►
From YouTube: Ada County P&Z Hearing – November 17, 2022
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
For
the
Ada
County,
Planning
and
Zoning
meeting
we're
very
happy
that
everybody
is
here
to
participate
in
the
meeting
and
I
and
I
welcome
you
here
before
I
get
to
roll
call.
I
just
want
to
remind
everybody
that
there
are
some
controversial
topics
and
we're
going
to
try
our
our
best
to
be
respectful
to
everybody
in
the
room
and
online
because
we're
all
people
here
and
we
want
to
treat
each
other
respectfully
and
so
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
call
the
roll
Brenda.
Blitman
is
here.
B
A
Commissioner
Wickstrom
here,
commissioner
Coulson
here
and
commissioner
Scott
here,
thank
you
very
much
and
we
welcome
commissioner
Scott
and
commission
and
commissioner
retzlaw
for
their
first
meeting.
So
thank
you
for
being
here
and
thank
you
for
your
service.
Our
first
order
of
business
is
unfinished
business.
C
C
The
Proposal
also
includes
two
access
points,
both
of
which
have
been
approved
by
the
Ada
County
Highway
District,
and
a
gravel
parking
area
that
will
be
utilized
by
up
to
two
employees
who
will
likely
be
on
site
about
once.
A
month
a
landscaping
plan
has
been
submitted
and
screening
is
proposed
along
the
length
of
Stewart
Road
and
an
eight-foot
solid,
concrete,
sound
wall
is
proposed
surrounding
the
entirety
of
the
facility.
C
There
were
no
agency
objections
to
the
application.
There
were
two
neighboring
property
owners
who
did
provide
comment
on
the
application,
with
concerns
about
construction,
beginning
prior
to
approval
and
with
potential
noise,
odors
and
views
of
the
facility.
There
was
some
underground
utility
work
that
did
occur
prior
to
the
application,
and
roadway
improvements
were
also
occurring
in
the
area.
A
D
C
Madam
chair
commissioner
Exton,
so
they
did
receive
an
easement
for
the
facility.
An
easement
gives
them
access
to
the
property,
but
it
doesn't
split
the
property.
So
it's
still
one
parcel.
That's
five
acres.
E
Applicant
is
Kathleen
Campbell
and
she
is
online
perfect.
A
And
while
we're
getting
Kathleen
online
I'm
going
to
pause
for
a
minute
and
ask
the
Commissioners
for
a
motion
to
add
the
minutes
to
our
approvals
at
the
very
end,
we've
got
to
approve
the
minutes
from
the
November
10th
the
meeting,
but
we
also
have
to
approve
the
minutes
from
the
October
13th
evening.
A
G
A
Opposed
so
thank
you
very
much
for
letting
us
do
our
housekeeping
Kathleen
Campbell
you're
ready
to
go.
H
Oh
hi,
there
I
don't
know
if
my
video
is
working
but
I'm
Kathleen,
Campbell
I'm,
a
senior
engineer
with
Inner
Mountain
gas
I
did
I'm
representing
there's
actually
a
couple
others
but
I'm
just
representing
in
our
Mountain
gas
I.
Believe
we
got
a
couple
folks
from
Texas
from
Williams
Northwest
pipeline
I
think
Aaron's
there
and
Martin
right
guys:
they're
waving,
they're,
they're
part
of
the
team
too,
but
yeah
it's
kind
of
a
shared
facility.
H
With
this
I'd
like
to
address
a
little
bit
of
the
noise
mitigation.
So
with
the
noise
we
do
have
a
current
site,
that's
there
and
that
that's
an
old
design
I
believe
it's
been
there
since
the
60s.
So
with
new
technology
and
the
fence
and
the
regs
we're
purchasing.
I
I
Miss
Campbell
can,
can
you
tell
us
what's
at
the
site
right
now,
you
had
a
permit
for
earth
work.
What
else
is
there
at
the
site
has
been
done.
H
H
That's
our
current
cunegate,
which
Williams
in
Intermountain
Gas
shared
this
due
to
capacity
and
just
system
planning
as
part
of
our
growth
predictions
Intermountain
Gas
is
choosing
to
upgrade
this
gate.
We
have
a
pipeline
going
in
into.
We
did
not
get
the
property
adjacent
to
the
currency.
H
Okay-
okay,
good,
sorry
about
that,
but
yeah!
Normally
how
gate
upgrades
go
for
us
is,
we
will
upgrade
we'll
kind
of
just
expand
next
to
a
facility,
but
this
one
we
couldn't
come
to
terms
with
the
property
owner,
so
we
had
to
pursue
other
options.
So
we
looked
across
the
street
because
William's
pipe
goes
through
both
these
properties.
H
So
this
is
just
an
upgrade
for
us
for
a
larger
station
for
additional
capacity.
I
I
Point
my
what
I
was
really
asking,
though,
is
it
just
sounds
like
you're,
maybe
getting
a
little
ahead
of
the
permit
process,
possibly
I'm
just
trying
to
find
out.
You
know,
there's
been
construction
pipelines
added
on
the
the
existing
or
not
the
existing.
The
new
property
and
I
was
wondering.
Is
that
something
that's
been
done
with
permits,
or
what's
the
extent
of
the
work
that's
been
done
on
this
new
site.
H
Oh
I
would
love
to
address
that
I'm.
Sorry
for
confusion.
What's
going
on
is
there's
a
separate
project.
That's
the
pipeline
and
that's
one
of
my
projects.
I'm
over
CNO
we're
doing
a
three
mile,
12
inch
pipeline
that
runs
on
Stewart
Road,
and
then
it
goes
up
Cloverdale
you
may
have
noticed,
but
it's
from
Cloverdale
I
can't
think
of
that
crossword
right
now,
but
we're
running
up
to
Victory,
so
that
project
is
separate
and
the
property
owner
that
had
the
complaint
on
us.
It
was
actually
the
pipeline
installation.
H
A
H
I,
don't
believe,
there's
pipe
on
the
prop.
We
just
installed
our
pipe
our
12-inch
line
in
the
road
right
away,
not
on
private
property.
A
A
So
my
question
is
the
existing
I,
don't
know
which
the
existing
facilities
are
they
going
to
be
vacated
or
would
they
be
continue
to
stay
there
and
I
think
we
lost
her
so.
A
A
H
A
Okay,
I
think
we'll
ask
you
to
be
on
hold
we're
going
to
ask
some
people
in
the
room,
some
questions
and
have
them
give
give
us
their
information
and
then
we'll
come
back.
So
I've
got
clay.
Gus
gustavs
do
I
say
that
right
is
that
you
would
you
come
forward,
give
us
your
name
and
address
and
kind
of
tell
us
what
your
role
is
and
you've
got
about
three
minutes
to
talk
and
then
we'll
ask
you
questions.
Okay,.
J
My
name
is
Clay
Gustavus
I'm,
with
the
land
and
real
estate
department
of
Williams
Northwest
pipeline
I
work
out
of
the
Redmond
Washington
office,
fill
again
for
a
co-worker,
that's
out
on
short-term
disability.
J
The
Williams
companies
is
a
Interstate
natural
gas
transmission
company
and
we
ship
the
gas
from
the
source
to
distribution
companies
like
Intermountain
natural
gas
and
whenever
the
gas
transfers
custody
it
happens
at
one
of
these
meter
stations.
So
that's
why
there's
two
parties
here
we
have
to
meter
how
much
gas
is
flowing
into
the
customers
system.
J
So
Intermountain
natural
gas
has
installed
new
piping
in
the
street
for
their
system.
As
part
of
this
upgrade
back
in
earlier
this
summer,
we
did
install
within
our
existing
easement
and
above
ground
valve
that
will
service
this
meter
station.
If
these
permits
are
approved.
A
Thank
you
very
much
and
are
you
Commissioners,
do
you
have
questions,
commissioner
Wickstrom.
K
K
Like
clay
stated,
the
facility
is
designed
to
meter
the
gas,
so
we
can
transfer
do
a
custody
transfer
to
Intermountain
and
working
with
the
Planning
Commission
Planning
Group
team.
We
have
whatever
they
have
requested.
We
have
complied
with
those
requirements
and
submitted
those.
F
K
Oh
sorry,
my
address
is
2800.
A
I
K
L
Thing
my
name
is
Martin
cupp.
Sorry,
Martin
calzada
address
is
same
business
Astros
as
a
roon
2800
Post
Oak,
Boulevard,
Houston,
Texas
77056
I
am
the
project
engineer
for
Williams
Northwest
Pipeline
on
this
project.
I
think
clay
and
Arun
kind
of
gave
a
pretty
good
description
of
the
project.
So
really
I
was
just
going
to
be
up
here
to
answer
any
questions
on
the
technical
side.
If
anyone
had
any
so
that's
pretty
much,
it.
L
Our
current
schedule
has
us
completing
piping
work,
hopefully
by
the
end
of
the
year,
and
we
do
have
the
the
concrete
wall
that
needs
to
be
installed
as
well
as
landscaping,
and
that's
probably
going
to
complete
it
going
to
be
completed
sometime
in
the
spring
of
next
year.
So
that's
kind
of
like
what
we're
thinking.
A
M
Yeah,
thank
you.
My
name
is
Seth
bandaraga
I'm.
The
operation
supervisor
for
Williams
Northwest
pipeline
here
in
the
Boise
District
address
is
1301
South
Locust,
Grove,
Road
Meridian,
Idaho
83642
and
I
errantly
put
my
name
on
a
piece
of
paper
to
talk
but
I,
but
I
really
came
down
to
support
the
team
here
and
ask
and
answer
any
questions
that
might
come
up
from
anybody
whatsoever
regarding
the
project
and
and
if
anybody
had
any
any
questions,
concerns
stuff
like
that
make
myself
available.
So
that's.
A
M
You
know
we
run
through
we've
been
in
the
ground
over
here
since
1956,
so
we
do
have
you
know
good
relations
or
or
I
should
just
say
relations
period
with
the
with
the
properties
that
we
maintain
our
easement
through
and
which
our
pipelines
are
running
through
so
The
Butchers,
which
which
would
be
the
property
that
that
we
are
looking
to
acquire
that
we've
Acquired
and
looked
to
build
a
facility.
We've
had
discussions
with
them
for
many
many
years,
but
as
far
as
the
neighborhood
meeting
itself,
no
I
was
not
a
participant.
A
Okay,
all
right,
thank
you
very
much.
Any
other
questions
I
think
we're
good
I.
I
would
like
to
know
about
the
neighborhood
meeting.
I,
don't
know
about
the
other
Commissioners.
Do
you
think
we
should
ask
clay
to
come
up
and
tell
us
about
the
neighborhood
meeting,
if
he's
the
one,
so
let's
go
ahead
and
invite
you
to
come
up
and
we'll
ask
you
questions
about
the
neighborhood
meeting
and
kind
of
tell
us
how
that
went,
and
what
kind
of
the
concerns
were.
J
Yeah
there
were
four
neighbors
that
showed
up
I,
think
from
from
two
households
and
just
to
explain
the
project
to
them.
Explain
the
process
of
the
conditional
use
process
to
them
and
the
concerns
that
they
raised
were
noise
and
just
Aesthetics,
so
I
handed
them
the
plants
for
the
for
the
wall.
We
hadn't
developed
a
landscaping
plan
at
that
point,
but
we
have
now
and
yeah.
Kathleen
talked
about
our
noise
mitigation
plan.
N
A
Thank
you
any
other
questions.
I
think
you
can
sit
down.
Okay!
Thank
you.
We'll
go
online
to
Kathleen
Miss
Campbell.
If
you
want
to
give
us
a
five
minute
rebuttal
about
anything
that
we
haven't
talked
about.
H
Hi
there
it's
Kathleen
again,
I
I,
don't
have
any
really
real
bottle.
I
know,
I,
guess
one
thing:
you'll
notice,
probably
on
our
comments,
is
that
it's
two
separate
companies
so
like
Intermountain
and
Williams
kind
of
operates,
independent,
so
I
guess
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
that
a
little
bit
that
some
of
our
construction
and
schedules
and
things
will
be
kind
of
independent
but
yeah.
H
We
also
plan
to
kind
of
have
the
site
done
wrapped
up
here
by
spring
on
our
side
and
for
us
it's
about
a
month
of
construction
to
get
it
installed.
We
fabricate
everything
in
advance.
So
when
we're
on
site
it's
it's
pretty
efficient
to
get
the
facilities
installed.
E
H
Yeah,
so
we
stay
in
touch,
stay
pretty
in
touch,
I
know
everyone
in
the
room,
they're
pretty
well,
we
have
meetings
or
you
know,
I
know
Martin's
called
me
an
errands
Iran's
called
me
so
yeah
they
can
really
go
to
either
and
we
notify
the
other
party.
So
even
in
our
operations,
you
know
they
will
always
kind
of
be
partners
in
operations.
A
You
any
more
questions.
Okay,
I!
Think!
Thank
you
very
much.
Is
there
anybody
in
the
room
or
online
who
would
like
to
talk
about
this
project?
I
probably
should
have
asked
earlier.
A
C
Excuse
me,
Madam,
chair,
I,
I
think
there
might
be
some
information
that
I
could
provide
to
help
clarify
some
information
about
the
utility
work.
That's
occurred
prior
to
the
application.
Okay,
so
the
underground
underground
utility
work
in
their
easement
or
in
the
right-of-way
does
not
require
additional
approval.
So
the
application
before
you
is
for
the
above
ground
metering,
equipment
and
facility.
So
just
something
to
know
that
the
underground
utility
work
does
not
require
additional
approval
and.
A
I
Just
a
real
quick
one
I've
been
trying
to
look
how
tall
is
the
shed
the
shelter
the
coverage,
shelter
I
was
looking
through
the
specs
trying
to
figure
see
if
it
showed
anywhere.
C
Madam
chair
commissioner
Wickstrom
I
do
not
have
the
height
of
that
structure
readily
available.
I
think
someone
from
the
project
team
might
be
able
to
provide
that
to
you.
Thank.
A
L
Martin
calzada
again
at
2800
post,
look
Boulevard,
Houston,
Texas
77056,
the
the
shed
itself.
The
canopy
should
be
about
maybe
11
12
feet
at
the
highest
peak.
L
So
hopefully
with
the
concrete
wall,
the
eight
foot
wall
and
other
Landscaping
screenings.
It
shouldn't
be
too
noticeable.
Yeah.
A
You
very
much
so
Commissioners
do
we
have
any
more
questions
for
staff
or
for
anybody
in
the
room
shaking
heads,
so
we
asked
the
applicant
gets
the
last
opportunity
to
talk,
and
so,
if
there's
anything
you'd
like
to
add
you're,
welcome
to
add
something
now
before
I
close
the
public
hearing.
A
A
Mr
Coulson
seconded
the
motion,
commissioner.
Exton
go
ahead
and
talk
about
your
reasons
for
recommending
this
approved,
recommending
approval,
yeah.
D
I
think
this
application
did
a
really
good
job
of
taking
the
concerns
that
were,
you
know,
mentioned
in
the
neighborhood
meeting.
That
also
were
as
part
of
the
two
public
letters
that
were
written
into
the
application.
You
know
with
the
noise,
the
odor
and
all
of
that
and
addressing
the
you,
know,
potential
confusion
of
you
know
the
work
that's
already
being
done
on
the
property,
that's
completely
within
the
current
permits
versus
the
work
that
hasn't
been
started
yet
due
to
the
current
cup.
That's
before
us.
So
to
me
it
seems
very,
very
solid,
so.
A
O
No
I
just
I
mean
it.
It
looks
like
they've
covered
everything,
I
mean
I,
like
the
screening
and
everything
that'll
help,
protect
it
from
an
eyesore
and
and
I
think
it's
actually
pretty
well
done
versus
some
of
the
other,
some
of
the
other
ones
that
you
see
over
off
of
Meridian
Road
area.
I
Madam,
chair
I
think
it
may
have
been
explained
with
with
Mrs
blending
blend.
He
said
just
a
few
minutes
ago,
but
there's
there's
already
major
pipe
work
being
done
above
ground
at
the
site
and
whether
that's
permitted
I'm
sure
there
must
be
some
on
there,
but
it
seems
like
the
the
whole
construction
process
may
be
ahead
of
the
the
permitting
and
approval
process
and
that's
what
I
was
trying
to
get
to
and
find
out.
What
have?
I
Somebody
explained
what
was
going
on
at
the
site,
I
drove
by
there
coming
in
today,
just
to
see
what
it
was
like
with
the
how
how
would
affect
the
neighbors
and
whatnot
and
yeah
the
grading
work
was
done
and
that's
been
done
with
permed,
but
there's
also
major
significant
pipelines
above
ground
at
the
site
and
maybe
that's
within
easement,
and
that
was
there's,
maybe
that's
been
explained,
but
it
I'm
just
concerned
that
maybe
their
constructions
ahead
of
our
approval
process.
I
A
I
didn't
drive
by
the
site,
I
live
in
that
area,
so
I
don't
know.
What's
there.
F
A
I
A
I
But
I
mean
otherwise
the
Project's
fine
I
am
it's
just.
Why
should
we
bother
with
approving
something
that
seems
to
already
be
treated
as
if
it's
approved
and
the
way
the
way
the
construction
is
going
on
there?
That's
all.
I
Guess
not
it's
probably
not
a
reason
to
do
to
deny
the
project
at
this
time.
I
I
think
that
it
undermined
the
system
of
allowing
the
neighbors
to
have
some
input
on
what
was
going
on
there,
because
it's
already
like
I,
said
it's
it's
well
underway
and
we
are
in
a
bad
situation
to
to.
If
we
for
some
reason,
thought
we
should
deny
it
well.
I
They've
got
quite
a
bit
invested
out
there
at
this
time
and
and
I
guess,
because
of
my
newness
here,
I
I
probably
could
have
brought
this
up
at
a
more
effective
time,
so
it
could
have
been
discussed,
but
I
was
didn't.
Make
that
known
so.
A
I
If
it
will
and
if
they
did
want
to,
if
the
commission
wanted
to
deny
it
or
table
it-
and
you
know
change
emotion
so
that
maybe
we
need
to
have
some
additional
looking
have
to
have
the
Builder
or
developer
applicant
come
in
with
proof
of
permits
or
something
to
show
that
what
they've
done
is
up
the
stump
but
I
I
agree.
Commissioner
Burch
said
yeah
this:
it's
not
enough
to
deny
it
I,
just
I,
don't
like
the
way
it's
being
done.
A
And
I
think
I
can
understand
that
comment
that
you
don't
like
the
way
it's
being
done.
I
our
role
has
always
been
us
and
and
not
deal
with
compliance
issues,
and
so
that
would
be
a
compliance
issue
that
our
our
very
qualified
staff
can
deal
with
is
the
possibility
that
there
was
work
performed
before
the
permits
were
there.
L
A
F
A
It
feels
like
we
all
voted
for
the
project,
so
there's
seven
eyes
and
none
that
were
against
it
and
I
think
the
applicant
certainly
heard
our
comments
about
the
work
being
done
ahead
of
time
and
the
staff
certainly
can
can
deal
with
those
any
compliance
related
issues.
