,
have
a
couple
topics:
I'm
going
to
simplify
everything
to
I,
know,
you've
heard
a
lot
from
from
both
sides,
and
this
has
been
a
very
long
process,
but
really
the
goal
here
is
to
simplify
it
so
that
everyone
can
understand
both
my
direction
and
then
kind
of
put
this
entire
thing
in
context
as
I
see
it.
N
So,
first
of
all,
when
I,
when
I
first
came
onto
this
project,
one
of
the
key
drivers
was
to
see
data
and
complete
data
from
from
all
sides.
So
what
I
mean
by
complete
data?
Is
you
know?
What's
the
existing
coverage?
Look
like
what
would
the
coverage
look
like
if,
if
we
removed
the
silosite,
which
which
is
imminent,
it's
it's
going
to
be
gone?
N
There's
really
nothing
that
we
can
do
about
that
and
then
what
would
be
the
impact
to
not
just
the
people
that
live
close
to
that
location,
but
to
the
general
community
and
again
the
the
focus
is
the
general
Community
everyone
that's
involved
as
I.
Look
at
it
when,
when
you
decommission
a
tower
again,
it's
not
just
the
local
residents
that
are
involved,
but
it's
the
mobility
traffic
that
goes
through
the
area
as
well.
As
you
know,
residents
that
that
are
on
Cell
Edge
and
how
they're
impacted
critical
Communications.
N
We
talked
about
the
Telecommunications
Act
and
how
and
why
that's
important
and
there's
been
a
lot
of
debate.
You
know
whether
it's
you
know
voice
only
data,
a
mixture
of
both
you
know
what
the
technology
serves
and
why
it's
important
and-
and
the
short
answer
is-
is
whether
you're
in
a
low-income
community
in
Ada
County
or
whether
you're
in
a
higher
income
Community,
where
property
values
are
higher
all
wireless
service
and
it's
a
necessity
for
we
use
it
every
day.
N
N
The
percentage
of
of
the
issues
that
we
see
and
again
and
I
didn't
see
this
data
from
from
the
appellant
clear
data
was,
you
know
the
impacts
of
property
values,
and
you
know
some
of
the
other
issues
that
were
brought
up
right.
We
we
need
to
see
that
data
both
from
the
appellant
and
the
applicant
for
to
State
their
positions.
N
Now,
as
we
went
through
this
process,
the
applicant
did
a
comprehensive
drive
test.
Did
their
due
diligence
on
looking
at
other
locations
and
provided
information
showing
you
that
number
one,
the
models
that
they
generated,
the
heat
maps
that
they
generated
are
are
accurate
number
one
and
number
two.
They
proved
empirical
data
of
the
impact
of
coverage.
N
Are
there
other
areas
that
would
be
better
that
are
close
to
Beacon
Light
road?
That
would
be
better
locations
absolutely,
but,
as
the
applicant
stated,
you
can't
just
go
on
somebody's
land
or
somebody's
easement
and
build
a
tower.
This
is
the
the
best
available
location
that
you
can
build
a
multi-carrier
tower
to
serve,
not
just
the
people
that
live
close
to
that
area,
but
the
entire
Community,
all
those
who
travel
all
those
who
live
on
the
sell,
Edge.
All
future
residents
that
are
going
to
move
in
this
is
very
critical.
N
Infrastructure
is
absolutely
critical
and
so
the
data
that
we
saw
as
a
result
from
the
applicant.
It
shows
that,
yes,
the
what
we
call
mid-band
Spectrum,
is
impacted
and
lower
band
Spectrum,
which
we
call
you
know
which
is
700,
megahertz,
800
megahertz,
the
lower
band
stuff.
It
still
has
coverage
in
some
of
these
areas.
It
is
impacted
near
sell,
Edge
and
we've
we've
seen
data
that
shows
that,
but
now
I'm
you
know
now
some
of
the
the
pushback
from
from
the
appellant
is.
That
is
that
you
know
we
can
only
serve
you
know.
N
Low
band
spectrum
is
good
and
that's
all
you
need
and
we
have
Broadband
at
the
home.
That's
not
the
case
again.
We
have
to
go
back
to
Common
Sense
and
when
we
look
at
Spectrum
in
common
sense,
we
know
that
the
carriers
spend
billions
of
dollars
on
spectrum
and
they
will
only
deploy
that
Spectrum
and
they
will
only
deploy
4G
versus
5G.
You
know
versus
whatever
G's
you
talk
about
if
they
need
that
Spectrum
in
the
location.
So
what
does
that
mean?
N
That
means
that,
yes,
the
low
band
spectrum
is
used
and
while
low
band
spectrum
is
there
to
provide
a
purpose,
it's
very
limited
in
the
bandwidth
and
the
number
of
users
that
you
can
serve
on
low
bands.
It's
a
it's
a
smaller
Channel
now
in
the
mid
band.
Why?
It's
so
beneficial!
Is
that
as
you
have
the
capacity?
N
N
Now,
some
of
the
things
that
I
did
like
is
I
noted
in
my
final
report
was
that
you
know
if,
if
you're
a
carrier,
you
can
be
greedy-
and
you
can
say
yes,
I
want
a
taller
Tower
and
a
taller
tower
for
a
multi-carrier
tower
is
great
for
everyone,
because
the
people
that
have
the
lowest,
what
we
call
a
rad,
Center
or
the
lowest
height
on
the
tower
awfully
often
get
the
raw
end
of
the
deal
right.
They
they
don't
they're,
not
as
high,
so
so
they
shoot
into
more
clutter.
N
And
when
you,
when
you,
you
know,
when
you
propagate
into
clutter
it
attenuates,
quick,
quicker,
and
so
your
signal,
your
signal
radius,
is
not
nearly
as
large.
So
the
fact
that
they
went
at
100
foot
tells
me
that
they're
they're
being
that
they're
that
they're
compromising-
and
you
know
what
I
probably
wouldn't
want
to
be-
the
carrier
at
the
lowest
at
the
lowest
height
on
that
Tower.
N
But
but
all
things
said,
I
think
that
that's
that's
extremely
reasonable
and
when
we
look
forward
like
I,
said,
you're
you're
gonna
have
a
lot
more
applications
in
the
future.
For
this
area,
especially
as
expansion
goes,
I
mean,
there's
absolutely
no
doubt
and
you're
going
to
be
fighting
these
same
battles
and
you're
going
to
have
the
same
people.
You
know
people
that
are
moving
in
from
out
of
state
or
whatever
buying
these
lands.
That
they're
you
know
that's
Rural
and
and
high
value
and
they're
not
going
to
want
to
see
a
tower.
N
N
We
talked
about
the
BLM
sites.
Well,
again,
let's
go
back
to
common
sense.
If
the
BLM
area
was
such
a
good
place,
you
know
to
provide
wireless
coverage.
It
would
have
been
built
a
long
time
ago,
as
RF
Engineers
looked
at
the
area,
they're
always
looking
for
low-hanging
fruit
and
what's
easiest
and
it's
going
to
serve
the
most
people
with
the
least
amount
of
infrastructure.
N
It
would
have
been
built
a
long
time
ago
and
the
fact
that
you
know
that
it
hasn't
been
built
or
it
hasn't
been
brought
up
as
a
valid
location.
Just
you
know
it
again.
This
is
common
sense.
You
don't
have
to
know
how
the
technology
works.
N
You
just
have
to
look
at
it
from
you
know,
from
a
very
basic
view,
to
understand
why
this
is
important,
so
my
final
position
was
that
I
do
believe
the
applicant
provided
enough
data
I
feel
like
this
is
a
great
location,
given
all
things
I
think
that
it's
good
for
the
future
I
think
that
it
provides
just
the
best
opportunity
for
the
entire
community,
and
you
know
that's:
we
can
go
into
the
details
about
the
technology
and
we
can
keep
fighting
that
and
saying
whether
we're
just
going
to
use
low
band
Only
versus
mid
band,
and
that's
that's
simply.
N
You
know
when
you're
sitting
on
this
side
of
the
fence-
and
you
know
how
the
watch
is
made.
You
know
that
that's
not
a
reasonable
or
a
viable
option.
Otherwise
you
wouldn't
buy
all
that
spectrum
and
you
certainly
wouldn't
apply
it
there.
So
the
only
reason
you're
buying
that
spectrum
is
to
use
it
so
yeah
so
I.
You
know
my
my
position
is
the
applicant
has
done
more
than
enough
to
show
the
need.
I.
Think
they've
done
an
excellent
job,
compromising
it's
unfortunate
that
some.
N
You
know
some
of
the
local
community
is,
you
know
it
has
the
the
concerns
that
they
do
justifiably.
So
when
you,
when
you
spend
money
on
a
business
or
a
home,
you
certainly
want
to
protect
that
area
around
there
that
that's
reasonable.
But
again
this
is
about
the
general
Community.
This
is
about
everybody
that
uses
these
towers
in
the
service
and
I
I
feel
very
strongly
that
this
is
a
great
location
and
a
great
opportunity
so
and.