If
there
are
issues.
Okay,
next
one
is
202-103
209,
shd18,
land
consultants
and
Mr
letstrun
letson
gets
to
provide
the
comments.
P
P
Achd
has
asked
for
a
lot
of
additional
information.
There's
been
a
lot
of
back
and
forth.
We
anticipate
an
updated
achd
review
soon
determining
whether
or
not
it
can
be
public
or
private,
and
so
once
we
have
that
updated.
Achd
review,
we'll
be
back
before
you
and
I
anticipate
December,
so
I
know:
we've
tabled
this
one
several
times
and
they're
asking
to
table
it
again
to
resolve
that
particular
issue.
A
D
A
I'll
second,
commissioner,.
A
F
A
P
Yes,
thank
you,
chairman
Commissioners.
The
item
before
you
is
a
three
lot
residential
subdivision.
The
applicant
is
Timberland
akazakov
and
I
hope
he
corrects
me
if
I
mispronounce,
his
name
he'll,
be
up.
Next,
the
project
is
located
at
one:
zero:
nine,
zero,
three
West
Columbia
Road,
it's
a
15.69,
acre
property
zoned,
both
RSW
and
R1.
P
It
utilizes
a
previously
approved
private
road
for
access
to
the
rear.
Three
lots
shown
here,
so
you
can
see
essentially
lot
one
which
has
an
existing
single
family
home
on
it
and
then
two
New
Lots
a
smaller
one
here
and
a
much
larger
one
here
to
the
back
and
the
private
road
is
an
easement
with
the
turnaround
down
on
I,
guess
to
the
western
side
of
the
property.
P
I
will
say
all
Lots
meet
the
dimensional
standards
of
the
zones
that
it
is
located
within.
They
will
all
use
individuals
well
and
septic
as
well.
All
reviewing
agencies
approve
the
project
with
standard
conditions
and
we
did
not
receive
any
comments
from
the
public.
P
In
order
to
reopen
those
comments
and-
and
the
applicant
can
probably
share
with
you
what
those
were,
but
it
was
a
significant
number
of
improvements
to
Columbia,
Road
and
other
things
that
were
really
going
to
make
this
small
project
pretty
impossible
for
them,
so
they
reapplied
and
now
they
have
a
preliminary
plant
in
front
of
you,
for
what
is
three
lots?
An
amusement
for
that
private
road
staff
is
recommending
approval
and
I'll
stand
for
any
questions.
What.
G
P
Chairman
commissioner
yeah,
if
there
was
super
available,
an
annexation
were
possible.
They,
they
probably
could
have
done
something
like
that.
They're
actually
developing
close
to
what
is
allowed
I
guess,
RSW
and
R1
would
allow
a
lot
more
density,
but
this
is
in
the
area
where
sewer
would
not
be
extended
because
of
Boise's
sewer
moratorium
policy.
I
should
note.
Actually
we
did
receive
the
late
comment
from
achd
past.
P
The
cutoff
which
I'm
submitting
this
at
the
hearing
is
exhibit
number
26,
but
it
explains
what
their
conditions
of
approval
are,
which
are
no
improvements
to
Columbia
Road.
Basically,
they've
approved
the
Private
Road
location
they've
approved
an
existing
driveway
for
that
existing
home
that
fronts
on
Columbia
Road.
But
again
that
will
be
exhibit
number
26.
back
to
your
question.
Yes,
if
sewer
available,
this
would
be
a
much
different
development
and
the
applicant
has
been
made
aware
by
achd
that
if
they
resubdubide
in
the
future,
there
will
be
improvements
required
on
Columbia
Road.
I
P
I
P
Chairman
Commissioners,
that's
a
comment
from
our
comprehensive
Planning
Group
that
basically
says
to
comply
with
Boise's
code,
which
I
think
identifies
as
suburban
a
higher
density
would
have
been
appropriate,
and
so
it's
basically
saying
the
way.
It's
being
subdivided
now
could
accommodate
higher
density
in
the
future
when
sewer
is
available
and
annexation
as
possible,
and
neither
of
those
ladder.
Two
are
part
of
the
equation.
Right
now,.
A
You
any
questions.
Those
are
good
questions
I
think
I'll
invite
the
applet
to
come
forward.
Give
us
your
name
and
address,
and
one
of
the
things
that
we
all
want
to
know
about.
Is
your
public
hearing.
Q
Hello,
my
name
is
10903
West
Columbia
Road
in
Boise,
83709
luck,
Leon,
say
I'm
already
was
here
before,
and
it
was
my
fault
because
I
missed
my
10-day
appealing
window
and
I
have
to
start
over
again.
So
now
this
time,
achd
the
highway
district
day
asked
me
to
do
less,
which
is
first
time
they
asked
me.
It
did
not
make
sense,
because
the
entire
Street
doesn't
have
any
curb
sides
or
any
sidewalk,
but
they
want
me
installed
up
there.
They
even
have
a
next
to
me,
bigger
subdivision.
Q
They
don't
have
that
sidewalks
or
curbside
up
there.
So
they
take
this
off
and
also
they
want
me
to
close
existing
driveway,
which
is
I,
have
to
go
around
to
get
to
existing
house,
which
does
make
sense.
So
that's
what
it
was
in
the
previous.
Now
they
like
you
hear
they
say
what
I
wanted.
We
can
leave
it
as
is
without
any
Improvement,
but
in
the
future.
If
I
want
to
do
more
more
subdivide,
then
I
have
to
do
all
the
Improvement
up
front.
Q
A
A
A
Online
go
back
any
questions
for
staff.
A
F
A
A
Thank
you
very
much.
Is
there
a
second
second
commissioner,
Wickstrom
seconded
the
motion
go
ahead
and
anybody
wants
to
talk
about
it.
You
want
to
talk
about
it.
Sure.
D
I
mean
you
know
again
kind
of
like
what
Leon
said.
This
is
pretty
much
something
we
already
approved,
there's
just
some
other.
You
know
technical
issues
outside
of
our
purview,
which
led
it
back
to
be
before
us
with
three
instead
of
four,
you
know
and
to
me
this
again,
just
as
straightforward
as
the
first
time.
D
A
And
let
the
minutes
reflect
that
all
seven
of
us
voted
for
the
motion
and
it's
been
approved,
so
our
next
one
is
2021-02816,
a
Johnson,
May
and
Mr
letson.
Is
the
person
talking
to
us
about
this
project.
P
So,
thank
you,
chairman
commissioners,
so
the
item
before
you,
uniquely
because
this
isn't
normally
what
you
get
to
look
at,
is
an
appeal
for
conditional
use
for
a
100
foot
cell
tower.
The
applicant
original
applicant
was
Josh
Leonard
of
Clark
Wardell.
The
appellant
was
Lewis,
the
Spiker
of
Johnson
May
law,
who
was
representing
Brad
Bentley,
who
was
here
with
us
tonight
to
represent
his
own
appeal
application.
P
P
As
I
mentioned,
it's
a
100
foot
cell
tower,
there's
a
2500
square
foot
ground
lease
area
for
equipment
and,
as
you
can
see
on
the
right,
it
has
the
ability
to
accommodate
up
to
four
carriers.
P
All
right,
so
this
is
where
I
walk
you
through
the
history
of
this
project.
So
you
originally
approved
this
in
March
of
this
year.
Within
the
appeal
period,
the
appellant
appealed
on
the
25th
of
March.
It
was
scheduled
for
hearing
with
the
board
on
the
1st
of
June
and
then
table
to
July
13th,
due
to
a
noticing
issue
for
the
appeal,
then
on
the
13th
of
July.
The
board
tabled
it
with
a
request
for
the
following
information
and
I'll.
Just
read
this
verbatim,
because
I
think
it
might
be
easier
that
way.
P
P
Thankfully
they
let
us
reduce
that
to
five
miles,
but
it
was
a
pretty
big
effort
and
it
is
one
of
the
materials
or
exhibits
in
your
packet
and
I
do
apologize
for
the
size
of
that
packet.
It's
very
dense.
There's
a
lot
of
information
in
there
I'm
happy
to
help
you
unpack
it
and
we
do
have
the
applicant
the
appellant-
and
we
have
our
third
party
consultant
here
tonight,
to
also
help
you
unpack
that
information.
P
There's
also
a
conversation
between
legal
and
our
board
regarding
the
1996
Telecommunications
Act,
as
is
the
privilege
of
our
legal
team.
They
don't
have
to
disclose
those
conversations,
but
they
did
assure
us
that
they
spoke
to
our
board
about
that
act
and
that's
not
anything
that
I
have
any
additional
information
on
it's
just
something
that
our
legal
team
was
asked
to
do,
and
they
did
that
and
then
finally
we're
not.
P
Finally,
second
to
last,
the
appellant
was
asked
to
provide
proof
of
any
diminished
land
values
in
the
surrounding
area
resulting
from
the
post
cell
tower,
and
you
will
find
in
the
many
materials
submitted.
There
was
an
Assessor's
report
for
a
property
in
the
area
that
had
another
cell
tower
associated
with
it,
and
the
Apollo
can
speak
to
that
during
their
presentation
as
well.
If
they
choose
to
do
that,
and
then
finally,
staff
was
asked
to
research.
Why
the
city
of
eagles,
what
their
reasoning
was
for
recommending
denial
of
the
proposed
cell
tower.
P
So
we
transmit
to
our
city
Partners,
on
projects
in
the
area
of
City,
Impact,
and
so
Eagle
actually
did
take
this
to
their
board.
For
an
official
opinion-
and
they
opted
to
deny
it
because
the
reasoning
largely
was
in
the
future
when
it
was
annexed,
it
wouldn't
comply
with
height
standards
and
other
aspects
of
their
code,
based
on
the
assumed
zoning
that
would
occur
with
that
annexation.
So
that
is
all
in
that
memo
of
information
that
you
had
a
little
bit
more
history.
P
There's
two
pages
of
this,
so
in
September,
the
board
remanded
this
back
to
you
and
the
reason
being
is:
there's
been
so
much
information
since
you
made
your
first
decision
that
they
wanted
to
give
you
a
chance
to
look
at
it
and
consider
your
original
approval
and
see
if
you
still
wanted
to
go
with
that,
we
then
tabled
this
again
on
the
13th
of
October,
because
there
was
a
request,
largely
by
the
appellant
group
and
and
supported
by
Ada
County,
to
have
our
third
party
consultant
review
additional
information
that
was
provided
since
you
first
heard
it
and
up
to
and
at
the
September
15th
board
meeting
the
applicant
can
speak
to
some
of
the
information
they
shared,
but
it
was
drive,
test
data
and
other
things
that
folks
have
been
asking
for.
P
It
was
provided
at
that
meeting
and
again
the
board
wanted
to
give
our
third
party
consultant
a
chance
to
review
that
staff
wanted
that,
so
they
signed
another
Consulting
contract
to
allow
them
to
do
that,
and
he
is
here
to
speak
to
that
and
then
finally,
there
also
some
additional
information
provided
by
the
original
applicant,
following
that
September
15th
Board
hearing
and
prior
to
the
October
13th
pnz
hearing
that
they
have
looked
at
and
will
be
ready
to
speak
to
tonight,
and
they
will
update
their
review.
Based
on
that
as
well.
P
That
information
was
included
in
your
packets
and
again,
the
original
applicants
can
speak
to
some
of
the
information
that
they
shared.
So
this
is
where
we
have
to
do
some
math,
where
two
negatives
equal
a
positive
that
sort
of
thing.
So
if
you
were
to
recommend
approval
of
the
appeal,
that
would
mean
that
you're
overturning
your
original
decision,
if
you're
recommending
denial
of
the
appeal,
it
means
you're,
upholding
your
original
decision
and
so,
as
you
can
see,
which
is
a
little
out
of
the
norm.
P
Two
sets
of
findings
were
provided
to
the
pnz
in
an
effort
to
kind
of
expedite
the
process
as
to
which
direction
you
go
largely
because,
based
on
that
timeline,
you
can
see.
We've
been
at
this
for
a
while
and
in
the
name
of
fairness,
we
need
a
final
decision
on
this
thing,
so
I'm
hoping
that
one
of
those
two
documents
satisfies
you,
I
will
say
if
you
feel
like
you,
don't
have
enough
information
tonight.
You're
always
welcome
to
table.
P
If
you
need
more
time
to
process
information,
you're
welcome
to
the
table
as
well
or
if
you
want
to
update
any
of
the
findings
documents
you
can
table
and
request
that
so
don't
feel
pressured
in
the
decision.
I'm
really
just
trying
to
help
you
get
to
the
next
level
or
help
this
whole
group
get
to
the
next
level.
So
that
concludes
my
presentation
and
I'll
stand
for
any
questions.
P
D
Madam,
chair
yeah,
so
let's
do
a
lot
to
say
just
out
of
curiosity
from
a
procedural
procedural
perspective,
since
this
is
an
appeal
that
was
sent
back
down
to
us
if
we,
regardless
of
the
decision
that
we
make,
can
our
decision
at
this
meeting
then
be
appealed?
A
second
timer?
Is
this
essentially
like
the
final
decision?
This.
P
P
So
perfect
everyone's
gonna
be
in
this
room
one
more
time,
not
you,
but
everyone
else
in
the
audience
will
be
in
this
room
one
more
time
talking
to
our
board.
So.
A
Very
much
if
the
Commissioners
are
okay,
I'd
like
to
hear
from
the
consultant
I
think
that
would
be
the
next
The
Next
Step.
So
if
a
consultant
to
come
forward.
R
A
S
Awesome
excuse
my
voice.
I'm
still
battling
some
respiratory
issues
with
from
covid,
so
I
have
some
hot
tea
here.
But
thank
you
for
having
me
this
evening.
Laughs.
S
P
And
Ron
I
don't
know
if
I
think
we
they
might
appreciate
you
walking
them
through
your
thoughts
on
the
project.
I
know
you've
produced
One
review
initially
and
then
a
follow-up
review.
So
if
you'd
like
to
summarize
that
at
a
high
level
or
let
me
know
what
you
think
is
the
best
way
to
kind
of
dive
into
those
materials.
S
Yeah,
absolutely
so,
there's
been
a
lot
of
material.
That's
been
presented,
I
think
some
of
the
the
positives
that
we
see
from
the
last
meeting
is
the
extensive
Drive
testing.
That's
been
done
so
I
think
the
data
that's
been
shown
for
all.
It
looks
like
all
three
bands
with
with
Verizon
so
you're,
going
to
see
the
700
megahertz
band,
the
PCS
band
and
then
also
the
AWS
band,
which
are
the
primary
servers
for
Verizon
within
this
area.
S
I
think
the
the
applicant
did
a
really
good
job,
basically
showing
you
know
how
much
the
signal
degrades
that
you
know.
I
would
like
to
see
them
actually
take
some
of
that
data
and
put
it
in
numerical
distributions
so
that
we
could
see
bin
accounts
and
so
that
we
could
come
up
with
percentages
of
degradation
but
I
think
just
overall
visually.
S
Without
you
know,
going
too
far
in
the
weeds,
you
can
see
that
there's
a
definite
impact
in
some
of
their
some
of
their
mid-band
Spectrum
low
band,
not
so
much
the
700
megahertz,
but
definitely
affects
PCS
and
AWS
I.
Think
you
know
some
of
the
predictions
that
they
had
put
together
for
the
BLM
areas.
S
So
you
know
we
don't
know,
for
example,
if,
if
they
designed
at
a
certain
you
know
height,
if
there
was
any
optimizations
that
could
be
done,
there's
just
we're
just
kind
of
taking
it
at
face.
Value
of
of
you
know
what
the
design
is
and
that
it
doesn't
work
if
I
step
back
from
from
you
know,
the
entire
project
I
know,
there's
a
lot
of
different
avenues
that
we
could
go
down
when
I
step
back.
S
I
I
do
think
this
site
on
Beacon,
Light,
Road,
I
I,
do
think
it
has
a
lot
of
value.
I
do
think
it's
needed
I,
just
don't
think
all
the
data
is
there.
You
know
that
that's
been
shown,
you
know
proving
things
like
the
BLM
sites.
S
Definitely
will
not
work,
or
you
know
you
know
the
true
impact
of
of
losing
that
Silo
sight
and
not
building
the
Beacon
Light
Road
site.
So.
A
S
Absolutely
so
I
I've
been
in
the
in
an
industry.
S
Now,
since
the
mid
90s,
my
credentials
are
I
have
military
I
started
off
in
military
tactical
Communications
after
the
military,
I
went
to
college
for
an
electrical
engineering
degree
and
started
doing
research
and
development
with
Qualcomm
for
wireless
technology,
so
started
in
kind
of
the
late
90s,
with
Qualcomm
and
Boulder
doing
research
and
development
on
CDMA
I've,
since
you
know,
worked
for
the
carriers
until
2011
2011
I
was
this
senior
corporate
engineering
manager
for
Cricket,
where
all
of
the
new
Spectrum
new
technology,
RF
design
standards,
New
Market,
builds
all
of
it
came
under
my
command
since
then
I
I
own,
a
private
Wireless
company,
where
we
build
private
LTE
in
5G
and
Wi-Fi
networks
to
support
initiatives
like
student
Broadband,
especially
during
covid.
S
S
So
yeah
we've
got
a
lot
of
credentials,
got
a
couple!
Certifications
which
I'd
be
happy
to
share
but
yeah.
F
N
Yes,
you
said
you've
done
about
10
or
10
over
the
last,
how
many
years
over
the
last
three
years,
three
years,
okay
and
what
states
were
those
in
or
were
they
in
Idaho
or
different
states,.
S
No,
that
I've
done
some
reviews
in
Idaho
about
seven
to
eight
years
ago,
but
all
the
recent
ones
have
been
Coast
to
Coast
so
been
Boston,
New
York,
Colorado,
Kansas,
Washington
State.
We
did
some
work
up
there
and
some
of
this
some
of
the
reviews
have
been
a
higher
level
for
actual
ratification
of
spectrum
for
the
FCC
and
ntia.
So
it's
been.
We've
worked
on
some
l-band
strategies
and
some
other
stuff,
so.
S
How
many
that
I've
reviewed
for
rural
areas?
Yes.
G
Yeah
Ron
I
I
just
want
to
expand
a
little
bit
on
something
that
you
said
about
the
Bureau
of
Land
Management
property.
Do
I
understand
you
correctly
to
say
that,
with
respect
to
the
applicant's
statement
that
the
BLM
property
is
infeasible
for
what
they
want
to
do
that,
you
are
not
in
a
position
to
stay
that
you
could
definitively
agree
with
that
statement,
because
not
enough
has
been
done
by
way
of
testing
to
determine
whether
or
not
BLM
property
would
be
a
viable
alternative
to
this.
Putting
the
tower
down
here
on
beaconline.