A
C
Chair
yeah,
could
you
maybe
address
the
differences
between
your
second
report?
Your
third
report,
I
guess.
Well,
essentially,
you
amended
the
second
report
based
on
additional
information
you
received
you
talk
about
that.
N
Yeah
I
was
just
you
know,
I'm
looking
in
order
to
in
order
to
have
a
very
clear
picture,
you
always
want
the
most
amount
of
data
possible,
and
so
it
was
my
way
of
pressing
you
know
and
saying:
okay.
Well,
let's,
let's
prove
let's
provide
more
data.
Let's
go
out
and
provide
more
empirical
data
about
the
justification
needed
to
build
this.
N
You
know
to
to
disprove
this
site
or
or
approve
it,
and
you
know
I
think
through
the
due
diligence
again
I
mean
we
can
keep
going
through
more
data
and
more
data,
and
you
know,
is
there
certainly
more
data
that
can
be
collected?
Yes,
absolutely,
but
how
long
do
we
want
to
extend
this
and
at
what
point
do
we
say?
Okay?
Does
this
make
sense
based
on
the
data
we
have
now
or
do
we
need
do
we
need
to
prolong
this?
N
This
are
and
and
right
now
you
know
the
bottom
line
is
common
sense.
This
is
a
great
location,
and
so
that's
why
that's
why
yeah
I
was
pretty
Direct
in
in
the
last
report.
B
In
the
beginning
of
your
testimony,
interesting
Tower
was
coming
down
and
it
was
eminent.
Do
you
have
any
proof
of
that
and
if
not,
would
that
existing
site
be
as
good
or
better
a
sight
if
there
were
a
new
100
foot
tower
on
that
site?.
N
Well,
it's
based
on
the
data
that
I
have
so
I.
Don't
have
any
proof,
so
just
just
the
input
in
the
testimony
from
from
you
know
previous
meetings,
that's
the
only
proof
that
I
have
I
have
not
talk
to
the
to
the
landowner,
but
here's
here's
another
way
to
look
at
that.
N
So
we
know
that
there's
a
high
probability
that
that
Silo
side
is
coming
down.
That's
why
we're
building
this
other
one.
But
let's
look
at
it
from
another
perspective.
We
know
that
more
carriers
are
going
to
need
Towers
in
that
area
and
they
may
choose
that
one.
So
let's
say
The
Silo
site
doesn't
come
down.
N
We
know
based
on
the
measurements
that
that
were
collected
in
the
field,
that
T-Mobile
and
at
T
are
definitely
going
to
look
at
building
in
that
area,
based
on
the
growth
that
we
see
over
the
next
couple
years,
so
either
way
that
that
site
I
mean
you
know,
it's
it's
going
to
be
needed
anyway.
For
for
all
the
carriers,
you're
going
to
need
something
in
that
area.
B
B
A
Okay,
any
other
questions
of
our
consultant
from
the
board:
okay,
airing
that
we
will
now
proceed
with
public
testimony.
You'll
have
three
minutes
and
I'm
trying
to
think
where
we
should
start
here.
E
O
I
am
a
I
guess
what
you
would
call
a
close
neighbor
to
where
this
new
cell
tower
would
be
put
up.
I
have
two
concerns,
one
of
which
is
that
it
would
bring
my
property
value
down.
I've
lived
here
now
for
over
16
years,
and
we
love
our
home.
We
love
where
we
live
and
don't
want
to
see
that
change.
O
The
second
issue
that
I
have
is
that
I
have
a
significant,
sensitive
sensitivity
to
electromagnetic
radiation,
which
is
the
cell
towers,
wait,
don't
run
any
Wi-Fi
in
our
home
or
anything
Wireless,
and
that
is
greatly
enhanced.
My
health
I
have
trouble
with
my
health
when
I
come
into
Boise,
which
there's
an
enormous
amount
of
density
here
and
I
struggle
with
that,
when
I
go
back
home,
it
takes
a
while
to
recover.
O
O
You
have
to
go
outside
of
medicine
into
more
of
a
health
realm
to
find
people
that
are
and
scientists
as
well
that
recognize
that
and
they
were
able
to
steer
you
in
the
right
direction.
To
find
mitigation
avoidance
is
the
biggest
Factor.
So
you
really
do
have
to
limit
your
exposure
to
this
radiation
in
order
for
your
body
to
do
well,
so
you
have
the
intensity
of
it.
O
You
have
the
proximity,
the
closer
you
are
to
the
source
of
the
radiation,
the
more
you're
going
to
absorb
and
the
more
deleterious
those
effects
are
going
to
be,
and
the
third
factor
is
your
length
of
exposure.
It's
one
thing
to
have
exposure
periodically
and
it's
an
it's
another
thing
to
have
it.
24
7,
especially
where
you
sleep
is,
is
an
enormous
deleterious
factor
in
that
and
if
they're
going
to
raise
a
tower
higher,
the
exposure
is
going
to
be
greater
and
longer
and
more
intense.
O
It's
going
to
mean
all
three
of
those
criteria,
so
I
can't
I
can't
imagine
that
I'm
going
to
be
able
to
live
there
long
term
I
will
have
to
sell
my
home
and
move
somewhere
else,
and
obviously
that's
not
something
I
wish
to
do
so.
For
that
reason,
I
just
request
that
you
would
carefully
take
a
look
at
at
all
these
factors
and
make
what
you
will
make
us
a
good
decision.
I
appreciate
your
time
and.
A
Thank
you
cute
okay,
church
here,
yes,.
C
I
just
need
to
stay.
You
know
appreciate
the
testimony
and
we're
very
cognizant
of
the
you
know.
The
allegations
of
of
health
issues
regarding
cell
towers,
but
everything
I
have
been
shown,
is
that
it
is
the
courts
that
are
preventing
boards
like
this
from
taking
health
issues
into
consideration,
even
if
we
wanted
to,
and
so
therefore,
as
part
of
our
deliberation,
we
actually
cannot
take
that
into
consideration.
So
I
just
wanted
to
state
that,
for
the
record.
A
Okay,
thank
you
and
I'd
also
ask
if
you're
giving
your
testimony
if,
if
your
point
has
already
been
made,
if
you
could
just
say,
I,
agree
to
sort
of
narrow.
E
A
A
little
bit:
okay,
Kurt
Miller.
E
Good
morning
my
name
is
Kirk:
Miller
I
reside
at
3400,
North
Lanewood
Lane,
Eagle
Idaho
I've
lived
at
that
property
for
going
on
32
years
it
bound.
It
is
the
boundary
on
the
north
of
the
property
in
question
and
on
the
East
it's
an
L-shaped
property.
E
Our
two
properties
are
divided
by
the
Dry
Creek
canal
that
what
they
were
showing
this
morning
there
is
the
proposed
location
for
that.
Tower
appears
to
be
about
75
to
100
feet
from
my
property
line
and
the
other
day
I
was
sitting
on
the
patio.
Looking
at
that
trying
to
imagine
where
it'd
be
and
I
got
my
Rangefinder
out
and
it's
81
yards
from
my
back
patio
to
the
dry,
creek
canal.
E
E
It's
can't
be
a
very
good
location,
because
when
you
go
up
on
the
Dry
Creek
Canal
bank
and
on
their
access
road,
it's
a
20
foot
to
25
foot
drop
off
down
to
the
level
where
that
would
be
built
so
they're
already
building
it
in
a
hole
which
has
to
cause
them
to
be
a
hundred
feet
tall
to
get
anything
out
of
it.
So
it
will
definitely
affect
my
property
values.
It
will
affect
our
way
of
life.
E
A
Okay,
Thomas
Smith.
P
Hi,
my
name
is
Thomas
Smith
I,
appreciate
I,
appreciate
you
all
being
here
today.
My
address
is
5600.
West
Beacon,
Light
Road
for
reference,
my
home
is
less
than
150
yards
from
this
proposed
cell
tower
site.
Literally
the
first
thing
you'll
see
when
walking
out
my
front
door.
I've
been
a
resident
in
this
area.
My
entire
life
I've
attended,
Elementary
School
through
college
living
right
here
in
this
house.
My
grandparents
purchased
this
property
in
the
early
70s
and
raised
their
family
on
this
Farm.
P
My
dad
bought
it
for
my
grandparents,
where
I
was
lucky
enough
to
grow
up
and
after
meeting
my
beautiful
wife
Jordan,
we
purchased
the
same
property
for
my
parents
through
the
recent
years,
I've
had
a
front
row
seat
to
nearly
all
the
Farmland
in
this
area
being
paved
over
and
replaced
with
high
density
neighborhoods
as
troubling
as
that
is
to
see
I
understand.
That's
the
cost
of
progress
and
people
just
want
to
live
in
this
wonderful
area
that
we
call
home
since
the
cell
tower
location
was
first
proposed
over
a
year
ago.
P
P
We
grow
clean,
healthy,
local,
organic
vegetables
and
that's
why
people
want
to
buy
their
food
from
us,
but
in
a
simple
survey
that
we
sent
out
to
our
customers
out
of
the
134
people
who
participated
an
overwhelming
94
percent
said
they
would
not
continue
buying
vegetables
if
grown
in
the
wake
of
a
cell
tower.
Now,
as
if
as
if
those
results
aren't
damning
enough
for
a
small
farm.
Let's
pretend
for
a
minute
that
we
don't
rely
on
paying
customers
to
run
a
business.
P
P
The
applicants
will
try
to
convince
you
that
the
cell
tower
won't
lower
surrounding
property
values
that
won't
do
anyone
any
harm
and
that
it
really
isn't
that
bad,
but
I'm
standing
before
you
telling
you
that
this
cell
tower
will
directly
impact
the
livelihood
of
my
family,
destroy
a
third
generation
farm
that
has
been
in
the
area
for
over
half
a
century
and
I'm
not
willing
to
take
that
risk.
Based
on
the
Assurance
of
a
telecom
telecommunications
company
whose
primary
concern
is
to
spend
less
money,
so
they
can
make
more.
P
To
conclude,
my
testimony,
please
remind
yourselves:
our
own
city
of
eagle
has
recommended
that
you
deny
this
location
for
a
cell
tower.
The
previous
Board
of
chairman
and
Commissioners
recommended
that
you
deny
this
location
for
a
cell
tower
and
the
residents
of
this
area
are
recommending
that
you
deny
this
location
for
a
cell
tower.
This
is
not
just
a
vain
plea
because
it
will
be
an
intrusive
site.
This
is
a
plea
to
not
compromise
the
livelihoods
of
our
families
and
to
not
dismiss
the
wants
and
concerns
of
the
surrounding
community.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
J
As
you
just
heard,
the
proposed
site
of
this
Tower
is
right
outside
our
front
door,
since
you
are
all
being
urged
to
make
a
decision
based
on
common
sense
here
today
and
if
that's
the
guiding
principle
with
which
we're
rendering
a
decision,
how
can
you
possibly
rule
with
common
sense
that
cell
phone
service
is
more
critical
than
food
right
I'm,
going
to
present
to
you
the
argument
that
the
applicant
has
done
absolutely
nothing
whatsoever
to
assess
the
economic
impact
that
this
Tower
is
going
to
have
on,
as
Thomas
said,
a
third
generation
Family
Farm
I
would
also
like
to
argue
that
the
applicant
affirms
that
this
Tower
will
benefit
local
residents.
J
They've
spent
no
time
investigating
whether
or
not
this
is
something
that
local
residents
actually
want.
We're
assuming
things
like
for
the
good
of
the
general
public,
but
do
the
Neighbors
near
this
Tower
want
want
it
will
they
benefit
from
cell
phone
service?
We
have
a
unique
base
of
vegetable
subscribers.
These
people
live
near
us.
They
are
north
of
Beacon,
Light
they're
in
the
homestead
Community
they're
in
Eagle,
Mountain,
Estates
and
so
on.
To
understand
the
true
concerns
of
the
neighboring
Community.
We
put
together
a
survey.
J
Here's
what
we
hypothesized
first,
the
people
who
buy
our
vegetables
are
extremely
health,
conscious,
they're,
weary
of
anything
that
perturbs
natural
growing
methods.
So
we
predicted
that
the
perceptions
surrounding
cell
phone
towers
alone
would
be
enough
to
deter
them
from
purchasing
our
vegetables.
We
also
predicted
that
if
local
neighbors
were
actually
aware
of
the
proposed
tower
that
they
would
argue
fervently
against
it.
J
The
first
question
we
asked
was:
would
you
purchase
and
consume
organic
vegetables
from
Good
Life
Farms
if
they
were
grown
near
a
hundred
foot
cell
phone
tower,
94
of
respondents
said
no.
The
second
question
we
asked
was
as
a
resident
of
Ada
County
Idaho,
which
of
these
two
options
is
more
important
to
your
life
and
livelihood.
The
available
answers
were
better
cell
phone
reception
or
an
open
rural
landscape
that
supports
organic
agriculture.
J
98.5
of
local
Eagle
citizens
said
that
they
would
prefer
an
open
rural
landscape
to
better
cell
phone
service.
So,
let's
use
some
common
sense
losing
94
of
our
subscribers,
because
people
will
not
eat
vegetables
grown
in
proximity
to
a
cell
phone
tower
will
mean
the
end
of
good
life.
Farms
erecting
a
tower
where
98.5
of
local
people
prefer
an
open.
Rural
landscape
will
mean
an
active
disregard
for
the
true
wants
of
your
constituents.
J
I
am
not
asking
you
to
strike
down
all
cell
phone
towers
in
Ada
County,
but
you
have
a
very
easy
option
of
Simply
requiring
this
particular
Tower
company
to
perform
the
requisite
due
diligence
to
rule
out
alternative
locations
where
other
neighbors
asked.
If
they
wanted
a
cell
phone
tower,
did
letters
get
sent
out
in
all
of
that
five
mile
radius?
This
Tower
is
not
wanted
by
local
residents.
The
economic
burden
of
its
proposed
placement
is
going
to
devastate
a
third
generation
Family
Farm.
J
J
Q
Commissioners,
my
name
is
Steve
Barbee
3682,
North,
Hope,
Valley,
Eagle
Idaho.
My
property
is
approximately
1500
feet
north
of
the
proposed
Tower
site.
In
my
opinion,
the
appeal
should
be
upheld
and
the
tower
application
should
be
denied.
The
information
I'll
share
today
is
all
public
information.
The
first
slide
here
that
you're
looking
at
is
a
screenshot
of
the
cover
of
a
document
located
on
the
idaho.gov
website
of
the
Federal
Communications
ACT
versus
local
government
control
slide
please.
Q
This
is
the
last
page
of
the
same
document
showing
that
the
document
was
published
by
the
applicant
Mr
Leonard
a
slide
please.
This
is
Page.
33
of
the
same
document
do
require
a
tower
applicant
to
apply
the
least
intrusive
means
test.
What
is
the
least
intrusive
means
test
slide.
Please.
Here
it
is
FCC
18133.
An
applicant
must
show
only
that
its
proposed
proposed
facilities
are
the
least
intrusive
means,
in
light
of
the
aesthetic
or
other
values
that
the
local
Authority
seeks
to
serve
slide.
Q
Please,
and
here
is
Page
29
of
the
same
document
whether
the
wireless
service
provider
has
provided
sufficient
evidence
of
the
absence
of
Alternatives.
So
we
have
standards
here
based
on
one
least
intrusive
means
and
two
an
absence
of
Alternatives
slide.
Please,
on
this
map.
The
bottom
Arrow
shows
the
location
of
the
existing
Tower
site.
The
right
arrow
shows
the
applicant's
proposed
site.
The
middle
Arrow
shows
an
alternate
possible
site
on
five
acres,
and
the
top
arrow
is
an
alternate
possible
site
on
BLM
land
slide.
Please.
Q
This
is
the
MLS
listing
for
the
five
Acre
Site,
showing
that
the
property
is
available
for
purchase
slide.
Please,
the
Southwest
portion
of
the
five
acre
alternate
site
is
tree-lined
perfect
for
a
monopine
tower
slide,
please.
This
is
the
same
view
of
the
tree
line.
Looking
North
from
Beacon
Light
Road
slide,
please.
This
is
the
Beagle
Tower.
The
Ada
County
approved
a
few
years
ago.
Note
how
the
monopine
tower
almost
completely
disappears
when
placed
next
to
a
bank
of
mature
trees
with
available
camouflaging
like
this.
Q
Clearly,
the
five-acre
alternate
site
would
be
far
less
intrusive
than
the
applicant's
proposed
site
slide.
Please
the
alternate
five
Acre
Site
is
also
about
12
feet
higher
than
the
applicant's
proposed
site,
meaning
that
the
tower
in
this
location
could
be
10
percent
shorter,
again,
less
intrusive
slide.
Please!
The
applicant
is
on
record,
as
said
as
stating,
we
would
have
liked
it
a
little
further
west
regarding
the
ideal
replacement,
Tower
location,
proper
Tower,
siding
will
result
in
the
need
for
fewer
Towers
overall
and
fewer
Towers
overall
will
again
meet
the
standard
of
less
intrusive
slide.
Q
Please
it
can
be
camouflaged,
it
can
be
shorter.
It
will
require
fewer
Towers
overall,
that's
less
intrusive,
less
intrusive
and
less
intrusive.
Both
the
alternate
sites
meet
the
standard
of
being
a
little
further
west.
Q
That's
the
applicant's
own
stated
ideal,
and
the
BLM
site
would
also
be
less
intrusive,
because
a
tower
in
this
location
would
be
further
away
from
higher
density
development
and
absent
any
development
at
all
on
the
portion
where
the
tower
can
be
buffered
by
surrounding
BLM
land
slide,
please
under
47
USC
next
slide,
please
I
have
yeah
under
47
USC
33,
two
Ada
County
does
have
the
authority
to
deny
the
application
and
uphold
the
appeal
slide.