S
S
Just
briefly,
I
would
say
when
I
look
at
the
BLM
locations,
I
know
based
on
the
initiatives
with
4G
and
and
what's
coming
up
with
5G,
that
distance,
even
at
lower
bands
can
be,
can
be
difficult,
whereas
Legacy
voice,
Technologies,
you
could
cover
a
lot
of
area
with
just
pure
voice,
so
I
look
at
those
locations
and
I
and
I
say
you
know:
what's
the
probability
of
those
would
be
great
locations
to
fill
in
the
coverage,
holes
and
I
would
say
it's
very,
very
low
probability
that
those
are
prime
locations,
but
we
just
don't
have
all
the
inputs
needed
about
the
design.
S
G
So
another
question:
Ron,
the
applicant's
materials
that
have
been
submitted
would
lead
one
to
believe
that
the
location
that
they've
selected
is
the
only
location
that
would
provide
the
optimal
services
that
are
needed
and,
and
so
I'm
curious.
Whether
or
not
you
agree
with
that
as
well.
Now
it
could
be
that
it's
the
only
location
where
there
are
people
that
are
willing
to
lease
property
for
the
use
of
the
cell
tower,
but
within
the
area
that
they
need
for
the
coverage
that
they're
requiring
here
and
based
on
the
work
that
you
have
done.
S
None
of
that
none
of
the
places
where
they've
currently
designed
from
so
I
don't
know
if
there's
other
available
land
options
that
have
not
been
designed
or
looked
at,
but
you
know
really
when
I
look
at
The
Silo
site.
The
reason
why
that's
such
kind
of
a
prime
area
is
because
it
appears
to
be
available
and,
and
it
appears
to
be
within
an
area
that
would
provide
that
adequate
fill-in,
not
only
when
they
lose
the
silo
site,
but
also
for
future
growth
initiatives.
S
You
know
for
the
other
carriers
that
will
come
knocking
on
your
door,
so
you
know
we've
seen
some
of
the
data
about
T-Mobile
and
at
T.
This
is
this
is
a
pretty
hot
area,
and
so,
if
there's
not
that
much
land
and
not
that
much
that
many
options,
then
it
seems
like
that's
the
best
viable
option.
I
Mr
Valdez,
in
your
opinion,
especially
we
start
switching
to
5G
you're,
going
to
have
the
need
more
Towers.
Would
you
see
a
need
for
an
additional
tower
being
needed
to
the
West
closer
out
to
Highway
16,
even
with
this
new
tower,
if
it
were
to
go
in.
S
Yes,
I
see
some
of
the
future
development
plans
in
the
future
population.
It
seems
like
that's
kind
of
a
growing
area
to
the
West,
and
this
you
know
the
tower
density
out.
There
I
don't
think,
is
sufficient
to
meet.
You
know
some
of
the
capacity
and
or
coverage
demands
that
are
coming
up.
I
So
the
more
Towers,
even
with
this
other,
this
Tower
more
Towers,
would
be
needed,
particularly
to
the
West.
S
Yeah,
if,
if,
though,
if
the
forecasted
counts
for
residents
or
accurate
within
that
area,
it's
you're
definitely
going
to
need
some
more
coverage.
Okay,
thank
you.
Yep
go
ahead
problem.
A
A
The
person
who
filed
the
appeal
we're
going
to
ask
them
to
come
forward
and
and
they're
going
to
get
15
minutes
to
talk
about
their
reasons
for
filing
the
appeal,
and
then
the
original
applicant
will
get
15
minutes
to
talk
about
their
original
application
and
I've
got
Josh.
Leonard
is
the
person
that's
representing
the
applicant
and
then
I've
got
Brad
Bentley
I'm,
representing
the
people
that
filed
the
appeal.
Do
I
have
the
people
right,
okay
and
then,
after
those
two
parties
have
had
their
15
minutes.
A
Everybody
else
in
the
room
or
online
that
wants
to
talk,
gets
three
minutes
to
talk
and
so
we'll
go
through
that
process
and
then,
at
the
end,
we'll
go
ahead
and
ask
Mr
Leonard
to
provide
five
minutes
of
rebuttal
and
then
we'll
ask
the
person
that
filed
the
appeal,
Mr
Bentley,
to
provide
five
minutes
for
his
rebuttal.
So
there's
a
whole
whole
new
way
to
do
this.
So
thank
you
very
much
yeah.
A
With
a
scorecard
Mr,
Brantley
you're
welcome
to
come
forward
and
tell
us
your
reasons
for
your
appeal
and
thanks
for
for
being
with
us
today,
good.
T
Evening
my
pleasure
to
be
here,
thank
you
so
much.
My
name
is
Brad
Bentley
I
live
on
4176
West,
Morgan,
Creek
Court
in
Eagle
and
I'm,
actually
building
a
home
right
under
the
tower
so
just
down
the
street.
So
I
live
here
now
and
I'm
even
more
interest
in
terms
of
what
we
do
in
the
development
of
Ada
County.
First
I
want
to
say
thank
you
for
hearing
this
I
appreciate
the
process
and
I
know
you
guys
have
a
tough
role
being
good
stewards
of
our
citizens
and
how
we
build
out
infrastructure.
T
I
also
want
you
to
know:
I'm
pro-infructure
I
spend
18
years
at
DirecTV
and
then
ATT
as
the
chief
marketing
officer
building
out.
You
know,
infrastructure
and
acquiring
customers
and
fiber
and
5G
and
so
I
know
the
importance
of
good
infrastructure.
I
also
know
the
importance
of
well-planned
infrastructure
and
I.
Think
that's.
What
I
want
to
share
with
you
tonight
is
that
to
make
sure
that
we're
doing
well
planned.
So
if
you
go
to
the
next
slide,
the
burden
of
proof
is
on
the
applicant.
T
We've
been
almost
a
year
at
this
without
being
able
to
provide
proper
evidence
that
there
is
any
significant
Gap
in
coverage.
I'll
walk
you
through
Mr
valdez's,
first
analysis,
as
well
as
the
second
analysis,
in
both
case
society
and
there's
not
enough
evidence
to
prove
that
there
really
is
a
gap
in
coverage.
You'll
see
a
bunch
of
data
from
the
applicant,
a
bunch
of
tables
and
a
bunch
of
Reds,
but
a
lot
of
cases.
It's
not
sufficient.
True
drive
time
data
proving
that
there's
significant
Gap
coverage.
T
The
second
is
the
guy
that
must
provide
this
evidence
as
an
alternative
site
and
Mr
birds.
As
you
ask
questions
about
BLM
they
just
simply
it
doesn't
work.
Well,
we
live
in
the
area.
I
live
in
rural,
that's
not
the
case.
Blm
is
just
down
the
road
less
than
a
mile.
It's
actually
as
close
to
the
current
Tower
is
where
they're
proposing
and
the
top
Opera
Topography
is
very
similar.
Lastly,
it's
not
about.
Let's
say
it's
drop
calls
it's
we're
not
going
to
be
able
to
call
9-1-1,
none
of
that's
the
truth.
T
When
we
show
even
the
propagation
Maps
which
are
just
colorful
Maps,
you
still
have
plenty
of
coverage
in
there
area
with
or
without
the
tower.
This
is
really
about
retaining
a
revenue
stream
by
any
means
possible,
not
just
here
at
this
Tower,
but
we're
a
commissioner.
What
which
drum
was
asking
questions
potentially
another
tower
on
the
west,
where
actually
a
lot
of
the
development
is
occurring?
That's
where
the
Gap
is
so.
If
you
turn
to
the
next
slide,
you
guys
are
familiar
with
this.
There's
two
burdens
of
proof.
T
T
But
more
than
that
we
did
our
own
test.
If
you
go
to
the
next
slide,
I
went
to
each
it's
hard
to
see,
maybe
in
this,
but
all
I
think
there's
six
or
seven
markers
did
a
test
of
what
the
actual
coverage
was
not
just
Verizon,
which
is
the
only
carrier
on
the
current
Silo,
but
also
ATT
and
T-Mobile.
T
On
the
next
slide,
we
recorded
each
of
those
videos,
don't
want
to
waste
your
time
and
playing
each
of
them,
but
we
said:
can
you
hear
us
I,
hear
you're,
fine,
no
gapping
coverage
here
and
go
to
the
next
slide
and
all
eight
locations,
as
you
see
there
next
slide.
T
This
is
the
propagation
map
that
they
submitted
back
in
March
for
the
first
time.
What
they
wanted
to
show
is
here's
what
happens
when
we
have
no
coverage
or
when
we
remove
the
Verizon
tower
at
The
Silo
and
the
green
is
in
building
strength,
which,
of
course,
this
is
ruled.
There's
not
a
lot
of
big
high-rise
buildings.
These
are
just
small
houses.
Yellow
is
that
you
have
Drive
capability
in
red,
is
walking
around
and
so
restriction.
T
Around
significant
gap
of
coverage
is
when
you're
in
red
or
no
red
you've
got
plenty
and
what
they
show
on
the
next
slide
is
well.
This
is
what
we
would
get
if
we
added
the
tower.
Well,
what
I
circled
in
my
own
red
is
where
you
really
gain
it's
green
in
building
coverage.
Well,
I
live
there,
there's
a
probably
30
homes
in
that
area
and
I'm
in
my
subdivision
and
my
neighbors,
who
are
here
they're
about
12
of
them
and
we
actually
have
fiber
optics.
T
So
we
don't
even
need
in-home
building
coverage
and
so
we're
going
through.
You
know,
looking
at
adding
a
tower
mind,
you
weigh
100
foot
Tower
and
why
100
feet
when
the
current
Silo
down
the
road
is
60
feet?
Well,
this
top
hibography
is
25
feet
lower
and
so
they're
having
to
put
a
bigger
Tower
and
what
is
a
residential
area.
It
just
doesn't
make
sense.
T
If
you
go
to
the
next
slide,
even
the
applicant
acknowledged,
we
would
like
to
have
it
a
little
further
west,
as
you
guys,
if
you
know
the
area
a
lot
of
development
happening
out
by
16.,
not
nearly
as
much
on
Linder
or
where
there's
a
rural
area.
I
I
have
a
video
I'm
not
going
to
waste
our
time,
but
commissioner
Ralph
said
I
have
reservations
about
just
the
necessity
of
this
site
and
this
application
in
the
eighth
video
there's
not
a
lot
of
improved
coverage
to
the
West.
T
It's
all
in
the
north,
where
no
one
lives,
as
a
commissioner
Wickstrom
pointed
out,
and
the
applicant's
response
is
well
it's
better
to
have
something
than
nothing.
Well,
I,
don't
know!
If
that's
the
way
we
should
plan,
our
infrastructure
is
just
better
to
have
something
than
nothing,
particularly
when
I
also
met
with
the
lawyer
Josh
and
offered
alternative
locations
where
others
were
going
to
buy
a
piece
of
property
that
was
adjacent
to
the
current
Silo
further
west,
and
they
had
no
interest
in
evaluating
that.
T
They
just
said
it
wouldn't
work
kind
of
like
the
BLM
site.
It's
not
going
to
work.
No
data
just
not
going
to
work
and
the
reality
is
they
didn't
want
to
start
the
process
over
again.
Why?
Because
they
need
the
revenue
streams
to
continue.
Sadly,
I
know
what
it's
like
I'm
from
that
industry.
I
understand
it,
but
that's
as
as
a
citizen
of
this
County
and
as
Commissioners,
we
have
to
protect
ourselves
against
that
next
slide.
T
I
was
also
interesting
in
Aid.
They
said
that
the
primary
side
objective-
this
is
their
slide.
Not
mine,
is
that
intermax
network
is
adding
a
wireless
ISP
service,
so
it
wasn't
even
that
we
were
losing
Verizon
and
we
got
to
replace
it
because
if
Verizon
goes
down,
it's
like
intermax
is
their
parent
company
are
launching
their
own
ISP
service.
T
So
I
just
found
that
interesting
and
then
secondly,
well
Verizon
will
be
the
second
tenant
to
the
site
later
and
further
things
is
we
got,
everyone
wants
to
be,
and
we've
got
these
letter
of
intents,
and
and
that's
not
the
point,
the
point
is:
there's
no
Gap
in
coverage
and
I
just
find
it
interesting.
The
primary
purpose
is
for
their
own
wireless
service,
not
one
of
the
four
carriers
that
you'd
expect
next
site.
T
This
is
to
the
right.
This
is
their
slide.
That's
the
current
Tower!
You
can
see
how
tall
it
is.
It's
just
got
one
set
of
antennas.
There's
a
development
going
there.
That's
why
it's
being
torn
down
the
replacement.
You
can
see
the
size
over
100
feet
with
their
own
inner
Max
being
the
fourth
Tower
with
18
T
Mobile.
T
This
is
a
beast
of
a
tower
in
a
residential
Community,
so
this
is
beyond
absurd
and
not
necessary
where,
if
you
drove
out
there,
there's
nothing
around
now
all
16
bigger
development,
but
are
we
going
to
do
this
twice
next
slide?
T
The
second
is,
is
just
proving
that
prices,
sufficient
evidences
and
not
alternative
sites
go
to
the
next
slide.
Blm
has
a
very
specific
process
where
you
file
an
application.
That's
how
you
find
out.
Did
they
file
an
application?
No,
we
learned
that
from
previous
hearings.
They
sent
the
letter.
That's
the
attempt
of
these.
We
send
out
a
bunch
of
letters
and
guess
who
answers
the
letter.
No
one
answers
the
letter.
T
They
said
well
tried
everybody
and
that's
not
even
their
own
process,
the
processes
you
apply
for
it,
and
then
you
do
the
proper
site
work
which
they
did
not
do
in
Mr.
Valdez
confirm
next
slide,
and
this
just
shows
where
the
existing
site
is
the
the
bottom
left
the
proposed
it's
the
bottom
right,
the
BLM
and
right
where
it
says
existing
site
right
about
the
E
just
right
on
Beacon
Light.
That
was
the
alternative
property
on
Hartley.
T
That
I
was
actually
under
contract
to
buy,
but
I
could
never
confirm
that
they
would
be
interested
in
and
why
I
was
pushing.
That
is
because
it's
further
west,
as
they
said
they
would
need
it
for
the
West
I,
don't
know
if
they
still
might
have
needed
one
on
16,
but
they
don't
need
one
where
they
currently
have.
It
was
just
the
easiest
and
fastest
way
to
get
something
done
next
slide.
T
This
is
the
photo
they
provided
around
hey.
You
could
barely
see
the
tower
it's
going
to
blend
into
the
blend
into
the
telephone,
poles
that
are
seven
feet
tall,
and
this
is
a
joke
of
a
picture.
If
you
go
to
the
next
slide,
this
is
a
picture
of
Thomas
and
Jordan's
front
porch
that
it
took,
and
you
can
see
the
poles
there,
but
when
you
superimpose
what
100
foot
Tower
really
looks
like
and
you've
seen
these.
It
looks
like
this
from
their
front
porch
and
that's
just
crazy
in
a
residential
rural
area.
T
It's
absolutely
absurd
and
I
put
the
markers
it
will
blend
right
into
the
telephone
poles
and
they
show
a
one
antenna.
This
is
a
four
antenna
which,
by
the
way,
four
and
ten
is
probably
the
right
thing,
so
you
have
to
do
a
bunch
of
a
bunch
of
towers,
but
let's
be
really
smart
about
where
we
stick.
Those
because
that's
a
real
issue
for
our
neighbors
is
they
can
talk
about
it.
They
have
a
small
business
of
organic
farms
that
sits
right
underneath
where
this
Tower
is
being
proposed.
T
Next
slide,
Valdez
I'm
going
to
read
this
because
I
think
it's
really
important.
This
was
after
his
first
after
the
county
said:
hey
we
need
to
hear
from
a
professional
and
I.
You
could
read
the
whole
thing,
but
the
executive
summary
is
after
reviewing
this
and
highlighted
reviewing
the
position
of
the
applicants
and
the
Appellate
I
believe
it
comes
down
to
a
lack
of
strong
evidence
on
in
all
bold,
why
the
new
tower
location
is
required.
Collecting
signal
levels
at
various
points
in
the
area
does
not
provide
enough
information
about
the
overall
Wireless
environment.
T
A
comprehensive
drive
test
is
needed.
The
second
to
last
is
both
of
which
could
be
solved
clearly
with
concise
data
which
they
didn't
provide,
and
then,
lastly,
I
believe
carriers
other
than
Verizon
could
have
a
bigger
need,
but
covering
the
west
of
eagle
and
it's
highly
probable
that
other
carriers
will
also
submit
applications
to
be
built
in
another
area.
So
this
just
affirms
that
this
is
not
the
best
place,
nor
did
they
do
proper
due
diligence
that
was
in
August
right.
The
saga
continues.
Go
to
the
next
slide.
T
I
also
find
it
interesting
that
their
recommendation
that
they
highlighted
for
you
is
the
top
part
of
Ron
valdez's,
and
you
can
read
that
which
it
says:
Hey,
more
growth
equals
more
towers
and
ultimately
we're
going
to
need
to
do
that.
All
that's
true,
but
if
you
go
to
the
next
slide
and
of
course
the
applicant
says,
we
highly
agree
with
the
analysis.
This
is
actually
what
Ron
Valdez
said.
His
recommendation
is
that
they
need
to
provide
a
comprehensive
drive
test
data.
We
have
the
Apple
provide
analysis
of
current
and
forecasted
subscribers.
T
I
won't
lead
all
of
it,
but
they
needed
a
lot
more
and
in
the
hearing
the
commissioner
and
I'll
push
the
video
here
in
a
second
made.
The
applicant
read
all
the
things
that
you
failed
to
do
or
run
Valdez.
Did
they
do
this?
Did
they
do
this?
Did
they
give
you
an
update?
They
said
no,
no,
no,
no!
T
T
While
we
play
that
I
just
said,
I
want
to
waste
time.
I'll
just
finish
up
on
my
last
thing,
and
maybe
we
get
the
audio
to
work.
The
paraphrasing
is,
did
you
do
this?
Did
you
do
this,
based
on
the
summer,
I
didn't
what
the
applicant
did
in
the
11th
hours
hey
last
night,
we
ran
new
data
last
night
we
ran
the
new
data
and
that
data
says
that
there's
an
issue.
T
It's
drive
time
data
and-
and
they
asked
when
was
11
o'clock
last
night,
like
literally
the
night
which
was
beyond
cut
off,
and
so
that's
why
the
delay
is
like
they
wanted
to
submit
that
it's
like
well,
let's
send
that
data
back
to
Ron
Valdez
and
see
what
he
thinks.
So,
if
you
go
to
the
next
slide,
was
it
working
now.
T
Slide
all
right,
I'll
read
the
next
slide
and
then
we
can
play
the
video
or
more.
Is
this
the
one
one
more
right
here
back
a
slide,
excellent
yeah?
This
was
the
second
announced
in
October.
He
says
again,
these
are
not
continuous
sample
points
along
designated
routes,
but
we're
fixed
tests
of
various
locations
because
of
the
limit.
T
Because
of
the
limit
number
of
samples
of
the
given
there
there's
a
wide
variability
of
uncertainty
in
the
areas
where
testing
is
not
concluded,
and
it
goes
on
to
say,
however
more
you
know
they
need
to
do
pre,
concise.
So
even
the
11th
hour
now
we've
got
the
answer.
I'm
sure
today
there's
a
whole
new
set
of
data
with
a
new
answer.
T
My
question
is
like
how
many
third-party
analysts
are
we
going
to
go
through
and
I'm,
not
even
Mr
Valdez
says:
look
we're
going
to
need
something
at
some
point
in
time,
but
I'm
not
convinced
this
is
the
right
spot.
They
haven't
provided
the
right
data,
and
so,
if
it
does
play
now
we're
good.
T
All
the
working
audit,
my
conclusion-
is:
there's
no
substantial
written
evidence
provided
to
support
the
claim
of
significant
Captain
coverage,
which
was
validated
on
two
occasions
by
a
third
party
expert
in
valve
Technologies
appointed
by
our
own
County
Commissioners.
The
city
of
eagle
has
requested
that
Ada
County
deny
this
application
four
to
zero,
that
this
does
not
belong
in
a
residential
Community.
As
you
know,
in
the
area
a
lot
of
those
are
being
annexed
in
the
eagle,
but
because
it
is
a
residential,
but
you
don't
have
to
be
in
the
city
of
Eagle.
T
You
could
be
the
commissioners
of
Ada
County
to
also
know
that
that
doesn't
belong
on
a
residential
Road
in
a
rural
area
like
Beacon
Light,
better
than
nothing
is
not
how
we
want
to
plan
a
community.
So
my
ask
is
to
Die
the
application
and
support
the
appeal
that
they've
not
provided
enough
written
enough
proof
that
this
is
the
right
tower,
nor
proof
that
there
are
alternative
sites
that
are
in
the
best
interest
of
our
community.
P
T
A
I
just
want
to
clarify
when
you
this
clip
that
we
didn't
see.
We
said
the
Commissioners
moved
to
approve
it,
and
then
was
that,
like
the
approve
of
the
of
the
appeal.
T
U
T
P
T
Is
to
do
the
propagation
maps,
and
but
the
reality
is,
is
that
we
need
to
prove
that
this
world
Gap
in
coverage
and
so
they'll
say
that
this
is
outside
of
the
the
jurisdiction
Ada
County
we're
creating
new
rules,
which
is
I,
don't
think
it's
outside
of
our
process
at
all.
I
thought
that
was
important
for
you
to
hear
that
point
of
view.
So
that's
why
I
wanted
to
play
the
clip
I
think
we
can
do
it
now.
Okay,
we'll
give
it
three
third
times
the
charm.
W
W
Know,
balancing
out
yeah,
community
and
balancing
act
for
pnz
and
for
us
so
I
think
this
was
a
really
great
step
in
the
right
direction:
hiring
outside
consultants
and
a
neutral
consultant
to
really
kind
of
take
a
look
and
help
us
analyze.
What
we're
looking
at
and
I
I,
don't
think
that
by
incorporating
any
recommendations
from
the
third
party
changes
or
warrants
changing
our
code,
I
think
this
is
all
in
code.
W
It's
just
up
to
this
board
to
determine
what
is
adequate
and
verifiable
data
or
enough
data
or
enough
analysis
or
enough
research
for
us
to
make
a
decision.
So
I
don't
buy
the
argument
that
this
would
be
changing.
Midstream
on
the
original
applicant
here,
I
I
think
that
the
applicant
can
always
come
back
and
apply
again
with
the
original
data
and
Analysis
that
was
given
here
tonight
and
the
reason
I
was
so
thorough
and
going
through
those
recommendations.
W
So
I'd
be
I'd,
be
inclined
to
to
approve
the
the
appellance
appeal
here
and
overturn
the
planning
Zone's
decision,
so
that's
kind
of
where
I'm
headed
with
all
of
this
and
again
they
can
always
come
back
now.
Knowing
that
that
this
board
is
asking
has
been
asking
for
more
information,
better
information,
more
thorough
information,
I
think
this
sets
the
standard
and
sets
the
protocol
that
we've
been
trying
to
get
at
for
the
last
two
years.
So
that's
kind
of
the
direction
I'm
headed.
T
T
You
can
read
it
in
there
and
so
now,
after
800
pages
of
information,
two
third-party
analyst
reviews
I
think
the
the
conclusion
is
clear:
I'm
also
mindful
of
I,
don't
know
about
shot
clocks
and
that
kind
of
stuff,
but
you
know
I
do
think
it's
important
that
we
as
a
body
can
make
a
decision,
because
you
know
I
don't
want
to
not
do
the
right
thing
for
the
community
because
we
ran
out
of
time,
and
so
my
appeal
is
that
we
would
deny
the
applicant
that
we
may
need
a
tower
at
some
point.
I
Thank
you,
madam
chair
Mr,
Bentley
Bentley.
So
are
you
said
you
have
fiber
optic
in
your
area,
but
were
you
willing
to
accept
that
if
there
is
no
tower
out
in
your
area,
the
closest
Verizon
tower
would
be
located,
Eagle,
High,
School
or
tuck
behind
a
mountain
off
a
seven
off
of
16?
Is
that
is
it
good
for
your.
T
Community,
it's
good
for
our
community,
it
you
have,
as
you
can
see,
even
on
their
own
propagation
Maps,
which
aren't
the
right
way
to
show
it.
But
you
have
in
vehicle
coverage,
you
have
regular
coverage
and-
and
it's
not
saying
that
you
wouldn't
have
been
building
strength.
T
It
may
not
be
as
strong
as
you
may
like,
but
though
that
in
building
strength
are
made
for
major
metros
when
you're
in
like
buildings,
not
when
you're
in
your
house
or
your
barn,
and
so
that,
coupled
with
you
know,
houses
in
that
area
do
have
fiber
optics
you'll
hear
from
other
people,
but
in
a
rural
area
the
citizens.
They
don't
want
that.
There's
not,
as
you
won't
find
a
citizen
in
that
area
that
wants
that
Tower
there
and
I
think
you
know
that
too.
T
You
can
see
it
in
the
simulation
maps
that
make
it
sound
like
it's
a
puny
you've
drive
by
them.
You
see
them
they're,
they're
painful,
to
look
at
and
so
the
coverage
ironically
and
sadly,
the
coverage
is
way
better.
We
have
here
than
I've
ever
had
in
my
career
and
I've
lived
both
in
Los
Angeles
and
New
York.
We
actually
have
exceptional
coverage
out
there
and
losing
that
small
tower
on
Verizon
is
not
the
concern.
T
E
T
We
had
no
ability
to
control
that,
so
we
can
just
look
at
that.
Att,
T-Mobile
and
Verizon.
Had
it
with
the
tower
and
to
be
clear,
was
an
official
drive
time,
because
that's
what
Ram
Valdez
is
asking
and
the
right
way
to
do
it.
That
requires
very
expensive
technology.
We
had
a
reader
where
we
could
do
points
of
the
eight
different
points
and
get
a
snapshot.
T
A
true
drive
time
data
that
has
been
yet
to
be
done
or
shown,
and
that's
why
Mr
Bob
does
analysis
State
you
need
continuous,
and
so
all
they
changed
their
maps
for
maps
of
big
pictures
to
maps
of
the
roads
and
then
put
yet
red,
yellow
green.
That
appears
like
it,
but
they
were
still
lacking.
True
drive
time
analysis,
but
that's
expensive
solution.
E
Okay,
so
just
just
I
just
for
clarity,
when
you
say
you
have
excellent
coverage,
it's
under
the
assumption
that
the
current
tower
system,
if
that
demolished
Tower,
that's
supposed
to
go
down
that
Verizon
tower
goes
down.
There
is
a
concern
of
actual
diminished
without
a
replacement.
Tower,
so
I
mean
I'm
just
trying
to
con
sure.
F
T
And
I'm
a
Verizon
Customer,
sadly,
I'd
change
the
dark
force
after
18
years
of
18t,
but
that's
for
personal
reasons.
But
to
answer
your
question:
there
is
a
statement
that
that
the
decimal
goes
down,
but
it's
still
in
fair
condition.
It's
not
poor!
So
I
think
it
was
like
a
10
Mr
Valdez
said
they
didn't
do
a
full
or
what
percentage
coverage
and
what
I
can't
remember
the
technical
term
he
used,
but
that's
not
like
it
goes
dark.
There's
still
coverage,
as
Mr
Wickstrom
said
from
the
eagle,
Tower
and
other
Towers.
T
So
it's
it's
not
like
you're
driving
and
the
coverage
is,
is
going
to
leave.
There
may
be
concern
in
dense
in
in
home,
but
you
can
ask
the
applicant
about
that
and
that's
why
Ron
Valdez
said
he'd
need
more
data
to
confirm
that
I'm
sure
it
can
be
ran.
It
just
was
not
provided.
Okay,.
A
P
B
B
Yeah
I
can
also
give
you
my
name
Joshua
Leonard
of
Clark
Wardle,
we're
right
across
the
front
street
at
I.
Think
it's
251,
Front
Street
Suite
310
here
here
in
Boise.
B
Okay,
let's
get
let's
get
started:
I'm
I'm,
gonna,
really
cruise
through
some
of
these
slides,
because
Leon
already
covered
them.
Let's
go
ahead
and
next
slide,
just
a
really
quick
overview
of
an
outline
of
where
we're
going
to
go.
What
we're
going
to
talk
about
next
slide,
in
fact,
at
a
glance
Leon
covered
this
really
well,
and
it's
as
Mr
Bentley,
said
800
pages
in
in
the
record
of
a
fact
about
this.
We
can
move
on
next
slide.
B
Please
the
site
pictured
there
in,
in
a
light,
blue
next
slide
the
site
plan
coming
in
off
the
main
driveway
and
then
an
access
road
to
reach
the
site.
The
tower
side
next
slide,
the
100
foot,
monopole
Tower
next
slide
the
existing
Silo
site
that
we've
thought
you've
heard
about
is
being
removed.
It's
approximately
that's!
Well,
it's
333
feet,
it's
not
approximately,
but
that
it's
going
away.
B
It's
they're
on
Verizon
is
on
a
month
to
month,
holdover
tendency
there
they
can
be
asked
or
required
to
remove
their
antenna
at
any
time
with
just
30
days.
Written
notice
next
slide.
B
Existing
Silo
site-
this
is
a
depiction
that
we
pulled
from
the
some
of
the
plans
that
were
in
in
public
records.
Just
to
give
you
an
idea
of
of
what
it
looks
like.
That's,
not
a
great
representation
of
what
it
looks
like
so
we've
also
pulled
a
picture
next
slide
there.
It
is
it's
it's
not
in
great
shape,
that's
from
Google
Earth,
so
it's
outdated
by
about
a
year.
I
believe
you
can
see
it
there
in
the
center
next
slide.
B
To
show
you
a
little
bit
about
the
height
and
where
we're
at
in
height,
the
existing
top
of
the
of
the
silo
is
60
feet
or
approximately
60
feet.
The
lowest
Center
of
antennas
on
the
proposed
Tower
is
at
66
feet.
It's
it's
about
six
feet
taller
the
reason
for
100
feet
isn't
even
necessarily
our
choice.
Ada
County
code
requires
us.
B
If
we're
going
to
be
a
certain
height,
we
have
to
have
multiple
locations
for
teffort
for
antennas,
and
they
need
about
10
feet
of
space
between
Center
to
Center,
so
they
don't
interfere
with
each
other
in
terms
of
of
of
transmission
next
slide,
please
so
why
it's
to
replace
the
server
service?
That's
currently
provided
by
antennas
on
that
Silo
site
and
after
that
site
goes
offline.
Unless
this
site's
approved
to
replace
it
significant
cover
issues.
Poor
in
building
wireless
coverage
will
result
one
of
the
things
that
I
wanted
to
correct.
B
Very
few
people
use
a
cell
phone
Outdoors
when
they're
just
they
have
nobody
wants
to
have
to
go
into
their
backyard,
to
talk
on
their
cell
phone
you
in
order
to
have
good
coverage
and
satisfactory
coverage
where
client
custom,
Wireless
customers
aren't
calling
and
complaining.
It's
got
to
be
able
to
penetrate
through
houses.
It's
got
to
be
able
to
penetrate
through
vehicles,
and
so
red
is
not
sufficient.
Yellow
is
not
even
sufficient.
B
It's
got
to
be
in
building
coverage,
otherwise
it's
it's
not
considered
sufficient
and
then
the
remaining
towers,
as
as
mentioned
by
commissioner
Wickstrom,
of
our
significant
our
significant
distance
once
this
goes
offline
next
slide,
as
I
alluded
to
nothing,
makes
a
wireless
customer
more
upset
than
having
coverage
and
losing
it
and
that's
what
would
happen
at
this
location
next
slide.
B
Mr
Bentley
also
mentioned
that
we're
going
to
tell
you
that
that
we
weren't
required
to
provide
drive
test,
he's
right,
we're
going
to
tell
you
that
in
Ada
County
code,
which
is
the
standard,
it
says
exactly
propagation
charts
to
to
prove
the
Gap
in
coverage
propagation
charts
showing
existing
and
proposed
transmission
coverage
at
the
subject
site.
That's
what
we
provided
initially
Mr
Valdez
is
Right.
Drive
testing
is
better,
which
is
why
we
endeavored
we
acquired
the
expensive
equipment.
B
That's
required
to
do
what
he
suggested
and
went
out
and
and
Mr
Bentley
tried
to
frame
that
as
a
bad
thing
that
we
went
out
and
provided
the
testing
that
they
asked
for.
It's
not
we've
not
since
done
more
testing,
to
ensure
to
double
check,
to
make
sure
that
we
need
this
site
and
and
I
can
tell
you
cell
tower
companies
or
it's
not
Tower
companies,
but
cellular
carriers,
don't
build,
don't
put
antennas,
don't
spend
tens
hundreds
of
thousands
of
dollars
to
put
antennas
where
they
don't
where
they
don't
need
to
add
coverage.
B
It's
a
business
decision
for
them,
but
they
would
prefer
to
have
fewer
rather
than
more.
That
speaks
to
the
the
need
here,
I'm
going
to
give
let
Steve
Kennedy
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
the
testing
that
we
did
perform.
U
Okay
next
slide
Stephen
Kennedy
11142
Northwest,
165th,
Drive,
Suite,
343,
Surprise,
Arizona
I
have
33
years
experience
in
Wireless,
RF
engineering,
I
started
in
Wireless
in
the
late
80s
I
have
designed
sites
from
Greenfield
networks
where
there
was
nothing
there
and
we
built
it
as
well
as
modifying
existing
sites,
as
well
as
some
satellite,
with
the
first
voice
over
IP
satellite
Network
I've
designed
sites
from
Florida
up
to
Washington
I've
designed
sites
from
San
Diego
up
to
Portland
Maine
I
have
done
thousands
of
sites
across
the
United
States.
U
To
talk
about
once
again
reaffirm
the
colors
neg85
dbm
is
in
building.
So
that's
a
95
probability
that
we're
going
to
provide
service
for
a
mobile
inside
a
building.
We
talk
about
inside
a
building
we're
talking
about
inside
houses
inside
smaller
buildings.
You
get
downtown.
You
get
high
rises,
lots
of
Steel
lots
of
glass
lots
of
lead
glass.
That
number
is
actually
neg
75.
So
it's
a
little
hotter.
So
in
building
coverage
is
negative.
Five
in
vehicle
coverage
right,
it's
different!
So
it's
not
bricks
and
sticks.
It's
not
construction!
U
It's
a
steel
box
with
Windows,
don't
need
as
much
service
in
there
or
don't
need
as
much
radio
signal
to
get
get
coverage.
An
egg
95
dbm
on
street
I'm
out
I'm
at
the
golf
course
I'm
a
hole.
Eight
I
can
make
a
phone
call.
I've
got
at
least
an
egg
106
or
red
anything
below
neg
106
lick
your
finger
and
hope
for
the
best
right
next
slide.
U
All
right.
So
we
have
the
coverage
site
after
The
Silo
is
removed.
We
covered
with
proposed
site
the
appellant
used,
an
old
propagation
model
from
I.
Think
the
initial
application
I
went
in
and
spoke
with
the
Verizon
RF
engineer.
We
went
and
did
some
redesigns,
we
changed
antenna
models
and
we
changed
directions
and
we
we
tried
to
smooth
out
and
get
more
coverage
to
the
East
and
to
the
West
instead
of
the
north,
so
I
think
the
appellant's
a
little
bit
behind
the
times
next
slide
all
right.
U
This
is
a
zoom
in
with
coverage
after
The
Silo
side
is
removed
and
the
coverage
with
the
proposed
site.
So
we
can
see
if
it's
the
same
Zoom,
that
the
new
site,
or
not
having
the
site
or
The
Silo
site
being
removed,
will
make
an
impact
in
service.
Mr
Valdez
in
the
last
hearing
spoke
about
common
sense,
common
sense.
It's
it's
pretty
simple,
but
common
sense
is
uncommon.
We
have
a
site,
it's
existing,
it
runs
it
works.
U
It
provides
service
to
mobiles
in
the
area
when
that
site
goes
away
and
it
will
service
will
be
degraded.
There
will
be
a
gap.
I
have
drive
test
data
to
prove
that
so
the
coverage
with
the
proposed
site,
we
will
continue
to
provide
service,
we'll
actually
provide
a
little
bit
more
to
the
East
and
a
little
bit
more
to
the
West,
because
the
intense
system
design
changes
next
slide.
U
The
consultant
in
green,
looking
at
the
map
below
you
can
see,
The
Silo
site
is
removed
and
the
new
site
on
Beacon
Light
is
not
built.
There
will
be
a
big
void
in
the
northern
area
of
the
map.
Look
at
the
bottom
part
in
green.
A
new
site
will
be
needed
in
this
area
to
provide
adequate
wireless
service.
So
your
own
consultant
said
we
need
the
site
next
slide.
U
All
right,
it
was
called
for
drive
test
recommended
by
console
Consulting
a
comprehensive
drive
test
to
be
along
major
roadways.
Areas
needs
to
be
conducted.
Okay,
we
did
it
next
slide.
U
U
Okay,
ponies
have
already
turned
turning
the
Verizon
site
should
be
fatal.
Opponents
have
argued
that
Verizon
not
turning
off
its
existing
silosite
for
testing
should
be
fatal
to
our
cu-pap
application.
We
did
have
it
done.
I
have
never
seen
a
wireless
carrier.
Take
a
site
out
of
service
for
something
of
this
nature.
Usually
it's
just
an
outage.
I
can
sure
Mr
Valdez
can
talk
about.
They
don't
just
willingly
take
sites
out
of
service
when
he
worked
at
Cricket.
This
is
not
something
that's
normal.
This
is
this
is
above
and
beyond.
U
So
when
we
did
that
I
had
the
fixed,
fixed
system
again
and
I
showed
with
this
with
it
on
air
versus
off
air.