Q
Q
G
C
Chair,
yes,
so
I
have
a
question
for
you,
so
you're
we,
you
know
you're
talking
about
the
BLM
site
and
a
five-acre
alternative
site.
We've
heard
testimony
that
that
the
BLM
site
wouldn't
work
for
them.
Do
you
know
if
the
five
acre
alternative
site
would
sell
a
portion
to
the
cell
company
direct
to
Tower?
They
may
not
want
to
allow
a
tower
on
there,
because
that
might
hurt
whatever
else
might
go
on
that
site.
The.
Q
My
it's
my
understanding
that
the
standard
is
least
intrusive
means.
It
is
not
my
understanding
that
the
standard
is
most
affordable
for
the
applicant.
True,
the
five
acre
alternate
site
would
be
a
more
expensive
option
for
the
applicant.
Nevertheless,
it
would
be
far
less
intrusive
and
therefore
should
be
fully
considered
and
fully
evaluated.
The
applicant
has
not
done
their
due
diligence
on
that
matter
and
therefore
the
applicant
has
not
met
the
standard
of
least
intrusive,
nor
the
standard
of
identifying
suitable
possible
alternate
locations
do.
Q
Think
it's
reasonable
to
acquire
the
five
acre
site
build
a
tower
then
dispose
of
the
the
balance
to
offset
the
cost.
I
think
there's
a
economic
study
that
could
be
done
there
by
the
applicant
to
determine
feasible
options.
But
again
the
standard
is
not
what's
most
affordable
for
the
applicant.
What's
easiest
for
the
applicant,
the
standard
is
least
intrusive
means
and
I
think
it's
very
important
that
we
maintain
our
focus
on
that
matter.
A
A
A
R
R
The
FCC
is
where
Lincoln's
disclaim
over
broadband
internet
AK,
Information
Services
and
as
such,
you
can
dismiss
this
tower.
For
any
reason,
or
for
no
reason,
the
applicant
states
of
Verizon
is
on
the
current
Tower,
and
so
these
hearings
have
been
discussing
whether
or
not
there's
a
substantial
probative
evidence
of
significant
Gap
in
coverage
for
outdoor
telecommunications
services.
R
The
two
and
a
half
years
of
attending
hearings
and
other
jurisdictions
such
as
these
I
find
it
telling
that
Verizon's
Representatives
have
never
shown
up
to
bolster
their
case
for
their
need
for
this
particular
Tower.
This
never
happens
if
Verizon
wants
a
tower,
they
show
up.
I
have
seen
as
many
as
eight
Verizon
people
at
some
of
these
meetings.
With
that
stated
at
the
significant
amount
of
due
diligence
by
all
parties,
it's
clear
that
there
is
one
no
significant
Gap
in
coverage
for
making
cell
calls
and
texting
exists.
R
The
applicant
will
try
to
make
the
claim
that
they
want
to
be
able
to
provide
all
frequencies
to
be
available,
but
they
have
Advocate
coverage
at
telecommunications
at
751
megahertz,
and
that's
all
that
is
needed.
The
applicant
never
fully
vetted
the
blm's
land
to
the
South,
because
it's
obviously
more
money
to
move
the
tower
South.
As
commissioner
Burch
said
in
the
community
in
the
Planning
and
Zoning
meeting,
this
is
about
money,
isn't
it
it
will
cost
more
money
to
go
to
the
BLM
side,
and
you
heard
him
testify
to
that
today.
R
That
will
cost
more
money
to
get
down
there.
Keeping
Towers
away
from
homes
is
important
for
Aesthetics
health
impact.
It's
Health
impacts
safety
and
property
values,
property
value
declines
when
towers
are
located
near
homes.
Eagle
Idaho
has
stated
they
are
not
in
favor
of
this
Tower
Eli
is
putting
motion
to
wire
fiber
optics
to
carry
broadband
data
to
all
homes.
Fiber
optics
is
safe,
much
faster
and
more
secure
than
Wireless
is
the
duty
of
this
body
to
protect
private
property
rights.
R
S
The
Appellate
Mr
Bentley
touched
on
many
of
the
points
that
I
feel
are
significant
in
this
hearing,
and
we
heard
from
the
applicants
about
a
Gap
in
coverage
and
the
carrier's
needs
so
I'd
like
to
bring
the
conversation
back
to
the
value
and
aesthetic
of
the
eagle
Community
to
the
residents
and
the
constituents
that
actually
live
and
work
in
this
area.
S
The
folks
that
are
applying
for
the
cell
tower,
as
several
of
the
other
of
those
opposing
this
have
mentioned,
are
talking
about
this
from
a
financial
standpoint
they're
looking
at
what
is
the
most
expensive
inexpensive
way
for
them
to
change
locations
of
a
tower
that
potentially
is
going
to
be
removed
or
taken
down,
and
it
seems
that
we
have
a
lot
to
explore
in
some
of
the
additional
development
that's
going
to
be
coming
into
the
area.
S
So
we
know
that
ADA
counties
had
explosive
growth
in
the
past
few
years.
I
believe
we
can
say
confidently
that
we
all
care
about
strategic
and
mindful
growth
and
development
for
the
community.
It's
well
now.
S
Well
known
that
much
of
the
surrounding
area
has
already
been
approved
for
additional
development,
that
being
the
Linder
Road,
widening
a
large
development,
that's
being
graded
and
built
as
we
speak
in
what
is
being
called
a
Spring
Valley,
and
so
this
is
north
of
the
BLM
land
that
we're
discussing-
and
this
has
been
approved
and
is
already
in
the
works
for
7
500
homes
that
are
going
to
be
going
in
there,
along
with
commercial
development,
schools,
Recreation
so
forth.
S
It
seems
that
if
the
BLM
land
isn't
appropriate
that
maybe
there's
some
additional
space
north
of
that
that
has
the
Spring
Valley
development
is
going
to
be
coming
into
play.
We
can
take
some
time
to
research.
S
You
know
look
at
where,
where
is
the
existing
coverage
as
it
stands
versus?
What
are
we
needing
with
this
additional
growth
that
is
imminent
and
if
we're
to
protect
the
Integrity
of
the
valley,
protect
the
Health
and
Welfare
of
the
community,
protect
property
values
of
existing
homes
and
those
future
homes
that
we
know
are
going
to
be
built.
I
think
we
need
to
strategically
plan
for
research
in
advance
future
locations
of
these
towers
versus
the
cheapest
most
efficient
current
thing
available
as
a
solution.
S
So
with
that
I
ask
that
you
guys,
please
deny
the
tower
building.
Thank
you.
G
T
U
It's
not
worth
the
money
because
of
all
the
things
that
you've
heard
and
I
actually
do.
Think
by
the
applicants
on
admission.
A
tower
up
to
50
percent
higher
going
from
100
to
150
would
provide
broader
coverage
and
that
that's
more
appropriate
closer
to
16,
where
there
will
be
more
commercial
development.
U
U
C
U
Would
say
not
this
is
it's
a
rural
area
you've
seen
the
photos,
I
don't
have
proof
of
how
many
contracts
are
sent
out,
but
it's
unincorporated,
there's
no
ccnr's!
It's
it's
easy.
It's
easy
location
to
try
to
get
someone
to
take
the
money
to
host
cell
tower
site.
U
Well,
I
I
would
argue
differently
that
of
the
neighbors
that
I
talk
to
it's
not
worth
the
money
that
it's
a
principal
issue
more
than
a
financial
issue.
To
not
have
this
cell
tower
on
your
property,
I
mean
it.
In
fact,
you
heard
a
lot
of
the
impacts,
but
even
you
know,
potential
resale
down
the
road
of
selling
a
five
or
ten
acre
lot
with
a
cell
tower
on
it,
I
mean
there's
a
lot
of
different
reasons.
People
have
personally
for
not
wanting
aside,
but
the
neighbors
that
I
talked
to
that
receive
the
contract.
C
U
But
as
the
one
of
the
previous
speakers,
it's
it's
not
about
ease
right,
it's
you
know,
there's
other
options,
I
believe
that
could
be
considered.
We've
talked
about
some
of
them,
but
we
haven't.
There
has
no
been
no
proof
that
a
commercial
site
down
further
down
closer
to
16
at
you
know,
150
50
percent
higher,
wouldn't
provide
sufficient
coverage
and
I
just
don't
think
that
they've
proven
that
there's
not
other
viable
sites.
I
think
this
was
an
easy
one,
because
someone
decided
yeah
I'd
rather
have
the
money.
H
Yes,
happy
New
Year's
to
y'all
Hank
Allen
687
West,
Rush
Court
Eagle
Idaho,
so
this
is
about
telecommunications
services
and
or
Information
Services,
and
commissioner
Beck,
you
asked
probably
the
most
poignant
question
to
Mr
Leonard
earlier
was:
is
Information
Services
protected
by
the
Telecommunications
Act?