So
we
can
see
that
if
we
have
excellent,
good,
fair
and
poor
in
the
rsrp
levels,
you
can
see
a
bunch
of
more
levels
that
show
indoor
service
on
the
left
than
you
see
on
the
right.
So
site
goes
off.
The
air
coverage
is
negatively
impacted
next
slide.
U
Okay
from
the
county
recipient
Consultants
recent
report,
sample
location
showed
a
10
DB
average
reduction
in
Verizon
rsrp
a
10
times
drop
and
usable
LTE
signal
strength,
10
times
worse,
we're
straight
from
your
consultant.
Next
slide.
U
Okay
conducted
another
drive
test
on
September
28th.
This
was
even
more
comprehensive,
came
back
with
more
data
showing
same
thing.
We're
going
to
have
a
decrease
in
coverage,
decrease
in
service
next
slide
all
right.
So
this
was
the
September
28th
Drive
data
I'll
be
able
to
talk
to
I,
can
talk
to
that,
but
I'd
like
to
to
continue
on
and
talk
to
the
October
12th
day
next
slide.
U
This
is
October
12th.
So
what
happened
at
1am
in
the
morning?
He
was
very
tired:
Verizon
took
carriers
out
of
service,
I
drove
the
area
and
they
took
the
mid-band
cares,
which
were
the
1900,
megahertz
and
2100.
Megahertz
cares
out
of
service
I
drove
before
got
what's
existing.
They
shut
those
down,
I
drove
after
looking
for
the
same
things,
to
see
the
change
right.
So
the
site
came
off
the
air
I
drove
test,
then,
at
the
end
of
that
they
put
those
mid-band
channels
back
in
service
and
they
took
the
low
band
channel.
U
The
700
megahertz
channel,
the
lowest
frequency
Verizon.
Has
they
pulled
that
out
of
service
and
then
I
drove
again
same
area.
Now
it
was
one
o'clock
in
the
morning.
I
may
have
made
a
few
wrong
turns
here
and
there,
but
it's
pretty
much
the
same
Drive
data,
so
we're
gonna
have
a
little
bit
of
a
difference.
Next
slide.
U
Okay,
so
I
agree
with
Mr
Valdez
that
at
751
megahertz
this
is
the
scanner
data
with
the
current
site
being
on
air.
So
this
is
the
coverage
being
provided.
We
show
a
lot
of
green
right,
so
we
show
a
lot
of
indoor
service
at
700
megahertz
in
and
around
this
area
right
when
we
take
the
next
slide,
that
is
without
the
site
being
on
air
at
the
751
megahertz,
not
a
lot
of
difference.
I
agree
with
Mr
Valdez
we're
not
going
to
see
a
major
difference
in
751
megahertz.
U
Only
problem
is
it's
only
a
10
megahertz
carrier
there's
a
bunch
of
other
carriers
in
mid
band.
So
we
have
to
worry
about
that
as
well.
Let's
go
to
the
next
slide,
so
here's
1967.5
megahertz,
Mr
Valdez,
ought
to
be
very
familiar
with
this
frequency
band.
So
we
can
see
up
to
the
Northeast
lots
of
yellow
lots
of
Reds
some
blues.
We
can
look
down
to
the
south
of
the
existing
site
in
the
Suburban
area.
U
We
can
see
lots
of
Reds
lots
of
yellows
right,
so
we
were
down
in
in
suburban
area
with
houses
and
we're
not
getting
indoor
service.
Okay,
so
that's
the
that's
with
the
current
site
at
1967.
If
we
go
to
the
next
slide,
significant
changes,
lots
more
red,
open
field,
lots
more
open
field,
lots
more,
stick
your
finger
up
in
the
air
and
hope
for
the
best,
especially
to
the
Northeast
side.
So
there
is
a
significant
difference,
especially
in
these
mid-band
frequencies
1967.5,
which
is
the
PCS
band,
there's
a
big
change.
U
We
move
up
to
AWS
Banner
2115
megahertz
is
the
channel,
so
we
can
look
and
see
where
the
green
is
so
that's
being
provided
by
the
existing
site.
So
that's
what's
going
on
up
there
with
that
site
live
now,
we
can
still
see
look
to
the
Northeast,
still
a
lot
of
yellows
and
reds
right.
So,
as
you
get
up
higher
in
frequency
sites,
don't
propagate
sites
don't
cover
as
large
an
area.
Okay,
it's
a
little
easier.
When
you
can
side
by
side
these,
you
can
get
a
really
good
idea.
U
U
Now
a
lot
more
hold
up
your
finger
and
hope
for
the
best,
a
lot
more
outdoor
a
lot
less
in
building.
So
what
you're
doing
is
you
are
making
a
significantly
negative
impact
to
coverage
when
this
site
comes
off
the
air
and
there's
no
replacement
site
next
slide
all
right?
This
is
another
AWS
channel.
It's
going
to
be
about
the
same
thing,
just
a
slightly
higher
frequency,
so
we
can
look
to
the
South.
U
We
see
a
lot
of
yellow
and
red,
which
is
in
vehicle
and
outdoor
same
thing
up
to
the
Northeast
in
vehicle
outdoor,
and
we
see
more
of
our
indoor
service
closer
to
the
site.
We
go.
The
next
slide
a
whole
lot
more
outdoor,
a
whole
lot,
more
hope
for
the
best
and
a
whole
lot
more
vehicle
and
a
whole
lot
less
indoor.
U
So
as
Mr
Valdez
stated,
sites
are
needed
out
here
they
are
I
mean
even
the
appellant
stated.
Sites
are
needed,
they're
going
to
continue
to
be
needed
because
there's
growth,
there's
building
just
like
infrastructure
for
building
houses.
You
need
electrical,
you
need
Plumbing,
you
need
sewer,
you
need
natural
gas
same
thing.
B
G
Mr
Leonard
I
remember
the
last
time
that
this
came
before
us
and
I
had
questioned
the
redactions
from
the
lease
agreement,
I'm
willing
to
take
it
as
a
given
that
you
do
need
the
additional
coverage,
but
what
I
want
to
find
out
is
whether
or
not
this
is
just
a
question
of
money
after
practicing
law
for
almost
40
years.
Almost
always
when
somebody
says
it's
not
just
about
the
money,
it's
always
about
the
money
and
so
help
me
out
here
who
drafted
the
lease
agreement.
B
I
B
G
B
I've
seen
I've
seen
really
long,
easements
and
I've
even
seen,
I,
don't
know
why
they
would
do
this,
but
because
it's
it's
an
occupation
of
the
land.
It's
a
possession
of
land
but
I've
even
seen
a
couple
of
licenses
right.
I
G
B
G
B
If,
if
one
of
the
site
acquisition
folks
is
online,
they
can
speak
to
that
I
wasn't
involved
in
those
conversations
at
all.
I
just
don't
know
the
answer
to
that.
G
Because,
because
what
I
see
from
the
appellant
is
that
their
objection
is
where
this
is
going
to
be
located
and
what
it
looks
like,
let
me
just
tell
you
again
my
experience
doing
real
estate
work.
We
had
a
real
estate
manager
very
good.
What
he
would
do
is
he
would
go
up
and
he'd
see
a
site
that
he
thought
would
work
well
for
the
project.
He'd
knock
on
the
door
and
he
would
ask
the
people.
Are
you
willing
to
give
us
an
option
to
buy
your
property
and
here's?
G
How
much
that
we
will
pay
you
for
it?
If
you
are
what
I'm
curious
about
is,
has
anybody
done
that
here?
Have
you
gone
to
other
neighborhoods
gone
up,
knocked
on
doors
and
said,
look
we'll
pay
you
and,
and
the
amount
might
be
a
hundred
thousand
a
year,
whatever
it
might
be.
I'm
just
I'm
trying
to
find
out.
Is
this
a
question
of
money.
B
First
I'll
say
flat
out,
of
course
it
is.
These
are
businesses.
It's
absolutely
is
a
question
of
money
not
with
regard
to
this
site,
or
this
particular
location,
because
Tower
companies
and
and
sell
sell
carriers
are
they
stay
within.
A
very
tight
range
is
my
understanding
of
what
they
of
what
they'll
pay
for
a
ground
lease
and
what
they'll
charge
for
a
co-location.
B
So
it's
it's
I
did
we
didn't
go
through
it
today
because
we
were
here
before,
but
there
was
an
exhaustive
process
to
get
here
in
terms
of
site
acquisition,
folks
going
out
and
doing
exactly
what
you
said
which
is
knocking
on
the
door.
It
doesn't
pencil
if
they
vary
too
far
from
that
from
their
range
of
what
they're
willing
to
offer
a
ground
landlord.
So
it
is
I
mean
there
is
a
financial
element.
There
absolutely
is,
but
they
offered
that
to
numerous
people
in
this
area
and
it's
in
our
it's
in
the
packet.
B
It's
in
the
I
apologize
it's
in
the
800
Pages,
but
the
potential
alternate
candidates
that
were
examined
and
the
results
we
got
back
are
absolutely.
We
did
that.
Okay,.
A
E
You
tell
me
first
off
how
many
cover
how
many
customers
would
lose
coverage
a
Verizon
specifically
because
the
Verizon
tower,
or
this
to
go
offline
in
no
existing
Tower
to
be
placed.
B
We
have
actually,
in
other
applications,
have
made
a
big
push
to
get
that
information
and
have
just
been
turned
down
flat,
which
is
why,
frankly,
it's
why
the
County's
regulation
says
a
propagation
map
and
then
we've
gone
further
and
done
the
drive
test
because
that's
what's
available
to
us.
That's
the
only
thing
that
we
can
use
to
prove
these
things.
U
The
data
for
consumers
is
federally
protected.
It's
called
customer
provided
Network
information.
We
have
an
annual
training
on
this
at
being
vendors
to
wireless
cares
and
such
nobody
gets
to
get
access
to
that.
It's
not
shared.
E
Then,
just
another
question
separate
in
the
potential
that
it
would
have
to
go
forward
in
a
different
requests.
E
Is
there
a
reason
and
I
know
they
kind
of
initially
talked
about
the
reason
for
it
being
a
hundred
foot
Tower,
but
the
when
we
heard
other
parties
talk
about
this.
They
said
this
is
only
going
to
be
25
feet
in
difference
in
elevation,
whereas
you're
seeking
like
40
additional
feet
and
I'm,
assuming
it's
coming
from
the
fact
of
that
distance
between
the
radio
band
generators.
Is
there
any
way
that
it
could
be
any
shorter
or
any
way
that
it
could
be
a
little
more
aesthetically
pleasing
from
an
engineering
standpoint.
U
Whenever
a
carriers
mount
on
Towers,
they
typically
have
different
center
lines.
Verizon
is
going
to
get
the
top,
let's
say
both
18t
and
T-Mobile.
We
have
letters,
that's
in
your
package
that
shows
there's
there's
a
desire
there
to
co-locate
and
then
the
fourth
would
be
dish.
They
have
to
be
physically
separated,
not
to
interfere
with
each
other.
So
we
have
to
look
at
what
the
existing
Silo
is.
At
least
the
lowest
guy
is
going
to
have
to
have
that
level.
B
And
to
just
really
quickly,
you
mentioned
if
it
were
to
go
forward
at
an
alternate
site,
we're
we're
here
with
this
kind
of
opposition,
no
matter
which
site
we
choose
and
to
Mr
Birch's
point
where
we
go
around
and
knock
those
doors
if
we
put
it
on.
If
we
then
move
to
a
different
parcel,
we
get
people
saying
that
we're
obscuring
a
view
of
the
Foothills.
If
we're
on
BLM
property,
we
get
folks
that
it
it.
It's
truly
is
the
folks
that
are
right
around
these
towers.
B
Don't
want
them
there,
and
that's
and
I
mean
it's.
It's
understandable,
I
understand
why
Mr
Bentley's
here
the
the
fact
is
that
Ada
County
allows
these
with
a
conditional
use
permit
in
this
Zone.
E
One
final
question,
because
you're
kind
of
talking
about
interference
with
the
visual
aesthetic
part
of
city
of
eagles
discussion
when
they
recommended
denial,
was
if
planning
and
zoning
and
the
commissions
all
approved
the
tower
to
go
in
that
they
wanted
to
be
camouflaged.
Is
that
a
potential
option
for
you
guys
or
is
that?
Are
we
just
looking
at
that
big
tower?
That's
silver
and
I'll.
Ask
the
same
question
to
the
of
course
to
the
other
party
I
just
what
their
feelings
on
the
camouflages
but
I'm
asking
yours.
If
it's
possible.
B
They're
more
expensive
with
that
said,
we've
said
before
the
board
before
and
we'll
say
again.
We
would
be
willing
to
do
that
in
this
location,
just
knowing
what
they
what
they
are
and
what
they
do.
My
recommendation
is
not
to
do
that,
because
a
big
there's,
no
native
100
foot
pine
tree
nearby
and
it's
it's
a
it's
hugely
wide,
as
opposed
to
a
narrow
tower
that
goes
up.
B
I
know:
Mr
Mr
Bentley
complained
about
the
the
photo
simulations
that
we
provided,
but
those
were
actually
done
by
an
engineer
and
are
to
scale
showing
how
narrow
the
tower
is.
It
doesn't
it.
It
impairs
the
view,
but
it
does
nothing
to
obscure
the
view.
A
monopine,
my
personal
opinion
would
obscure
the
Obscure
View.
D
D
B
It's
the
lack
of
certainty
and
need
the
need
for
a
another
site
to
move
to,
but
ultimately
it's
it's.
It
was
I
think
it
was
in
the
plotting
process
for
a
residential,
fairly,
dense
residential
subdivision,
and
you
saw
the
state
of
the
The
Silo.
L
V
B
D
My
question
and
I
may
have
misinterpreted
some
of
the
legality
of
the
new
the
proposed
site
in
this
plan,
and
if
this
property
that
the
cell
tower
will
be
on
is
annexed
by
the
city
of
Eagle,
what
happens
then
does
Eagle
then
have
the
authority
to
say
you
need
to
take
the
cell
tower
down
if
it's
being
rezoned
or
re-platted
to
something
else?
And
then,
if
so,
what's
your
contingency
plan.
P
And
then
we'll
let
a
lawyer
who
probably
would
make
money
off
of
this
answer
better,
but
if
it's
approved
in
the
county
and
annexed
into
the
city,
it's
essentially
has
grandfather
rides.
So
it's
allowed
to
be
there
if
Eagle,
if
someone
were
to
submit
a
proposal
to
redevelop
the
site
and
Eagle
reached
into
that
previous
approval
and
said
that
has
to
go
away,
I
think
that
would
be
takings
and
probably
not
great
for
them
legally.
P
A
In
this
583
page
packet
that
I
have,
when
you
come
back
for
the
rebuttal,
would
you
point
me
to
the
section
that
talks
about
the
extensive
work
that
you
did
yeah
to
evaluate
different
sites?
Yeah.
B
B
O
F
A
Got
a
whole
list
of
people
that
want
to
talk.
I've
got
several
on
WebEx
and
several
in
the
room.
I'm
gonna
defer
to
the
people
in
the
room.
First
that
are
on
the
list:
Vivian
foreign
you
come
up
and
give
us
your
name
and
address
and
give
us
your
three
minutes
feel
we'd
love
to
hear
you
from
you.
X
Thank
you,
madam
chair
and
Commissioners
Vivian
lockery
2211
North
19th
Street
in
Boise
I've
been
a
resident
of
Ada
County
for
28
years
before
you
before,
Mr
Leonard,
representing
the
applicant,
has
not
approved
it.
Verizon
has
a
significant
Gap
in
personal
Wireless
services.
At
this
this
location
in
the
March
10th
pnz
hearing.
X
Excuse
me.
It
was
noted
that
there's
not
a
lot
of
improved
coverage
to
the
West
Mr
Bentley
reiterated
that
yet
the
West
is
much
of
where
eagles
development
is
taking
place.
Mr
Kennedy
stated
that
it's
in
in
this
March
10th
hearing
and-
and
you
heard
him
yourself
it's
better
to
have
something
better
better
to
have
something
than
to
have
none.
During
the
commissioner's
discussion,
commissioner
Rausch
expressed
reservations
about
the
true
necessity
of
this
Tower
explaining
there
is
internet
and
wireless
and
homes,
as
we've
also
heard
from
Mr
Bentley
in
the
area.
X
So
the
only
time
you're
not
connected
to
the
internet
are
the
times
when
you're
in
your
car
or
out
in
your
backyard,
which,
by
that
their
map
seem
to
have
sufficient
coverage.
So
during
our
last
appeal,
you
heard
how
the
Commissioners
kicked
this
back
to
you
and
and
the
third
party
expert
validated
our
claims
that
Mr
Valdez
that
the
applicant
hasn't
provided
the
necessary
data
that
would
support
sufficient
Gap
and
coverage
or
significant
Gap
in
coverage.
X
I'm
hoping
this
is
an
opportunity
for
the
pnz
to
do
the
right
thing
and
deny
the
application,
which
is
what
should
have
happened
back
in
March.
So
when
the
Telecommunications
Act
was
adopted
back
in
96,
Congress
deliberately
preserved
local
governments,
the
general
authority
to
regulate,
regulate
the
placement
of
Wireless
facilities.
So
so
the
FCC
gives
you
local
authority
to
regulate
based
on
location
and
Aesthetics.
X
No
I
don't
have
concerns
or
anything
like
that.
Since
1996
local
governments
has
have
adopted
smart
planning,
Provisions
designed
to
avoid
adverse
impacts
against
property
owners,
minimize
the
number
of
towers
needed
to
provide
wireless
service
and
to
give
us
given
jurisdiction
and
also
make
sure
the
proposed
installation
is
both
necessary
and
reasonable.
X
The
Ada
County
Board
of
Commissioners
Groove
that
you
have
full
authority
to
deny
a
conditional
use
permit
and
it's
not
going
to
go
to
Federal
Court.
They
denied
one
in
Star
on.
N
A
A
We
appreciate
that
and
then
I
have
online
or
I've
got
a
Jason
Evans.
J
Y
Sure
Hank
Allen,
687
West,
fresh
Court
here
in
Eagle
and
I,
live
right
down
the
street
from
this
Tower
and
I
can't
stress
you
enough
location
matters
here
so
four
years
ago
we
kind
of
went
through
the
same
thing
and
there
was
a
tower
out
just
down
the
street
on
Beacon
Light.
It
was
off
of
Skyview
Drive,
where
they're
trying
to
put
a
tower
which,
which
a
federal
judge
actually
overturned
the
commissions
decision
to
to
approve
an
appeal
they
put
it
in
and
within
a
week
of
the
tower
being
turned
on.
Y
I
went
into
afib
I'm
52
years
old,
never
had
heart
problems,
I've
been
in
afib
over
20
times
in
my
backyard,
I
have
a
hive
of
bees.
In
my
backyard
they
were
nuked
completely
decimated
my
backyard
I
have
fruit
trees
in
the
spring,
I
can't
there's
no
bees
in
my
backyard
anymore.
This
has
all
been
the
last
year
since
that
cell
tower.
B
Y
Right
so
I
know
you
can't
regulate
based
on
health
or
environment,
totally
understand
that,
but
the
location
matters
in
the
in
the
RF
radiation.
In
my
backyard
and
inside
my
house,
I'm
600
yards
from
that
Tower
is
at
negative
48
DBS
right,
it's
way
too
hot
and
it
shouldn't
be
in
that
location.
It
should
have
never
gone
the
location.
The
commissioner's
agreed
is
going
to
go
in
that
location.
This
Tower
we're
talking
about
today
shouldn't
be
in
that
location.
Y
The
proper
location
would
be
up
on
top
of
the
Foothills
in
BLM
land
and
to
use
the
lower
frequency.
When
you
look
at
the
the
the
drive
test
information
from
the
engineer-
and
you
look
at
the
751
megahertz
frequencies,
there's
no
Gap
in
coverage.
Those
lower
frequencies
will
travel
much
further
5-10
miles
right
and
that
frequency
is
perfect
for
sending
texts
and
making
phone
calls.
That's
all
we
need.
We
have
great
hardwired
broadband
connection
out
here.
Y
So
in
my
house,
I
have
100
by
30
broadband
connection
coming
from
sparklight
and
it's
a
hardwired,
safe
connection.
I
have
hardwired
phones
in
my
house
that
are
voice
over
IP
lines
and
most
people
move
out
here
in
rural
Eagle
because
they
don't
want
to
have
a
big
cell
tower
with
all
this.
This
RF
energy
in
their
backyards
and
in
these
neighborhoods
it's
a
wrong
location.
So
it's
very
important
I,
don't
care
how
much
money
the
applicant
has
to
spend
to
go
up
and
deal
with
BLM
and
try
to
find
a
proper
location.
Y
Put
this
up
away
from
people.
That's
what
needs
to
happen,
and
even
Ron
Valdez
says
in
his
in
his
findings
that
they
haven't
properly
looked
at
the
locations
and
you
look
at
their
propagation
studies
up
there
when
they
rule
out
the
location
on
BLM,
there's
a
little
tiny,
Green
Dot.
So
it
was
obviously
the
engineer
rigged.
The
input
information
to
make
it
look
like
there
was
a
the
site
was
not
possible,
but
I.
Think
all
of
us
can
look
at
and
go
well.
Y
It'd
probably
be
expensive
to
run
electricity
and
a
fiber
optic
line
up
in
the
BLM
land.
So
the
applicant
says
I
don't
want
to
put
it
there
and
they
need
to
and
they
need
to
take
down
a
tower
in
my
backyard,
because
it's
still
it's
it's
it's
it's
it's!
It's
affecting
my
life
daily
daily
out
here.
I
appreciate
your
time
and
please
fine
for
the
the
appellant
and
deny
the
cell
tower.
Thank
you.
Y
Y
V
A
V
A
V
A
Well,
the
gentleman
is
standing
up,
so
I
guess
you'll
come
first
Jack.
Let's
do
it.
You're
excited
so
give
us
your
name
and
address
because
I
don't
have
any
name
here.
So.
R
My
name
is
David
de
Haas
1116
South
Vista
Boise
Idaho.
Thank
you
Commissioners
for
hearing
us.
You
can
deny
this
tower
for
the
following
reason:
your
job
is
to
protect
the
resident's
safety
and
privacy.
Enjoyment
of
their
private
property
cell
tower
has
been
proven
to
cause
harm
as
delineated
in
the
landmark
August
13
2021
decision
by
the
D.C
court
of
appeals
and
then
Landmark
case
the
judges
ruled
the
FCC
had
been
arbitrary,
capricious
and
illegal
that,
in
fact,
the
FCC
has
never
proven
cell
towers
to
be
safe.
R
They
also
said
all
cell
towers,
putting
out
more
than
six
thousand
megahertz
should
be
turned
off
until
safety
has
been
established.
This
is
5G
Towers.
Okay,
it's
a
big
difference
here
because
of
that
is
important
for
this
buy
to
use
their
land
use
powers
to
locate
Towers
where
they're
appropriate
and
provide
the
least
intrusive
means.
If
there
is
a
significant
Gap
in
coverage,
the
applicant
is
a
broadband
internet
provider
and
is
not
providing
telecommunications
service
to
make
phone
calls.
The
best
way
to
get
Broadband
to
the
premises
is
the
way
it's
been
done
for
years.
R
Cable
in
the
ground
is
the
safest
and
most
reliable
means
of
providing
broadband
internet
service.
Eagle
Idaho
has
told
the
Commissioners
they
do
not
want
cell
towers
their
neighborhood
and
is
told,
and
in
their
code
they
will
not
allow
them
in
neighborhoods
and
they're
planning
to
develop
their
own
fiber
optic
service
to
all
the
homes
and
businesses.
Broadband
AKA
5G
falls
under
FCC
Title
II,
and
you
can
deny
having
that
service
for
any
reason
whatsoever.
R
When
it
comes
to
making
phone
calls,
telecommunications
service
falls
under
title
two:
the
appellant
states
that
Verizon
is
on
the
current
Tower,
but
has
no
has
this
commission
seen
a
lease
for
contract
from
Verizon
to
be
on
this
new
tower?
It's
not
in
the
application.
They
state
that
they
have
an
interest
letter
from
a
t
and
interest
letter
means
nothing.
So
you
have
no
telecommunications
company
wanting
to
be
on
this
Tower.
What
you
have
is
a
basically
an
applicant
who
is
speculating
to
get
that
they'll
build
it
and
they
will
come.
R
The
applicant
is
hoping
to
confuse
you
that
it
must
be
in-home
coverage
or
in-car
coverage.
This
is
not
required
under
the
FCC
Title
II
Communications
Act
only
outsole
door
coverage
must
be
proven
at
Gap
and
coverage
they
have
shown,
but
their
own
data
about
751
megahertz.
They
have
coverage
plenty
of
coverage
for
wireless
phone
calls
and
that's
all
you
need
to
have
so
again.
The
applicant
themselves
have
proven
that.
R
So
at
the
end
of
the
day
you
have
an
application
from
broadband
service
provider.
That's
hoping
to
get
a
tower
built
to
speculate.
If
they
can
build
it,
the
tenants
will
come.
The
evidence,
try
to
sway
the
county,
that
their
numbers
show
that
there's
low
signal
strength
by
using
simply
trickery.
This
application
should
be
denied
because
there
is
no
substantial
Gap
in
coverage
and
is
not
the
least
intrusive
means.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
A
Z
You
for
having
me
my
name,
is
Jordan
Miller
I
live
at
5600,
West,
Beacon,
Light
road,
so
the
image
you
saw
with
the
cell
phone
tower.
That
was
my
front
porch
I'm
here
to
talk
to
you
about
least
intrusive
means,
particularly
as
a
citizen
who
runs
a
small
business
right
in
the
shadow
of
this
Tower.
Z
My
argument
today
has
nothing
to
do
with
coverage
and
everything
to
do
with
the
fact
that
this
applicant
did
not
do
anything
at
all
whatsoever
to
account
for
the
damages
that
will
inevitably
befall
on
our
small
organic
farm
that
has
been
in
our
family
for
over
third
three
generations,
so
they're
very
contentious
and
decisive,
divisive
arguments
that
surround
cell
phone
towers
and
health
effects.
I.
Don't
really
want
to
talk
about
that,
but
I
do
want
to
talk
about
the
perceptions.
Z
Individuals
who
consume
organic
produce
are
health
conscious
right.
These
are
the
people
that
unplug
their
Wi-Fi
routers
when
they
go
to
sleep.
So
what
we
essentially
hypothesized
was
that
if
a
cell
phone
tower
goes
in
next
to
our
property,
where
we
grow
organic
vegetables,
we're
going
to
lose
all
of
our
subscribers
because
they're
not
going
to
want
to
purchase
food,
that's
grown
in
the
wake
of
this
massive
Tower.
Z
So
we
happen
to
have
a
ton
of
subscribers
that
live
right
there
in
Eagle
surrounding
our
neighborhood,
so
they're
in
the
homestead
Community
they're
in
the
Eagle
Mountain
Estates.
So
we
conducted
a
survey
and
sent
it
out
to
these
local
residents
who
buy
our
produce.
We
asked
them
if
they
would
purchase
and
consume
organic
vegetables
from
Good
Life
Farms.
If
they
were
grown
in
the
wake
of
a
100
foot
cell
tower,
we
asked
them
simply
as
a
resident
of
Ada
County,
which
of
these
two
options
is
more
important
to
your
life
and
livelihood.
Z
Z
98
of
these
respondents
said
that
it
was
more
important
to
them
to
be
next
to
an
open
rural
landscape
than
to
have
better
cell
phone
service
and
I'll
end
with
reading
you
just
a
couple
of
comments
from
people,
and
there
were
hundreds
of
these.
This
is
in
the
exhibit
that
Brad
Bentley
provided
to
you
as
a
part
of
this
appeal
in
an
effort
to
raise
my
children
in
more
rural
areas
as
well
as
eat
from
local
farms
in
my
community
I
strongly
oppose
the
addition
of
a
5G
cell
tower
near
where
we
live
and
eat.
Z
A
Thank
you,
I,
don't
see
any
questions,
we
will
call
you
back
if
we
do.
Thank.
P
That's
Madam
chair.
We
are
trying
to
open
I
apologize
for
interrupting
it,
trying
to
open
Paul's
websites,
but
we're
having
some
issues
with
the
visuals
and
so
we're
seeing
if
he
has
a
solution.
So
if
you
do
have
anybody
else,
that
wants
to
testify
we'll
do
that.
Otherwise,
I'd
ask
you
to
just
pause
time
until
we
can
get
yeah.
A
F
V
V
Thank
you
so
much
for
listening
to
me
tonight,
I'm
actually
going
to
tell
you
a
lot
in
a
short
period
of
time,
but
it's
very
important
whether
or
not
you
head
to
Federal
Court
here
is
completely
dependent
on
the
findings
that
you
choose
to
make
and
that
one
cell
tower
that
actually
made
Hank
sick
and
killed
his
bees.
You
made
the
proper
decision
on
it,
but
you
made
a
mistake
in
your
proceeding.
V
Your
mistake
that
you
made
was
that
you
stipulated
that
there
was
a
significant
Gap
in
coverage
I'm
going
to
give
you
the
specific
findings
you
can
make
tonight
to
ensure
you
do
not
make
that
mistake
again,
because
the
evidence
is
in
the
record
right
now
to
make
the
finding
of
no
significant
Gap
in
coverage.
It
is
very
clear
and
I
will
email
you
all
of
this
information
when
I'm
done
and
you
will
have
it
in
writing.
V
As
part
of
the
record,
all
right,
so
what
you're
not
able
to
see
but
I
will
talk
about,
is
essentially
the
short
story
of
project
202
102816a
all
right.
The
applicant
clearly
did
not
provide
sufficient,
prohibitive
data
that
proved
when
The
Silo
was
powered
off
that
Verizon
suffered
from
a
significant
Gap
in
telecommunications
service.
It
didn't
matter
about
all
of
those
maps
that
they
showed
you.
What
did
matter
was
they
actually
got
Verizon
to
turn
the
tower
off
the
Silo
Tower?
Then
they
drove
around
and
they
showed
you
very
clearly.
751
megahertz
was
everywhere.
V
It
was
great.
There
was
no
problem.
That
is
their
data.
That
is
your
finding
right
there
of
no
significant
Gap
in
coverage
for
telecommunications
service.
They
then
went
through
how
to
spitball
you
and
they
tried
to
tell
you
that.
Oh
well,
don't
look
at
that.
One
look
at
the
other
ones,
1967.5
and
2115
and
21
3.25,
because
we
have
to
do
those
two.
V
The
answer
is
you
don't
and
that's
because
the
1996
Telecommunications
Act
does
not
say
they
have
a
right
for
every
single
coverage
for
a
frequency
for
which
they
have
a
license.
It
only
says
telecommunications
service,
and
that
is
only
the
making
of
an
outdoor
wireless
phone
call,
and
that
is
why
they
make
the
coverage
maps
they
do
on
their
website.
They
talk
to
you
about
in
building
coverage
and
in-vehicle
coverage
as
if
it's
in
the
law,
it
is
not.
V
The
only
thing
that
they
have
preemption
for
is
the
ability
to
make
an
outdoor
wireless
phone
call,
and
they
prove
to
you
with
their
own
data
that
they
have
that
in
751
megahertz
as
soon
as
they
get
in
one
frequency.
You're
done,
that's
it.
You
don't
have
to
approve
anything
more.
They
have
already
proven
it.
They
shot
themselves
in
the
foot
with
that
chart
five
on
the
November
10th
ruling
from
Josh
Leonard.
Please.
If
you
make
that
finding
tonight,
you
will
not
go
to
Federal
Court
Mr
Leonard
will
lose.
V
He
knows
that
and
so
he's
there
trying
to
do
everything
he
can
to
bamboozle
you
here's
one
other
thing
they
tried
to
do
to
bamboozle
you
all
of
those
Maps
actually
have
a
dbm
reading,
but
it
doesn't
tell
you
whether
it's
rsrp
or
RSSI.
That
is
a
big
problem.
Why
is
that?
Rsrp
is
one
thousand
times
lower
than
RSSI.
V
A
I'm
sorry,
your
three
minutes
are
up.
If
you
want
to
give
me
one
more
sentence,
then
we'll
call
it
good.
V
V
Rsrp
is
a
small
fraction
of
RSSI
and
it
just
follows
an
equation
put
together
by
the
industry.
What
is
actually
measured
is
RSSI.
That
is
what
you
have
to
make
your
findings
based
upon.
You
must
focus
on
the
RSSI
column
when
you
make
your
finding
and
life
will
be
good
and
you
will
not
lose
in
court.
My
address
is
62
Harrison
Avenue,
Sausalito,
California,
94965,
I'm,
Paul
g
g
e
e.
Thank
you
for
my
time.
A
Thank
you
very
much
and
who
are
you
emailing,
the
information
to
that
you
wanted
to
be
put
in
that
he
said
he
wanted
to
send
something
for
the
record
yeah.
P
V
E
A
A
D
This
might
be
more
for
the
consultant
as
well,
so
apologies
as
if
there
is
confusion
there,
I
was
wondering
if
you
or
the
consultant
could
actually
like
walk
through
what
the
different
bands
of
megahertz
actually
mean.
You
know
what
is
the
low
frequency
of
megahertz
actually
translate
to
in?
Like
you
know,
a
daily
life
is
that
5G
is
that
you
know
the
literal
just
the
E
4G
LTE.
You
know
kind
of
translate
that
over
yeah.
P
Madam
chair,
commissioner,
thank
you.
That's
definitely
a
Ron
Valdez.
D
S
A
A
S
Okay,
cool,
so
you've
got
your
your
low
band
and
your
mid
bands,
so
your
low
bands
are
primarily
meant
for
coverage,
so
not
a
lot
of
capacity,
so
you
would
put
those
in
again
rural
areas
where
you
need
a
lot
of
coverage.
S
But
again
the
quality
of
service
is
especially
under
loading
conditions
is,
is
certainly
going
to
suffer
with
with
the
mid
band
Spectrum,
the
PCS
and
AWS.
It
allows
you
to
have
wider
channels
which
allows
you
to
have
more
capacity.
So
what
does
that
mean?
It's
not
always
about
data
with
voice.
S
It
allows
you
to
carry
more
calls
as
well,
and
it's
it's
just
a
function
of
the
reason
why
you
have
all
these
bands
is:
is
you
know
in
some
cities
and
where
it's
higher
density
you're
going
to
even
have
more
bands
on
some
of
these
towers?
A
S
It's
it's
important,
it's
important
to
know.
Like
the
1900
bands,
you
always
heard
back
in
the
day
like
Sprint
PCS,
everybody
was
talking
at
first
it
was
cellular
and
that's
really
the
800
megahertz
band.
And
then
then
you
heard
a
lot
about
PCS
all
the
time
and
that's
really
the
1900
megahertz
band.
So
that's
part
of
what
you
saw
today,
so
it's
Legacy
Spectrum,
it's
been
around
for
a
while,
but
it's
very
vital
when
it
comes
to
giving
a
you
know
a
lot
of
quality
to
the
customers.
So.
E
E
Just
to
follow
up
on
commissioner
Axton
I'm,
quite
the
layperson
when
it
comes
to
cellular
service.
In
this
regard,
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
I,
guess
a
more
in-depth,
not
in
depth,
but
a
more
Broad
voice.
Service
versus
4G
service
versus
5G
service
band.
Here
is
what
I'm,
I'm
I
think.
Maybe
you
were
potentially
getting
out
as
well
and
what
is
affected
like
we
all
heard
they
still
would
have
be
able
to
make
cell
phone
calls.
But
then
wider
bands
allow
for
more
people
to
make
cell
phone
calls,
but
then
are
we
talking?
E
S
S
The
bottom
line
is,
if
you,
if
you
lose
that
Silo
site,
which
you
will
you're
going
to
need
another
site
within
that
same
area,
there's
absolutely
no
doubt
from
Verizon
ATT
and
T-Mobile
you're
going
to
have
more
applications.
This
is
going
to
be
a
problem
that
you're
going
to
face
because
a
tower
is
needed
within
that
local
area
and
I
understand
that
a
lot
of
people
don't
like
that
and
I
understand.
A
lot
of
people
are
using
my
words
against
me.
You
know,
or
or
looking
at
it
in
a
certain
way.
S
But
my
my
point
is
this:
is
that
I
I
always
believed
that
there
was
a
viable
case
for
that
for
the
Beacon
Light
Tower
to
be
built.
I
think
that
it's
it's
definitely
needed.
I.
Just
didn't
see
enough
analysis
done
in
order
to
put
everybody
at
ease,
I
didn't
see
the
raw
data
I
didn't
see
the
attempt
of
of
Designing
other
sites
or
some
of
the
input
parameters
that
went
into
those
other
sites
or
to
validate
coverage
versus
measured
data.
I
mean
just
very
basic
things.
S
We
don't
have
to
go
down
a
rabbit
hole,
but
I
do
think
that
side
is
needed
now.
What
does
that
mean
when
you
lose
that
site?
S
Yes,
you'll
still
be
able
to
make
some
calls
at
the
700
megahertz
band,
but
that
depends
on
whether
or
not
how
heavily
congested
those
channels
are
at
700
megahertz
at
10
megahertz,
it's
gonna,
it's
gonna
get
congested
really
quickly,
and
so,
while
you
may
have
coverage,
it
doesn't
necessarily
mean
that
you're
going
to
be
able
to
make
a
call,
that's
why
those
anchor
bands
are
needed
or
those
additional
bands
for
Carrier
aggregation
are
needed
on
those
towers
that
every
carrier
uses
in
order
to
provide
service
to
the
customers
in
the
area.
S
So
you
know
again,
this
is
about.
This
is
really
about
the
greater
whole
of
everybody
in
that
area
versus
you
know.