He
responded.
Yes
I
disagree
with
that
in
2019
there
was
a
federal
lawsuit
that
was
ruled
on
by
Supreme
Court
Mozilla
versus
the
FCC.
H
The
FCC
made
the
lawsuit
and
was
ruled
that
Information
Services,
which
is
broadband
or
capacity
issues
or
anything
dealing
with
high-speed
big
volume,
was
now
unregulated.
That
means
it's
not
protected
by
the
Telecommunications
Act
FCC
versus
Mozilla
U.S
Supreme,
Court,
2019
I
think
it
was
October,
1st
Okay,
so
anything
above
basic
service
which
is
being
provided
by
the
751
megahertz
frequency
right.
That
gives
us
phone
calling
and
texting
is
now
moving
over
into
capacity
they're
going
to
sell
it.
H
Ron
Valdez
he's
lumping
these
things
together
and
he's
saying:
data
and
Telecommunications
making
a
phone
call
pushing
them
together
and
says
we
need
a
tower.
We've
been
out
there
I've
taken
my
phone,
which
is
a
T-Mobile
phone.
We've
taken
a
Verizon
phone,
we've
done
our
own
propagation
study.
We
can
make
calls
everywhere.
We've
taken
the
meters
we've
provided
our
propagation
study,
showing
that
you
can
make
a
call,
and
even
the
applicants
study
shows
with
a
751
megahertz.
You
can
make
a
call,
there's
no
Gap
in
coverage.
H
So
now
what
they're
trying
to
do
is
move
over
and
go
okay.
We
want
these
higher
frequencies
because
we
want
broadband.
That's
what
intermax
is
it's,
what
everybody
is
they're
broadband
and
they
want
to
bring
the
pipe
we
we
don't
need
it.
So
the
proper
ruling
for
today
that
the
commission
can
make
is
a
probative
data
collected
from
the
propagation
studies.
Specifically,
the
751
megahertz
band
show
that
there
is
not
a
significant
Gap
in
telecommunications
Services.
Therefore,
the
tower
is
not
needed
and
the
appeal
is
approved
to
deny
the
application.
I
can
repeat
that
again.
H
Right
perfect,
so
when
it
comes
to
Information
Services,
which
is
unregulated,
okay,
there's
no
guidelines,
we
could
talk
about
health.
We
could
talk
about
what
it
does
to
us,
what
it
does
to
the
environment
and
we
can
make
decisions
on
that
Broadband
stuff
right.
H
H
In
afib,
I
want
an
afib
20
more
times
within
a
three-month
period,
hospitalized
over
a
dozen
times.
I
just
had
an
ablation
surgery
four
months
ago
to
stop
this
from
happening,
because
I
was
on
a
line
between
that
new
cell
tower
and
existing
cell
tower
I
only
wanted
afib
between
4
30
and
6
o'clock
in
the
evening
during
Peak
cell
tower
hours,
when
this
thing,
when
these
towers
are
communicating
to
each
other.
H
So
it's
very
important
when
we're
talking
about
Broadband
communication
5G
or
anything,
these
high
eye
bands
that
we
take
very,
very
Extreme
Measures
to
make
sure
these
things
are
located
properly
and
we
have
a
master
plan
for
our
communities,
so
people
get
injured.
Like
myself,
there
was
also
a
dozen
other
people
in
my
community
that
all
had
wanted
afib
and
also,
if
you
look
at
St
Luke's
their
electoral
Cardiology
Department.
Thank
you
a
year
and
a
half
backlog
of
people
that
are.
A
A
You
Vivian
lockery.
V
Morning,
chairman
and
Commissioners,
my
name
is
Vivian
lockery
2211
North
19th
Street
Boise
Idaho
in
the
November
22
report
by
Mr
Valdez,
our
third
party
consultant.
He
states
that
the
rules
for
building
cell
towers
and
areas
of
high
property
value
should
apply
to
low-income
areas
as
well,
which
is
important
to
think
about.
In
this
case,
regulations
and
requirements
are
made
to
protect
all
people
and
not
just
a
select
few
with
vested
interest.
Some
of
the
applicant
statements
he
says
were
made
by
people
that
own
high
property
values
far
away
from
the
Beacon
Light
site.
V
V
So,
although
this
proposed
Tower
is
in
an
unincorporated
area,
we
know
that
the
city
of
eagle
has
updated
their
Wireless
ordinance
to
prohibit
Wireless
communication
facilities
and
all
residential
land
use
districts.
These
regulations
most
certainly
protect
all
people
within
the
city
and
not
just
to
select
you
with
vested
interest
I
doubt
that
the
city
officials
made
these
decisions
slightly.
Finally,
I
suggest
that
the
BLM
site
has
not
been
fully
vetted
and
I
urge
you
to
support
the
appellants
appeal
to
deny
this
Tower.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
For
your
time,.
F
Commissioners
this
is
Leslie
Becker.
My
address
is
5505
West
Flicker
Lane.
F
In
the
interest
of
time.
I
just
would
like
to
express
my
strong
agreements
with
my
neighbors.
F
D
D
So
let
me
get
that
fired
up
here.
Real
quick
who's.
I
D
D
N
A
W
W
My
name
is
JP
Mejia,
my
wife
and
I
currently
live
in
the
Mesa
River
Ranch
Estates.
We
are
looking
at
lot
3
in
the
Heartland
Ranch
development
to
potentially
build
our
home
on.
We
are
aware
of
the
cell
tower
that
would
be
putting
in
the
surrounding
area
we
oppose
putting
in
the
cell
tower.
W
This
is
actually
something
that
is
going
to
be
part
of
the
decision
factor
for
us.
If
we
are
going
to
move
forward
with
purchasing
a
lot
and
then
building
so
we
opposed
putting
in
that
cell
tower.
We
would
hope
that
it
wouldn't
be
done
so
that
we
could
actually
move
forward
with
the
purchase
process
and
getting
that
piece
of
land,
but
that
is
a
major
factor
for
us
whether
we
will
move
forward
with
purchasing
that
lot
or
not.
So
we
oppose
it,
and
thank
you
for
your
time.
D
Technical
Savvy
person
here
so
I
will
add
this
video
as
an
exhibit
we'll
have
that
as
48a
and
then
Mr
de
Haas
provided
a
copy
of
his
script.
Okay,
his
testimony
We'll
add
that
as
49a,
so
okay.
A
I
Thanks
again,
for
the
time
you've
heard
a
lot
about
the
Gap
in
coverage.
We
have
attorneys
here
who
can
validate
that
the
telecommunication
act
does
only
protect
that
you
can
be
able
to
make
phone
calls
and
texts
and
that
the
751
megahertz
is
plenty
I
think
you
saw
mixed
review
and
a
little
homina
homina.
When
that
question
was
asked,
you
have
the
right
to
deny
the
tower
just
on
that
means
alone,
and
you
can
validate
that
with
your
attorney.
This
is
intermax
and
Broadband
they're,
actually
the
primary
carrier.
They
want
to
add
Broadband
services.
I
This
isn't
even
really
about
Verizon.
But
even
when
you
look
at
Verizon
and
thanks
to
the
work
that
commissioner
Canyon
and
all
you
did,
we
now
have
the
data
that
shows
when
that
Tower
goes
down.
We
have
coverage
and
what
you
need
to
know
about
how
covers
work,
I,
think
Mr,
Valdez
says
yeah.
The
Telecommunications
been
Millions,
no
billions
in
Spectrum
auctions,
I've
been
part
of
them,
but
the
beauty
about
those
spectrums
is
they'll,
move
up
and
down
to
Whatever
frequency.
I
You
have
available
to
you,
so
the
notion
that
you
will
not
be
able
to
make
a
call
is
is
a
non-issue
which
is
also
provided
and
I
can
put
it
as
an
Exhibit
case
law
that
shows
that
cell
towers
do
not
have
the
right
on
the
telecommunication
act
for
all
frequencies.
Hard!
Stop!
That's
the
first
point.
The
second
point
on
lease
intrusive
means:
BLM
land
is
more
expensive,
I.
Think
Mr
Barbie
said
it
right.
It's
not
about
easiest.
It's
about
sometimes
what's
more
affordable.
Well,
that's
not
as
a
commissioning
body.
I
We
you
guys,
have
the
right
to
enforce
what's
best
in
the
community,
even
if
that
costs
a
little
bit
more
money
and
so
be
alone
land
they
admitted
running
fiber
and
power
is
a
little
bit
more
expensive,
but
it's
better
for
the
community.
You'll
also
be
interested
to
know.
Commissioner
Davidson,
you
asked
Mr
Barbie
about
that
Hartley
property
that's
available
and
if
they
would
make
that
available
for
the
cell
tower,
I
think
it's
important
for
you
to
hear.
I
In
April
nine
months
ago,
I
was
under
contract
under
that
property,
so
that
I
could
offer
it
up.