The
few
that
are
along
Beacon,
Light
Road.
E
S
Yeah
I
would
guess
you
know,
typically
at
10
megahertz,
if
you're
talking
a
mixture
of
voice
and
dated
calls
because
you're
always
going
to
have
data
sessions.
You
know
you're
gonna
during
busy
hour,
you're
gonna
be
able
to
accommodate,
you
know,
I
would
say
between
40
to
60
sessions
per
sector
or
subscribers
per
sector.
That's
that's
if
you're
lucky,
and
so
one
of
the
hidden
things
that
you
don't
know
within
a
given
area
is
how
many
subscribers
are
there.
S
So
A
good
rule
of
thumb
is,
if
you
know,
if,
based
on
your
census,
population
data
within
that
given
area
I'll,
give
you
a
little
inside
into
what
how
carriers
look
at
their
npv
models
and
how
they
just
determine
whether
or
not
they're
they're
worthy
to
build.
F
S
You
overlay
that
coverage
and
you
determine
how
many
covered
population
that
you
have
both
current
and
forecasted,
and
so
you
can
assume
year
one
if
you
launch
that
market
that
site
that
you
could
have
anywhere
between
one
to
five
percent
Market
penetration.
So
that
means
ten
percent
on
optimistically
year.
One
would
be
your
subscriber
now.
F
S
And
so
the
thing
about
Verizon
at
tnt-mobile
they're
going
to
be
they're
going
to
have
higher
penetration
rates
than
what
we
saw
back
in
the
day,
so
you
can
take
given
population
and
I
assume
with
Verizon.
You
could
probably
take
between
20
to
30
percent
of
the
population
within
that
given
area,
and
you
could
say
those
are
the
amount
of
subscribers
within
that
area.
So
if
you
lose
that
site
again,
these
are
some
of
the
insights
that
we
don't
have.
S
Is
the
population
within
that
covered
area,
but
we
can
make
the
assumption
that
Verizon
has
about
20
to
30
percent
market
share
and
it
could
be.
It
could
be
more
optimistic
than
that
it,
maybe
it's
less
so
would
that
be
around
5
000
people
you
know:
could
it
be
ten
thousand
I
guess
you
know?
We
don't
know,
but
one
of
the
other
things
that
I
heard
and
I'll
make
this
real
brief.
One
of
the
things
was
about
the
financial
justification.
S
They
think
that
it's
all
about
money
being
a
wireless
carrier
is
probably
the
hardest
business
to
make
money,
and
that's
because
the
average
revenue
per
user,
the
arpus
have
been
going
down
over
the
last
10
years
significantly.
So,
where
you
used
to
have
a
hundred
dollar
rpus
average
revenue
per
user
was
around
a
hundred
dollars
now
we're
seeing
rpus
around
sixty
dollars
per
month.
S
So
what
does
this
mean?
That
means
that
if
you
have
a
capex
build
of
three
hundred
thousand
dollars
to
build
this
site
and
to
put
all
your
radios
and
all
the
labor
at
sixty
dollars
a
month
arpu,
you
would
need
5
000
subscribers
anchor
subscribers
on
that
Tower
just
to
break.
Even
so,
you
know
it
there
and
there's
there's
a
lot
that
goes
into
that
into
that
model.
S
There's
an
MPV
model,
you
know,
and
I
and
I
can
assure
you
that
this
site
is
not
a
huge
Revenue
generator
other
than
probably
the
guy
who's
who
owns
the
tower
and
who's
sending
out
the
leases,
or
you
know,
permitting
Melissa
the
leases
out
to
the
the
wireless
carriers.
S
So
there
that's
the
only
people
that
really
make
money,
but
I
really
do
think
that
this
this
site
is
more
about,
especially
on
Verizon's
behalf
is
more
about
maintaining
quality
within
that
given
area
and
if
they
lose
that
Silo
sight
they're
up
against
it,
so
so
yeah.
Hopefully
that
answers
some
questions.
Thank.
A
This
might
be
a
question
that
Mr
leston
can
answer
or
you
might.
We
might
not
know
the
answer
to
it.
The
comment
was
made
that
the
only
under
the
federal
law
is
the
only
megahertz
that
matters
is
the
751
that
the
other
megahertz
wasn't
part
of
what
we're
required
to
consider.
P
Madam,
chair
I
would
I'll
readily
admit
that
I
am
not
briefed
well
enough
in
the
federal
regulations
of
this.
To
answer
that
question
you
know
and
I
think
to
an
original
Point
made.
Our
code
doesn't
require
that
question
be
answered,
but
I
know
that
there
are
technical
experts
in
the
room
that
might
be
able
to
give
you
some
information
in
that
regard,
but
I
don't
know
again,
Paul
Gee's
claim
as
to
whether
or
not
that's
the
only
frequency.
You
need
to
pay
attention
to
I
I
personally
can't
support
or
deny
his
claim.
P
Yeah
our
code
has
nothing
specific
to
frequencies.
It
simply
says,
provide
a
propagation
chart
or
study
that
demonstrates
there
is
a
gap
in
coverage
and
so
I
think,
as
we've
learned
over
the
course
of
what
feels
like
10
years,
that
there
is
a
lot
built
into
what
you
know
how
you
make
that
determination.
P
Many
frequencies
bandwidths,
you
know
Ron
Valdez
I,
am
happy
that
we
actually
got
to
hire
him
to
kind
of
give
us
some
insight
into
how
you
consider
these
things,
because
I
think
it's
demonstrated
that
our
ordinance
probably
needs
to
have
some
more
detail
in
that
regard
or
application
checklist.
Things
like
that.
But
yeah
there's
nothing
specific
in
our
code
about
bandwidths
or
frequencies
that
have
to
be
considered.
A
And
I
was
trying
to
figure
out
the
when
the
information
came
from
the
city
of
Eagle.
Did
that
come
before
this
Planning
and
Zoning
Commission
made
her
recommendation,
or
did
it
come
afterwards.
P
Madam,
chair
I'd
have
to
look
at
that.
I
know
that
there
was
an
issue
originally
with
noticing
the
city
of
eagle
on
this
project
and
that's
why
funny
enough
we
had
this
scheduled
originally
for
January
of
this
year
and
we
tabled
it
to
March
I.
Believe
we
received
that
review
prior
to
the
March
hearing,
but
I
I'd
happy
to
double
check
that.
A
O
P
D
Yeah,
so
this
might
come
off
as
a
potentially
loaded
question.
I,
don't
mean
it
to
you,
I'm,
just
trying
to
make
sure
I
understand
correctly
So
based
off
of
Ada
County
code.
All
that
the
applicant
is
required
is
to
provide
the
propagation
maps
that
show
there
is
a
loss
of
coverage.
Loss
of
coverage
is
not
defined
any
more
than
just
smaller
than
what
was
there
before
correct
yeah.
P
B
P
P
B
B
They
have
to
be
five
acres
or
larger
I
believe
to
be
able
to
to
do
that
kind
of
use,
so
that
they're
that
and
then
they
also
narrowed
it
down
that
you
can
see
in
that
list,
they've
reached
out
to
them
via
VIA,
either
telephone
letter
in
some
cases,
I
believe
they
knocked
on
doors
and
I
know
they
actually
knocked
on
doors
over
by
where
the
suggested
alternate
site
was,
even
though
it's
that's
not
mentioned
on
that
list.
Just
because
I
spoke
with
the
site
act
after
the
last
one.
B
Let's,
let's
get
going
I'm
going
to
go
through
a
lot
of
this
stuff
really
quickly
and
I
apologize.
Mr
Bentley
started
out
his
his
presentation
by
saying
that
we
didn't
provide
enough
information.
Commissioner
accident
as
you,
as
you
pointed
out,
we
provided
what's
required.
The
application
is
complete
and
then
we
went
above
and
beyond.
We
met
all
of
the
requirements
and
then
also
met
the
the
request
for
additional
information.
B
He
said
we
didn't
provide
Drive
data.
We
did
in
fact
four
different,
three
or
four
different
Drive
testing
trips
by
Mr,
Kennedy
and
again
not
required
to,
but
that's
one
of
the
reasons
that
we're
back
here
is
so
that
you
can
have
a
look
at
that
and-
and
we
have
a
lot
of
Drive
data-
that's
in
the
in
the
packet
Mr
Bentley,
conversely,
provided
data
showing
that
he
has
coverage
I,
don't
know
what
his
technical
expertise
is
or
what
his
device
was
that
he
was
using.
B
He
said
it
measured
in
specific
points,
which
is
exactly
what
Mr
Valdez
said,
not
to
use
I'd
love
to
hear
what
Mr
Valdez
has
to
say
about
the
date.
The
quote:
unquote:
data
that
was
provided
by
the
appellants
also
I
would
note
that,
of
course,
coverage
is
good.
Now
he
said
he
has
Verizon.
This
The
Silo
is
still
operational,
it's
still
sending
out
and
transmitting.
He
has
that
coverage.
B
He
used
the
March
slides
when
we
were
back
here
before,
as
we
were
going
through
the
presentation,
Mr
Kennedy
leaned
over
to
me,
and
he
said
I
bet
I-
can
get
that
better
and
reached
out
to
Verizon's
RF
team
and
tuned
that
further
to
reach
further
what
they
call
Pops
or
or
users
to
the
north
and
to
the
the
east
of
the
site
and
that's
what
we
submitted
when
we
went
to
the
to
the
board
again
a
significant
redesign
and
that's
one
of
the
reasons
we're
back
here.
B
B
He
also
played
audio
of
one
of
the
Commissioners
who
stopped
short
of
approving
an
application,
and
if
we
can
go
back
to
my
my
PowerPoint,
the
reason
why
she
stopped
short
of
of
moving
to
to
approve
the
appeal
and
deny
the
application.
And
if
you
listen
to
the
entire
record,
it's
clear.
She
realized
it's
either
this
one
tower
for
which
we
have
commitments
from
four
carriers
or
it's
each
carrier
coming
in
with
an
application
for
their
own
Tower.
So
it's
either
one
Tower
or
four
Towers
in
this
area
and
that's
what
happened.
B
That's
what
happens
and
and
Mr
de
Haas
said
that
we
don't
have
leases
signed
with
them,
yet
they're
waiting
to
see
if
this
gets
approved.
B
But
we
have
two
letters
of
intent,
one
from
each
of
at
t
and
T-Mobile,
one
of
those
letters
of
intent,
they've
already
entered
into
lease
negotiations
as
far
as
numbers,
and
then
the
other
is
Verizon,
which
would
be
the
the
core
tenant
or
the
anchor
tenant
that
is,
is
well
into
and
has
submitted
actually
an
application
to
to
the
tower
company
to
co-locate
and
has
provided
all
of
its
specs
for
what
it
needs
on
that
Tower.
B
Commissioner
Coulson
you,
you
asked
a
question
about
noticing,
radius
and
the
noticing
radius,
for
this
is
a
thousand
feet.
I
would
love
if
the
commission
on
these
types
of
applications
would
ask
folks
how
far
they
live
from
a
cell
tower
or
from
there.
This
cell
tower
application.
I
know
for
a
fact:
Mr
dahas
lives
nowhere
near
this
Tower
I
know
for
a
fact:
Ms
lockery
lives
nowhere
near
this
Tower
Paul
with
the
audio
problem
that
was
calling
in
lives
in
California
part
of
an
anti-wireless
group,
Mr
Bentley,
said
he's.
B
Building
a
home
under
the
tower.
His
home
site
is
actually
900
feet
away:
Mr
Allen,
although
he
first
said
that
he
lives
near
this
Tower.
He
then
asked
you
to
remove
the
tower
that's
in
his
backyard.
Both
those
can't
be
true.
He
can't
live
near
this
Tower
and
ask
and
near
one
that's
in
his
backyard.
The
one
that's
in
his
backyard
is
at
least
2.8
miles
away.
So
if
that's
in
his
backyard
he's
2.8
miles
away
from
this
I'd
also
like
to
know
what
Paul's
legal
credentials
are.
B
B
B
I
B
B
This
Tower
is
different
and
I'm
going
to
close
on
this
It's
relatively
short,
they
said
that
it's
a
beast:
it's
100
feet,
the
most
of
the
towers
that
I
appear
on
are
150
and
above
typically
they
don't
go
above
200
or
even
above
199,
because
then
they
have
to
light
them.
The
FAA
requires
it.
Most
of
the
towers
that
I
appear
on
are
significantly
taller
than
this.
It's
a
replacement
Tower,
it's
fulfilling
a
need.
B
We've
showed
that
the
the
coverage
that
is
there
now
will
be
going
away.
It's
also
next
to
a
line
of
and
I
put
here.
76
Tall,
Foot,
Tall
power,
poles
there's
an
insignificant
difference
between
a
line
of
those
running
down
the
whole
side
of
the
street
and
our
one
Tower.
That's
24
feet
taller
and
again.
Truly.
This
is
a
multi-carrier
tower,
quoting
the
first
report
from
the
County's
consultant.
The
multi-tower
multi-carrier
tower
can
benefit
communities
because
it
ensures
that
less
towers
are
built
within
a
given
geographical
area.
B
Consolidation
of
Wireless
carries
on
a
single
Tower,
saves
time
and
resources
for
all
parties
involved.
One
of
the
comments
made
tonight
was
that
intermax
Towers
is
a
speculative
Tower.
Builder
and
I
can
tell
you,
that's
not
their
business
model.
There's
not
there's
not
money
in
that
this
Tower
will
be
full
because,
as
was
mentioned,
Eagle
prohibits
cell
towers.
That's
why
we're
here?
If
Eagle
allowed
cell
towers,
we
would
be
further
inside
city
of
Eagle,
it's
more
preferred,
but
they
prohibit
them
in
their
in
their
area.
B
We'd
ask
you
to
to
when
we
were
here
before
we
got
an
approval
and
I
believe
there
were
either
one
or
two
that
voted
to
deny
two.
That's
correct:
okay,
Mr,
Birch
I
believe
there's
one
other
individual,
but
we
got
an
approval
from
this
board.
That
was,
with
the
exact
same
objections
that
you've
heard
from
these
folks.
B
A
D
B
Okay,
I
think
it
should
be
yeah.
The
the
base
is
the
significant
base
and
then
from
there
and
they're
they're,
actually
thinner
than
they
were
before
they
used
to
be,
have
to
have
the
wide
base
and
now
they've
they've
built
them,
and
they
have.
This
thing
called
break
point
technology
so
that,
instead
of
having
to
have
the
thick
the
thick
steel
they're
engineered
to
withstand
wind
shear
and
that,
based
on
the
engineering
and
based
on
the
geometry,
I,
don't
think
this
one?
Has
it
that's
the
best
one
I
have
okay,
there's
there's!
N
B
F
I
I
Mr
Leonard,
so
you
talked
to
others.
You
have
the
other
carriers
that
are
going
to
join
in
with
you.
Have
there
been
any
discussions
as
far
as
possible
other
locations
or
that
that
they've
been
looking
into
I?
Don't
think
the
commission
is
necessarily
against
a
tower?
It's
just
it's
it's
not
in
my
backyard,
it's
just
finding
a
suitable
location
that
will
give
beneficial.
B
Coverage
to
answer
your
question:
no,
there
haven't
been
conversations
with
those
other
carriers
about
other
locations.
I'll
be
I'll,
be
candid
with
you,
they
they
are
just
hoping
that
this
gets
approved.
So
they
can
come
on
this,
this
Tower
at
this
location,
because
they
all
need
it
and
and
along
those
same
lines,
though,
I
wanted
to
mention
it's
not
as,
though,
that
we
that
we
just
pick
a
spot
and
and
there's
a
process
that
goes
into
it.
B
It's
a
it's
not
and
it's
a
busy
part
of
its
business
and
part
of
it's
the
the
the
capitalistic
side
of
it.
But
it's
also.
Where
are
we
going
to
be
able
to
house
the
most
of
those
carriers
because
the
the
tower
company
wants
to
attract
them?
And-
and
so
this
was
chosen
and
the
search
ring
is
chosen
based
on
the
different
carriers
needs,
and
so,
where
there's
a?
What
do
they
call
that
a
I
just
blanked
on
it
I
would
have
remembered
it
overlying
circles,
a
Venn
diagram.
D
B
B
You
there's
not
others,
there
are
not
yeah,
that's
one
of
the
the
other
reasons.
Why
and
one
of
the
reasons
why
Mr
Valdez
said
that,
whether
it's
this
Tower
or
the
next
one
they're
going
to
need
a
tower
because
there's
no
way
to
co-locate,
even
if
the
landlord
would
allow
it,
the
tower
is
not
able
to
co-locate
with
additional
facilities
on
it.
E
B
Yeah
they're
within
the
search
ring
and
and
I
apologize,
but
when
I
was
looking
for
the
list
of
the
people
that
we've
contacted,
there
is
a
map
that
was
in
our
very
first
PowerPoint
presentation,
but
it's
not
in
the
record
the
one
that
we
gave
when
we
were
here
before.
Oh,
it's,
not
it's
not
in
the
record
and
I
didn't
realize
that
until
I
had
to
look
for
it
today,
but
there's
a
map
that
shows
where
they
are
they're.
U
B
And
yes,
the
answer
is,
yes:
I'll
tell
you
that
the
way
that
this
property
is
laid
out
there
are
the
smaller
lots,
are
up
against
the
road
and
then
the
farming
lots
are
towards
the
back
and
and
it
it
sounds
like
it
wouldn't
be
this
way.
But
it's
often
hard
to
convince
a
farmer
to
allow
you
to
put
a
tower
on
their
property,
not
because
of
any
concern
about
anything
other
than
they
and
I.
Just
learned
this
recently
and
talking
to
a
farmer
down
on
a
Twin
Falls.
T
Thank
you
guys,
so
much
really
appreciate
the
thoroughness
of
this.
This
whole
process
and
Leon
has
been
great
a
couple
things
on
the
low
frequency.
You
know,
Mr
Valdez
he's
never
been
to
the
site,
so
he
doesn't
know
how
rural
it
is.
So
there's
nowhere
near
five
thousand
people
anywhere
close
to
that
and
there's
also
three
other
carriers,
and
so
the
low
frequency
has
plenty
of
coverage
for
Texan
calling,
which
is
what
is
protected
by
the
telecommunication
act.
So
you
can
go.
T
You
know
validate
that,
but
I
think
that's
important
to
know
because
that's
the
first
part
of
sniffing
Gap
in
coverage.
If
you
look
and
see
that
there
was
plenty
of
coverage
of
the
low
frequency,
that's
really
important.
If
you
also
know
well,
it
can
get
congested
if
you've
been
anywhere
near
Beacon,
Light
or
Homer.
There's
no
such
thing
as
congestion
out
there
near
and
even
in
the
long
term,
there's
nowhere
near
that
many
population.
The
second
thing
is
Beyond
gap
of
coverage,
least
intrusive
means
and
alternative
sites.
T
It's
been
on
the
record
by
both
Ron
Valdez
and
here
that
BLM
land
was
never
fully
explored.