For
the
cell
tower
and
I
sent
an
email
to
Mr
Leonard,
we
met
for
coffee,
I
came
with
an
alternative
because,
as
you
saw
in
the
picture,
the
skyline
of
the
trees
would
blend
in
and
it
was
a
much
better
site
in
which
I
would
lease
it
back
and
build
build
something
there.
But
I
I
provided
an
option
and
I
have
emails
and
proof
that
I
was
under
contract,
but
I
couldn't
get
an
answer
from
them.
I
If
they
would
do
the
work,
if
that's
a
a
site
that
they
would
use
and
the
answer
I
got,
is
they
didn't
want
to
start
over
again?
Well,
that
was
back
in
April
I
mean
that
was
nine
ten
months
ago.
We
could
be
well
on
our
way
by
then,
and
that's
still
much
less
developed
there,
and
so
that
is
a
better
site.
That's
exactly
adjacent
to
the
current
site.
I
It
is
20
feet
taller,
so
wouldn't
need
to
be
as
tall
and
it
provides
more
coverage
to
the
west
where
they're
doing
higher
density
loss
of
16..
So
I
don't
know
how
anyone
can
say
that
this
is
the
best
possible
site
or
the
only
possible
site
when
there's
a
piece
of
property
on
the
market
and
offered
it
nine
months
ago
in
an
exchange
would
have
been
the
same.
Lease
deal,
I
would
have
offered
them.
That
would
have
been
a
better
spot.
They
didn't
want
to
start
over.
I
That's
not
least
intrusive
means,
and
that's
not
smart
design
for
our
community
I
feel
like
we're
being
snowballed
in
terms
of
how
we're
going
about
the
process
the
and
and
why
and
I
think.
This
is
important
to
know,
because
I
think
commissioner
Kenyon
was
getting
after
this.
The
pnz
ended
up
denying
it
not
just
because
the
Gap
in
coverage,
but
because
this
applicant
has
not
proved
least
intrusive
means
the
commission.
You
can
go
back
and
and
hear
it
said,
Sending
out
passive
letters
and
not
following
up
not
knocking
on
doors.
I
Not
doing
proper
diligence
in
BLM
is
not
is
not
sufficient
enough.
Someone
responding
to
a
passive
letter
is,
is,
is
not
enough
and
to
say:
well
it's
better
to
have
the
one
Tower,
because
we'll
have
four
coliticated.
Those
are
not
letters
of
intent,
there's
a
letter
of
interest.
They
can
get
one
of
those
in
20
minutes.
A
letter
of
intent
is
a
much
more
formal
deal
and
ultimately,
this
commission
gets
to
decide
where
you
put
a
tower
when
you
put
a
tower
I
have
no
doubt
you'll
get
all
four
carriers
interested.
I
The
question
is:
what
is
the
right
location
to
put
a
tower
for
all
four
carriers
and
I
will
tell
you.
This
is
not
the
right
location
because
of
where
it's
located
from
east
to
west,
because
of
the
the
height
of
where
it
is
and
because
it's
fully
exposed
it's
not
about
just
being
under
it.
It's
on
the
horizon,
where
you
see
it
from
every
direction
enormous
at
over
a
hundred
feet,
and
so
those
are
the
reasons
also.
I
This
commission
asks
for
property
value
we
didn't
present
to
here,
but
it's
in
the
exhibit
that
it
drives
property
values
down
by
10,
and
this
Ada
County
Commissioner
has
an
obligation
to
protect
our
property
rights,
and
that
study
was
on
Beacon
Light
That
tower
that
Steve
showed
you.
It
was
a
house
next
to
that
property.
Which
is
less
than
you
know,
two
miles
away
and
done
in
in
2020
December
December
of
it
was
January
of
2020.
I
So,
just
two
years
ago,
so
I
asked
that
this
commission
uphold
what
the
pnz
just
went
through
where
commissioner
Kenyon
Ron
Valdez
spoke
for
30
minutes.
In
that
hearing,
you
can
hear
it
with
all
the
data.
I,
don't
know
what
transpired,
after
where
the
the
language
got
a
lot
more
direct,
but
he
did
speak,
they
hear
and
they
ruled
just
30
more
seconds
chairman
back.
I
If
I
could
they,
they
ruled
in
favor
of
a
polling,
our
appeal
and
denying
this
Tower,
the
city
of
Eagle
have
done,
and
this
commission
has
three
areas
of
empirical
evidence
that
you
have
the
right
to
deny
that
would
hold
up
in
federal
court
and
we
as
a
community.
If
that
was
the
case,
and
that
was
the
path
they
wanted
to
go
feel
very
confident
to
stand
beside
you
and
financially
from
what's
necessary
to
protect
this
in
the
spirit
of
what's
best
for
Ada
County.
Thank
you
so
much
Joe
any
questions.
C
I
It
was
up
for
sale
on
the
MLS
I
made
an
offer
that
offer
was
accepted.
I
paid
my
my
my
upfront
fee
and
during
the
diligence
period
I
was
trying
to
work
with
with
intermax,
specifically
Josh,
to
say:
hey
does
this
work?
Can
we
put
the
tower
here
and
what
I
would
offer?
You
is
the
same
terms
as
you
offered
Kathy
McCarthy
and
I'd
put
up
a
tower
and
I'd
still
develop
the
five
hours
of
the
house.
I
wouldn't
make
as
much
on
the
house
because
it
has
a
tower.
I
I
Was
accepted,
I
was
under
contract,
meaning
I
paid.
My
my
dude
earnest
money
of
twenty
thousand
dollars.
I
was
under
contract
for
eight
980
thousand
dollars.
For
that
five
acre
parcel
and
during
the
due
diligence
period,
I
had
I
started
conversations
over
here
to
see.
If
that
would
be
acceptable,
I
didn't
want
to
lose
that
money
if
they
weren't
going
to
accept
it,
because
I
didn't
need
the
extra
property
unless
they're
accepted,
but
during
that
period
they
were
not
responsive
so
to
say
that
they
were
working
with
the
community.
C
I
I
That
property
is
still
on
the
market.
Now
the
good
news
is
not
980.
Now
it's
like
I,
don't
know
Steve
what
is
it
8,
25
or
780?
It's
gone
down
in
value,
so
you
know,
but
that
property
is
still
on
the
market.
So
I
don't
know
how
anyone
can
say,
there's
no
better
spot,
that
property
is
adjacent
to
the
current
site
and
sits
higher
so
and
we
lost
nine
months.
They
didn't
want
to
go
down
that
path.
Had
they
gone
down
that
path,
we
might
be
done
with
this
already.
I
Yeah,
perhaps
they
they
may,
but
the
existing
Tower
is
right
there
already.
There
already
is
a
tower
there
and
it
better
serves
the
community
and
you
saw
it.
You
can
blend
the
topography
into
the
trees.
You
could
do
a
mono
pie
next
to
trees.
This
proposed
site
no
trees
and
it's
20
feet
lower
and
it's
right
on
the
highway,
where
everyone
gets
impacted
by
a
cell
tower
every
day
on
Beacon
Light,
not
to
mention
Beacon
Light
they're,
going
to
expand
that
road
15
feet.
I
I
I
All
the
trees,
it's
a
vacant
lot
when
you
put
it
the
tower,
you
sell
the
fight,
but
you
develop
a
house
and
you
and
you
and
you
do
the
same
kind
of
lease
agreement.
I
couldn't
get
an
answer
like
I
was
willing.
I
met,
actually
I.
Think
Josh
and
I
met
twice
at
Starbucks,
trying
to
come
to
a
conclusion.
Like
I.
Am
a
business
person,
I'm
Pro
infrastructure?
I'm?
Not
you
hear
you
guys
have
a
tough
job
I,
get
it
every
day,
you're
having
to
make
tough
calls
of
people.
I
C
Guys,
I
didn't
couldn't
trees
if
we
did
Grant
this
currents
or
this
proposed
site
couldn't
trees
be
planted
around
that
to
can't.
I
Get
mature
trees
and
it
takes
decades
like
you,
you
plant,
you
know:
20
30,
foot
tall
trees,
it
takes
decades.
What
you
have.
There
is
mature
trees
off
the
road
and
in
in
a
better
further
east,
perfectly
adjacent
to
the
current
site.
You
can
pull
up
the
map
again.
If
you
want
to
look
at
it.
A
Okay,
commissioner
Kane,
you
have
any
questions.
K
Thanks
Josh
Leonard
again
for
the
applicant,
yes,
I,
I
I'm,
going
to
read
number
or
reorder
some
of
my
stuff
to
first
talk
about
what
Mr
Bentley
just
brought
up.
First,
it
was
a
little
bit
misleading.
This
isn't
just
right
across
the
street
from
where
the
other
side
is.
In
fact,
the
sites
from
the
from
the
current
site
is
equal,
distant
equidistant,
east
and
west,
east
and
west
from
the
site.
It's
not
closer,
it's
not
any
better.
K
It's
also
has
trees
which
are
are
clutter,
and
we,
we
performed
a
a
an
initial
study
and
found
that
it
wasn't
as
good
to
provide
coverage
needed
to
the
east.
For
for
that
site.
I'd
also
point
out
that
all
Mr
Bentley
is
doing
is
pushing
the
tower
to
other
neighbors
I'd,
also
point
out
that
there
are
more
residents,
there
are
more
homes
within
one
thousand
feet
of
the
site
he's
talking
about
than
there
are
within
one
thousand
feet
of
the
current
site,
those
what
he's?
K
What
he's
neglecting
to
mention,
or
neglecting
the
state
and
and
commissioner
Davidson
brought
it
up
we're
going
to
get
the
same
objections
from
those
people
that
are
here.
He's
just
pushing
the
tower
on
other
neighbors
and
he's
frankly
doing
the
engine
doing
amateur
engineering
on
behalf
of
the
the
cell
tower
companies,
when
they've
done
this
engineering
already
and
determined
that
this
is
the
the
proposed
site's,
the
only
one,
as
well
as
your
own,
independent
third-party
consultant,
Miss
Dustin.
K
In
her
testimony
said,
we
chose
this
site
because
it's
quote
unquote
easy
I
would
suggest
that
this
site
has
been
nothing
if
I
mean
it's
been
nowhere
near
easy.
It's
been
a
lot
longer
and
more
expensive
site
than
any
that
I've
ever
worked
on.
I'd
also
note
a
couple
of
things:
Mr
de
Haas,
Mr,
Allen
and
Ms
lockery.
K
None
of
them
live
within
a
couple
of
miles
of
the
site
and
in
fact
live
several
miles
from
this
side
and
our
officers
in
an
anti-wireless
group
and
that's
why
they're
here
I
strongly
recommend
that
you
not
follow
their
amateur
legal
opinions
and
advice
about
the
Telecom
act.
Rely
on
what
your
own
attorneys
tell
you,
because
they're
the
ones
that
are
going
to
would
be
needing
to
defend
this.
K
K
That's
he's
fighting
cell
towers
that
affect
him.
That's
a
typical
response
of
a
neighbor,
and
it's
not
one
that
I
begrudge
it's
what
we
see
quite
a
bit.
It's
what
they're
trying
to
do
by
moving
the
site
to
this
other
location
is
put
it
off
onto
other
people,
other
citizens
of
Ada
County.
You
heard
from
your
consultant
that
not
only
is
this
the
least
intrusive.
K
C
Can
I
just
sit
Mr
chair
yeah
go
ahead,
so
let
me
ask
you
so
the
the
previous
testimony
said
when
they
offered
the
to
work
with
you
on
the
additional
site.
Your
response
was,
you
didn't
want
to
start
over.
You
just
said,
though,
that
you
did
do
there
was
previous
research
done
onto
that
site,
so
I
guess
which,
which
one.
K
Is
I
never
said
we
wanted
to
start?
We
didn't
want
to
start
over
I
passed
him
to
the
the
intermax
towers
representative,
who
may
have
said
that
I
wasn't
privy
to
those
conversations.
What
I
said
was
it
doesn't
work,
it
doesn't
provide
the
same
level
of
coverage,
and
that
was
the
ultimate
determination.
It's
also
aside
from
the
Willing
landlord.
That's
the
one
issue
it
has
to
meet
all
of
the
other
factors,
and
one
of
those
factors
is:
are
we
going
to
have
instead
of
having
three
homes
within
a
thousand
feet?
K
Are
we
gonna
have
seven
homes
within
a
thousand
feet,
and
in
that
case
that
or
if
with
that
tower,
that
was
the
case,
there
would
be
more
people
here,
testifying
against
the
Tower,
with
the
same
exact
object
actions,
and
speaking
of
that,
these
are
the
same
objections
that
we've
heard
from
since
the
beginning.
There's
been
no
additional
evidence
presented
by
the
by
the
appellants
we've
as
we've
gone
through
the
process,
we've
been
responsive
to
the
consultant's
requests
for
for
additional
information
above
and
beyond.
K
What's
what's
required
in
Ada
County
code
I
denial
of
this
application
essentially
is
a
de
facto
moratorium
on
cell
towers
and
the
reason
I
say
that
is.
This
has
been
the
most
scrutinized
cell
tower
in
in
my
memory
in
Ada
County
we've
provided
more
data
and
information
than
any
prior
application
way
more
than
is
required
by
by
Ada
County
code.
We've
identified
we've
gone
through
and
done
the
the
due
diligence
on
not
just
near
Parcels,
but
also
on
BLM
property.
K
K
Just
really
quickly
just
to
address
one
more
one:
more
Point.
Yes,
if
you
can
wrap
it
up,
they
I
will
for
sure
the
consultant
did
a
great
service
to
the
board
and
to
the
people
of
Ada
County,
as
I
mentioned
earlier,
though,
he
also
put
the
board
in
a
quandary,
because
his
independent
analysis
and
expert
conclusions
essentially
guaranteed
that
if
this
goes
to
Federal
Court,
we
would
be
victorious
I,
don't
want
to
go
to
Federal
Court.
K
This
has
already
taken
a
year
and
a
half
it's
it's
the
the
kind
of
case
that
I
don't
want
to
I,
don't
want
to
be
against
Neighbors
in
in
this
area.
I
don't
want
to
have
to
to
to
litigate
that
it
it's
it's
in
court,
though
it's
a
slam,
dunk
and
that's
just
based
on
the
fed,
the
federal
Telecom
act
here.
It
should
be
a
slam.
Dunk
too,
the
question
I
would
pose
in
closing
is
after
hiring
an
independent
consultant.
K
K
Issue
and
I'll
I'll
tell
you
from
the
from
the
outset
that
it's
a
bit
of
a
red
herring
and
the
reason
I
say
that
is
because
intermax
also
provides
voice
over
IP
telephone
service,
which,
although
it
is
a
technically
a
broadband
service,
is
a
is
a
telephone
and
is
a
Telecommunications
Act.
It
is
covered.
There.
I'll
also
point
out
that
the
that
Mr
Allen's
comment
that
there
was
a
Supreme
Court
case
saying
that
that's
not
that
that
it
Broadband
isn't
covered
is
100
incorrect.
It
wasn't
a
Supreme
Court
case.
K
It
was
a
District
of
Washington
DC
case
and
it
it
suspended
parts
of
an
FCC
order,
not
the
entire
order.
It
is
what
it
is
made
100
irrelevant,
however,
by
the
fact
that,
within
a
couple
of
months
of
submitting
our
application,
we
supplemented
it
with
the
fact
that
Verizon
is
a
lock
to
go
on
this
Tower
Verizon
unquestionably
provides
both
broadband
and
Telecommunications
telephone
services.
K
I
will
tell
you
that
in
my
in
my
legal
review
of
the
Telecommunications
Act,
there
is
no
different
sections,
but
there
is
no
question
that
it
it
covers.
Broadband
Services
as
well,
I'm.
Also
telling
you,
though,
it's
irrelevant
today,
because
Verizon
is
going
on
this
Tower.
This
Tower
is
for
telecommunications
services.
A
G
A
Time
all
right,
having
heard
presentation
to
both
sides
and
having
heard
the
public
testimony
I,
will
close
the
public
hearing
on
application.
Two
zero:
two
one:
zero:
two:
eight
one:
six,
a
Johnson,
May,
okay,
announce
before
the
board
for
discussion.
What
is
the
pleasure
of
the
board.
A
She
can,
if
she
wants
to
you,
want
to
kick
it
off.
Commissioner
Kenyon.
B
I
think
that
it's
it's
probably
goes
back
to
one
single
Factor
here
and
the
board
of
County
Commissioners
does
not
take
into
consideration
speculation,
and
we
make
decisions
based
on
evidence
and
based
on
facts
that
are
submitted
to
us
and.
J
B
Fact
that
the
original
applicants
did
not
do
their
due
diligence
in
coming
before
this
board,
giving
us
factual
information
from
the
existing
site,
the
owner
of
that
site,
stating
that
they
will
not
allow
them
to
build
improvements,
whether
that's
120,
foot,
Tower,
whatever
that
may
be
on
the
existing
site,
leads
me
to
hear
all
other
testimony
is
irrelevant,
because
we
don't
know
that
we
don't
have
that
information
and
I
can't
see
us
making
a
decision
to
build
another
cell
tower
somewhere.
When
we
don't
have
the
facts
that
it
can't
be
done
on
this.
B
Information
to
us,
unfortunately,
so
with
that
I'm
going
to
be
leaning
towards
upholding
the
appeal
and
denying
the
tower.
F
C
Well,
I'm
trying
to
think
about
all
the
the
testimony
we've
heard
and
if
that
specific
issue
was
addressed
and
I
can't
recall
whether
that
specific
point
was
brought
up,
whether
or
not
they
having
an
affirmative
statement
or
any
evidence
regarding
the
the
initial
site,
whether
it
could
be
rebuild
but
boy,
this,
it's
a
tough
one,
I
mean
both
sides
of
I
think
put
in
a
lot
of
effort
to
to
bring
their
their
case.
C
Obviously,
as
stated
before,
we
were
constrained
to
not
consider
the
health
issues,
even
though
we
we
might
want
to.
We
certainly
have
to
take
a
look
at
well.
If
you
know
if
this
goes
to
court,
how
are
we
going
to
fare
in
court
and
I?
It's
tough
to
say
at
the
moment
I
mean
a
lot
of
evidence.
Is
I
mean
if
this
goes
to
court.
There's
going
to
be
quite
quite
the
record
to
sift
through
the
the
least
intrusive
means
test.
I
mean
I,
think
that
that
is
subjective.
C
Obviously,
whether
or
not
it's
it's
reasonable
to
require
an
inordinate
amount
of
money
to
buy,
to
purchase
an
additional
site.
C
How
that
weighs
against
the
least
intrusive
means.
I
think
that's
that's,
probably
a
matter
for
the
board
to
take
into
consideration
as
far
as
what's
reasonable,
the
the
discussion
of
the
alternate
site
on
the
five-acre
lot
again.
I
think
that
would
have
been
better
brought
up
a
lot
earlier.
C
I
thought
there,
maybe
there's
something
there
with
the
offer
that
was
made
to
intermax,
but
we
heard
other
testimony
that
they
did
investigate
that
site
and
found
it.
It
was
not
suitable
again,
there's
still
a
lot
of.
In
my
mind,
the
conflicting
arguments
about
whether
or
not
Broadband
is
regulated
at
the
same
level
as
data
and
whether
that
even
applies
here
based
on
the
the
court
citations
that
were
listed.
C
I
I
certainly
think
that
you
know
again,
our
county
code
is
probably
not
sufficient
to
deal
with
all
these
concerns.
I
think
the
you
know
as
we
go
forward.
We
should
look
at
a
revamp
of
our
of
our
cell
phone
ordinance
and
probably
engage
outside
counsel
from
a
an
attorney
that
specializes
in
this
area,
because
I
think
this
lack
of
certainty
is
frustrating
to
both
parties.
Both
the
Appellate
and
the
applicant
I
mean
it
should
not
take
over
a
year
to
come
to
a
to
a
conclusion.
C
The
applicant
has
probably
submitted
more
than
any
previous
board
has
required,
but
one
aspect
of
that
is:
there's
been
less
community
interest
in
cell
towers
up
till
now,
which
is
to
be
understood
or
accepted
with
all
the
new
technology
coming
out
with
the
5G
and
the
broadband,
and
all
that
so
I'm
I'm
pretty
conflicted
on
this
one.
C
Both
sides
have
presented
a
lot
of
evidence.
We
do
have
our
our
consultant.
His
report
is
pretty
compelling
as
well
and.
B
J
B
Updated
our
code
a
couple
of
years
ago,
so
I
think
our
code
does
a
pretty
good
job
of
laying
this
out
and
a
lot
of
the
things
that
we
changed
were
the
you
had
to
co-locate
have
the
ability
to
co-locate
and
you
had
to
go
to
the
cities,
the
counties
achd,
the
federal
properties,
first
and
foremost,
to
see
if
it
couldn't
be
cited
on
those
properties,
so
I'm
not
sure
that
our
code
is
inadequate.
I
think
we've
done
a
pretty
good
job,
updating
that
to
where
we
are
today.
B
A
little
bit
troubled
by
the
independent
Consultants
use
of
the
word.
We,
when
providing
testimony,
I
thought
that,
in
my
mind,
showed
a
bias
towards
the
original
applicant
and
I
would
just
I
guess
cautioned
this
Lord
to
put
a
lot
of
weight
with
that
independent
consultant.
I!
Think
that
that
bias
came
through.
B
Go
back
to,
though,
that
everything
that
was
said
in
testimony
is
the
absence
of
alternatives.
For
example.
What
we're
faced
with
here
today
is
the
potential
absence
of
Alternatives
there's
not
an
absence
of
Alternatives.
There
is
a
cell
tower,
there's
a
cell
tower
site
and
we
have
not
been
given
any
information,
relevant
information
or
documentation
that
this
new
cell
tower
couldn't
go
on
that
existing
site
and
I'm.
B
So
I'm
sticking
with
the
grounds
that
this
board
does
not
do
speculation,
we
need
to
have
evidence
presented
and
that
happens
was
not
presented
and
I
asked
for
it
specifically
again
today
and
it
was
represented
again.
So
the
fact
that
the
applicant
lacks
the
ability
or
or
did
not
want
to
present
evidence
from
the
existing
cell
tower
owner
or
research
leads
me
to
believe
that
that
is
still
a
potential
option.
C
Well,
I,
guess
to
speak
to
that
point.
You
know
we
did
hear
evidence
that
they
are
continuing
to
maintain
the
existing
one,
that
they've
I
guess
in
the
applicants.
The
words
they've
been
very
I,
forget
the
exact
term,
but
they've
been
willing
to
keep
that
up.
While
this
application
is
pending,
which
I
suppose
opens
a
question
of
why,
when
they
just
continually
keep
it,
if,
if
a
new
one
could
be
proposed,
they
seem
to
be
willing
to
take
the
to
the
revenue
on
the
existing
one
I
I.
C
M
A
Well,
I
will
give
my
give
my
thoughts
in
it.
I
think
I
can
I
arrived
at
this,
that
this
hearing
expecting
that
I
might,
depending
on
the
evidence,
presented
and
support
the
Planning
and
Zoning
commission's
vote.
But
then
there
there's
a
lot
of
conflicting
evidence
that
was
presented
that
the
planning
zone,
the
commission
didn't
have
and
I'm
I'm
wondering-
and
maybe
we'll
have
to
have
a
legal
session
to
figure
that
out.
A
But
given
the
fact
that
our
expertise,
our
expert,
that
we
hired
made
the
statements
that
that
he
made
I,
don't
know
how
that's
going
to
work
in
a
federal
court.
I
wish
I
knew
that,
but
I
don't
know
how
that
will
how
that
will
work
because,
as
I
recall,
the
last
time
Ada
County
was
taken
to
Federal
Court
three
or
four
years
ago,
it
was
maybe
was
it
the
same.
A
Was
it
the
same
expert
that
convinced
the
the
county
to
not
proceed
with
their
with
their
to
go
ahead
and
reconsider
and
Grant
the
cell
tower
I,
don't
know
if
that's
correct
or
not,
but
so
I'm
wondering
about
that
so
anyway.
That's
just
my
thoughts.
I'll
accept
any
kind
of
emotion
that
there
is.
B
Yes,
Mr,
chair
I,
don't
you
have
the
the
proper
motion
here
in
front
of
me,
but
I'll
make
a
stab
at
it
and
hopefully
Leon.
You
can
help
me
with
this,
but
I'm
going
to
make
a
motion.
M
C
I'll
I
guess
direct
a
question
to
staff.
You
know
if
this
is
denied
based
on
the
the
I
guess
the
main
thing
that
it's
being
denied
if
it
is
denied
that
they
did
not
do
the
due
diligence
on
finding
out
if
the
existing
Tower
site
could
be
used,
I
mean:
where
does
that
put
the
process,
I
mean?
Are
they
able
to
go
back,
find
additional
information?
Do
we
have
to
and
then
bring
it
back
or
what
I
guess?
What
would
the
process
be?.
D
Well,
chairman,
commissioner
I'll
do
my
best
to
try
to
answer
that
and
not
expand
the
record
too
much,
because
I
think
we've
technically
tried
to
close
it,
but
you
certainly
could
table
it
to
ask
the
original
applicant
to
provide
proof
if
it's
available
that
that
site
is
going
away.
If
that's
what
the
Board
needs
to
make
its
decision.
That's
you
know
that
would
be
another
table.
We've
tabled
this
plenty
of
times
in
the
past.
D
You
know
I
I,
think
you've
got
an
application
in
front
of
you.
You've
you've
got
lots
of
evidence.
That's
been
entered
into
the
record
to
start
asking
for
other
properties
and
how
they
might
plan
to
this
I
think
it's
complicated,
so
I'm
I
guess
I
would
just
if
you
have
more
complicated
questions
that
it
might
be
worth
entering
into
executive
session,
with
the
legal
team
tabling
this.
F
A
So
the
motion
in
front
of
is
in
front
of
us.
If
there
is
a
further
discussion,
do
you
want
a
further
discussion.
B
Well,
I
would
just
add
that
the
lack
of
due
diligence
on
the
applicant
not
only
on
the
existing
site,
but
also
the
five
acre
parcel
leads
me
to
believe
that
this
is
not
the
least
intrusive
site.
There
are
other
options,
as
just
mentioned
those
two
okay,
I'm
gonna,
stick
with
my
motion.
A
M
D
B
B
A
B
A
Most
carries
with
that.
We
are,
unless
there's
for
the
business
to
be
brought
before
this
body.
Where
are
adjourned.