It
was
a
it
just
doesn't
work
for
us
versus
doing
a
detailed
look
and
trying
to
find
what's
best
in
this
community.
I
have
a
hard
time
to
believe
what
we've
done.
What
the
code
requires.
The
bare
minimum
I
feel
like
I
need
to
be
protected
by
Ada
County
more
than
the
bare
minimum
Eagle.
T
It
was
10
or
12
homes,
and
if
you
read
the
column,
it
was
letter
sent
letter
sent
letter
sent
not
a
I
had
a
conversation
with.
Commissioner,
Burge
and
they're
not
interested
I
had
a
conversation,
there's
nothing
exhaustive
about
it.
They
sent
a
bunch
of
letters,
that's
the
standard
protocol.
Last
time
we
talked
to
that's
all.
T
We
have
to
do
I'd
be
happy
to
rewrite
the
code
if
we
needed,
but
that's
all
we
have
to
do
I,
don't
think
that's
acceptable
for
this
County
and
as
a
Citizens,
accounting
and
I
I
think
we
we
need
to
do
more
and
to
protect
what's
happening.
This
isn't
about
a
replacement
Tower
of
a
60-foot
Silo
down
the
way
with
one
provided
Verizon.
T
This
is
about
trying
to
do
a
large
four
tenant
architecture
in
a
place
that
doesn't
really
serve
the
needs
of
the
community
to
say
I
have,
and
these
are
not
letters
of
intent,
I've
read
them
they're,
we
have
interest
an
Loi
or
a
lot
of
retent
is
usually
a
multi-page
intent.
If
you're
a
lawyer,
you
know
what
a
real
Loi
is
versus.
Hey
we're
interested
in
talking
about
the
site.
It
was
like
three
sentences
on
some
letterhead
that
could
be
done
and
half
hour.
T
That
is
not
real
tennis,
but
even
if
even
if
that
was
the
case,
this
is
not
the
best
site.
This
is,
they
have
not
done
diligence
to
protect
our
community
to
do
it
in
a
place
that
was
in
the
best
interest
of
the
community
in
the
longer
term
and
to
I
was
criticizing
the
11
o'clock,
not
the
drive
test,
I'm
glad
they
did
a
drive
test.
Mr
Valdez
still
said
it
wasn't.
A
continuous
drive
test
is
what
he
requires,
but
then
to
scoff
and
say
you
know:
what
did
you
do
you
did
this?
T
The
burden
of
proof
is
not
on
me.
The
citizen
I've
gone
above
and
beyond,
to
do
what
I
can
possibly
do
with
our
means,
but
the
burden
of
proof
is
not
on
me
and
this
commission
has
not
been
convinced,
which
is
why
it's
gone
on
and
been
tabled
and
has
offered
you
guys
a
chance
to
make
it
right
and
the
fear
of
well.
If
we
don't
get
this,
we're
just
gonna
have
four
more
Towers.
T
Well,
the
good
news
is:
we
won't
because
you
guys
are
here
to
protect
that,
but
that's
the
weirdest
threat
to
say
if
we
don't
provide
this,
we're
just
gonna
have
four
more
tires.
No,
that's
not
the
case.
You
guys
are
here
now
to
protect
this
you'll,
be
here
now
to
protect
it
when
those
come
around.
What
we
do
need
is
some
thoughtful
planning
around
telecommunications
around
Ada
County,
and
we
need
to
think
about
where
the
population
is
growing
and
we
need
to
think
about
where
we
have
the
right
coverage
again.
I
am
Pro
telecommunication.
T
It's
important
I
want
it,
but
if
we
could
get
away
with
the
tower
off
of
16
or
in
the
foothill
that
will
cover
us
for
the
next
15
years.
That's
a
much
better
solution
than
the
12
addresses.
You
saw
that
letters
were
said
and
we're
going
to
end
up
at
this
site.
That
is
too
far
west,
that
is
25
feet
lower
and
it
doesn't
provide
as
much
coverage
to
the
west
where
the
growing
population
is
those
things.
Just
don't
add
up
at
all
to
me
and
that's
why
we're
at
this
moment.
T
So
my
plea
is
to
do
what's
right
on
behalf
of
Ada
County
and
they
say
that
you
know
I
realized,
Mr,
Bentley
I
wouldn't
want
that
too.
Well.
I
appreciate
that
Josh
isn't
here
to
protect
me,
but
you
guys
are:
let's
plan
it
right
for
generations
to
come.
For
my
kids
for
my
12
year
old
son
Cooper
and
my
nine-year-old
daughter,
Hadley,
doesn't
have
to
look
at
three
or
four
of
these.
Let's
put
in
a
location
that
makes
sense
longer
term.
This
is
not
that
location
I
offered
another
property
adjacent
to
it.
T
A
E
T
It's
it's
very
different
than
what
the
Beacon
Light.
As
you
know,
those
are
primarily
still
Farms.
I.
Think
someone
asked
a
question
on
what
the
1000
mile
radius
Homestead
is
done.
High
density
right
up,
the
Beacon
Light
that's
been
done
over
the
last
year.
They
didn't
get
a
chance
to
respond
to
this,
but
that's
in
their
backyard
and
had
this
gone
on,
then
you'd
have
a
lot
more
people
here.
T
The
reason
why
you
have
the
folks
that
you
have
is
because
we
all
have
five
Ted
20
acre
Parcels
around
this
Tower,
but
Beacon
Light
is
getting
more
highly
populated,
but
the
real
high
density
is
coming
out
closer
to
16..
It's
been
annexed
where
they
can
do.
T
You
know
less
than
one
acre
Parcels,
but
in
this
community
right
where
this
Tower
is
it's
five
acre
plus
parcels
and
there's
very
few
people
on
that
and,
as
you
move
farther
east,
all
of
that's
grandfauded
in
rural
community,
where
they
can
never
go
five
acre,
it's
closer
to
16,
where
it's
Xanax
and
Eagle.
The
irony
is,
even
Eagle
doesn't
allow
this
because
it's
protecting
their
citizens
and
that's
to
ask
us
looking
for
the
same
protections.
E
Then
follow-up
question
just
because
I
said
I
was
going
to
ask
you
the
potential
for
camouflaging.
I
E
T
We
just
got
I'm
glad
you
asked
when
this
first
came
out:
March
10th,
it
was
the
next
week
Josh
and
I
met
for
coffee,
and,
although
this
means
ago,
I
actually
really
like
Josh,
although
he
is
a
Yankees
fan
and
I'm
a
Dodgers
fan
I
try
not
to
hold
it
against
them,
but
the
purpose
of
that
meeting
was
like.
Can
we
find
something?
That's
a
better
compromise
because
again
I'm
willing
to
work
with
this?
This
is
not
a
Noah
by
all
means
I.
T
If,
if
this
was
a
silo
replacement
at
60
feet,
we
wouldn't
be
probably
having
this
conversation,
it's
the
fact
that
it's
a
hundred
foot
they'll
say
it's
100,
because
you
have
to
have
four
carriers,
but
that's
our
own
code
that
you
could
do
something
different
about.
It's
still
not
the
best
interest.
They
wouldn't
want
to
do
a
one
carrier
for
a
60-foot
silo
because
it's
too
expensive
to
to
monetize
up
to
one
person,
so
they
need
to
do
four
I'm,
a
business
person
I
understand
those
economics
But.
T
Was
nearly
adjacent
though
ours
is,
is
I,
think
0.6
or
close
to
a
mile.
This
one
was
like
one
tenth
I
mean
it
was
on
Beacon
Light
across
the
street,
and
that
elevation
is
is
higher
and
a
little
bit
further.
West
and
I
was
under
a
contract,
but
I
couldn't
get
a
firm
answer
and
so
didn't
pursue
it.
A
E
T
P
Met
him
chair,
Commissioners
I
would
only
insert
that
this
is
a
recommendation,
so
you
can
make
a
recommendation
and
you
can
direct
staff
or
the
applicant
to
provide
the
board
additional
details
if
you
think
that
would
be
Jermaine.
So
you
know
that
that
is
an
option
for
you.
It's
not
something
you're
going
to
have
information
wise
in
front
of
you
today
to
make
your
recommendation,
but
you
can,
because
this
is
an
open
record.
P
F
E
I
T
I'm
just
talking
about,
if
you
look
at
where
the
population
growth
is
occurring,
you
look
at
the
topography.
You
know
how
do
we
design
proper
coverage
where
we
can?
You
know
one
tower
that
meets
the
need
versus
you
know,
what's
soonest
available
that
meets
the
bare
minimum
standard,
and
so
my
design
is,
if
you
looked
at
where
population
of
growth
is
going
and
you
looked
at
topography,
you'd
probably
put
this
a
lot
closer
to
16..
I
would
also
highly
recommend
the
you
know.
T
I
know,
there's
debate
about
the
Foothills,
but
what's
great
about
it
is
you
have
the
footballs
behind
it?
It
gets
lost
in
it
when
it's
sitting
in
someone's
backyard
and
you
guys
drive
down
these
roads.
When
you
see
the
cell
tower
sitting
right
on
the
road,
it's
not
just
the
neighbors
around
Beacon
Light
is
going
to
be
expanded
and
all
that
thoroughfare
is
going
to
be
looking
that
unsightly
Tower
and
maybe
not
just
that
one.
We
may
be
doing
the
same
thing
on
16.
So
my
when
I
say
design
it's
just.
A
A
A
So
are
we
ready
to
close
the
public
hearing,
okay,
I'm,
seeing
that
we're
ready
to
close
the
public
hearing
so
we'll
close,
the
public
hearing
and
I'll?
Look
to
a
commissioner
for
a
recommendation
or
a
motion
that
we
can
talk
about
and
remember.
This
is
kind
of
different
than
what
we
normally
have
and
so
we've
actually
got
two
motions.
A
F
D
D
I
A
Appeal
we're
ruling
on
the
appeal
So,
based
on
all
the
information
that
we've
received
and
it's
all
a
lot
of
new
information.
Do
we
recommend
that
the
board
of
County
Commissioners
honor
the
appeal
or
uphold
the
appeal,
or
do
we
recommend
that
they
deny
the
appeal
so
I'm,
seeing
a
shaking
head
over
there?
So
am
I
saying
that
correctly,
yeah.
F
P
Slide
but
yeah.
V
P
D
I
think
this
might
be
a
new
record
for
me
based
upon
the
findings
of
facts
and
conclusions
of
law
contained
here
and
in
the
testimony
from
the
public
hearing.
I
would
like
to
move
to
recommend
denial
of
project
number
202102816
a
and
affirm
the
commission's
approval
of
project
202102
816cu.
P
O
A
D
D
I
think
you
know
now,
knowing
especially
at
the
poll
itself
is
good
at
the
base,
like
the
actual
structure
of
the
poll,
is
only
going
to
be
four
feet.
You
know
that
isn't
as
large
as
some
of
the
photos
that
were
presented
of
the
mock-up
of
what
the
poll
would
look
like
at
least
visually
to
me.
D
You
know
and
I
think
having
the
four
carries
is
a
great
idea.
I
do
believe
that
the
applicant
did
the
due
diligence,
whether
that's
explicitly
saved
in
the
application.
You
know,
as
he
talked
about
it's
only
a
snapshot,
not
the
full
amount
of
effort
that
went
in,
but
I
do
believe
and
I
do
trust
the
applicant
when
it
indeed
all
the
proper
work,
since
there
are
so
many
restrictions
that
the
site
itself
would
have
to
meet
that.
Obviously
that
does
knock
out
a
lot
of
the
the
options
that
would
geographically
fit
the
radius.
D
You
know
also
the
landowner
is
on
board
as
well.
So
it's
not
like
you
know.
The
the
cell
tower
company
is
coming
in
and
being
like.
This
has
to
go
here.
Everyone
has
to
deal
with
the
land
owner
itself
is
going
to
be
signing
the
lease
and
signing
on.
There
is
interest
from
other
cell
companies
and
I
think
looking
towards
the
future.
I
wouldn't
be
surprised.
D
This
is
me
speculating
a
little
bit
if
that
rural
land
to
the
north
of
the
site
does
get
subdivided
at
some
point
to
what
density
who
knows
but
I
wouldn't
be
shocked.
If
the
population
didn't
see
to
the
north,
where
there
will
be
an
increase
in
coverage
does
get
expanded,
which
then,
obviously
you
would
want
more
capacity
to
support
more
bodies
and
more
phones
so
yeah.
For
me,
you
know
I
stand
by
my
original
motion
or
vote
from
the
first
time.
D
We
saw
this
and
I
think
a
lot
of
the
data
helps
support
that
I
do
understand.
You
know
the
the
sentiments
of
not
wanting
a
cell
tower
right
next
to
you,
I
totally
get
that
I
totally
get
that
it
is
not
the
prettiest
thing
to
look
at
flip
side.
I,
don't
think
having
the
monopine
camouflage
would
be
any
better,
especially
a
100
foot
version.
I
think
that
would
actually
stand
out
almost
more
than
the
Slender
40
foot,
pole
and
yeah.
That's
all
I
have
to
say
at
the
moment.
Thank.
O
My
whole
thing
is:
is
there's
a
need
for
it.
I
think
they've
proven
that
and
and
it's
going
to
go
somewhere
I'm,
you
know
I'm,
just
being
you
know,
I've
watched
too
many
things
happen
too
many
developments
happen.
O
It's
going
to
go
somewhere,
it's
going
to
happen,
we're
not
going
to
be
able
to
make
whether
we
put
it
there
or
whether
we
we
allow
it
to
go
here
or
down
the
street
or
whatever
it's
going
to
affect
somebody
always,
and
so,
with
that
going
back
to,
we
have
to
go
back
to
staff
and
and
see
what
they
you
know,
how
they
do
all
their
recommendations
and
it
fitting
inside
the
code
of
Ada
County
code
and
that's
what
we're
our
job
is,
is
to
upheld
the
code
and
make
sure
that
it's
that
it's
put
into
play
that
it's
fits
in
within
the
parameters.
O
I,
do
like
the
four
idea.
I
know
we
have
to
sacrifice
height
for
that,
but
I
do
understand
too
I
mean
I,
wouldn't
want
four
other
ones.
I'd
rather
have
one
than
four.
You
know
I
mean
and
I
do
believe
that
that
would
end
up
happening
and
just
with
the
growth
it's
going
to
continue
going
so
I
mean
that's,
that's
my
take
on
it.
That's
my
reason
of
upholding
my
last
approving
this
project
last
time
as
well.
F
G
He's
got
an
opinion,
I
bet
yeah.
You
could
see
that
coming.
Couldn't
you
now,
first
of
all,
I
do
want
to
say
that
Joshua
Leonard
has
I
think
been
very
professional
throughout
I.
Think
one
of
the
comments
that
was
made
by
somebody
that
called
in
was
wildly
inappropriate.
It
was
a
personal
attack
and
it
should
not
have
been
made.
The
right
attitude
is
what
Mr
Bentley
has
expressed
and
I
appreciate
the
professionalism
of
Mr
Leonard.
His
jealousy
representing
his
client
is
what
any
lawyer
should
do.
G
G
These
are
high
dollar
homes
up
in
this
area,
and
it
was
made
clear,
I
think
that
the
appellant
it's
or
the
the
applicant
had
said
in
their
report
that
well,
if
you
put
it
up
in
BLM
a
lot
more
people
are
going
to
see
it
and
that's
true,
but
that
kind
of
makes
everybody
in
the
same
boat
rather
than
just
these
folks.
That
are
up
here
that
are
going
to
have
the
direct
adverse
impact
we've
heard
from
Ms
Miller
about
what
this
would
do
to
their
organic
farm.
F
G
If
there
were
a
federal
appeal
which
I
do
not
think
there
would
be
and
I'll
tell
you
why
in
just
a
moment
that
might
be
moot
anyway,
because
as
long
as
it
would
take
to
go
through
that
process,
this
property
could
be
annexed
into
the
city
of
Eagle.
The
city
of
Eagle
would
have
the
right
to
make
their
own
determination
about
the
location,
as
well
as
the
height
of
the
Tower.
G
The
logical
thing
that
will
happen
here
is
if
we
support
the
appellant
and
basically
deny
the
application,
is
that
the
Tower
folks
are
going
to
have
to
go
back
and
reassess.
How
much
is
this
worth
to
us
to
fight
it,
because
what
any
business
does
what
my
employer
does?
Is
they
look
at
the
cost
of
litigation
and
they
figure?
Is
there
a
better
solution,
rather
than
spending
the
money
to
fight
this
in
court?
And
it's
not
just
one
of
trial,
you
may
go
through
appeals.
G
G
He
did
not
think
that
enough
attention
had
been
made
through
whether
or
not
an
equally
viable
result
could
occur
by
having
this
be
in
BLM
property.
So,
on
that
basis,
I
would
be
voting
with
the
residents
that
live
in
this
area
and
with
the
city
of
eagle
and
saying
no.
This
is
not
the
right
place
for
this
Tower.
A
Thank
you
very
much
I'm
going
to
ask
commissioner
Wickstrom
because
I
don't
know
if
you
were
here
when
this
originally
came
through.
I
A
I
I
was
here
and
I
I
voted
in
favor
of
it,
but
as
I
walked
out
of
that,
why
did
I
do
that,
because
I
wasn't
even
listening
to
my
own
comments
during
the
during
the
hearing
I
also
in
support
of
the
appellant
at
this
time
and
I
appreciate
the
pressure
on
the
most
Mr
Bentley
Mr
Leonard
to
Braley.
I
You
know
the
city
of
Eagle
doesn't
want
these
things
in
their
city
and
and
they're.
They
want
to
push
this
out
to
the
county,
make
it
our
responsibility,
which
makes
it
tough
for
the
cell
phone
companies
to
actually
get
the
coverage
in
there
and
again
I.
Don't
think
as
a
commission
we're
not
necessarily
against
a
tower
going
in
somewhere,
it's
just
where
is
it
going
to
go
and
I
drive
down
floating
feather
all
the
time
and
I
think
about
what
a
tower
looked
like
right
there
and
it's
across
the
street.
I
You
have
all
these
I,
don't
know,
there's
an
empty
lot,
that's
going
to
be
homes,
but
there's
all
high
density,
south
of
floating,
feather
or
Beacon
Light
and
north
of
it
is
the
rural
parts
of
the
of
the
city
but
they're.
Having
to
Bear
the
brunt
of
the
visual
effect
of
this,
this
Tower
there
there
is
there's
been
a.
There
will
be
a
slight
drop
in
coverage,
but
there
still
is
coverage
in
those
areas
and
sometimes
their
their
coverage.
I
Map
shows
that
there's
not
a
whole
lot,
especially
in
the
Northern
Area,
a
lot
of
benefit
for
the
for
the
tower
being
where
it
is
it's
mostly
helping
out
to
the
South
and
and
a
bit
to
the
West
I
agree
that
there's
there's
got
to
be
a
place
out
there
to
the
West
out
there
closer
to
16,
where
this
this
Tower
is
going
to
be
out
there,
where
all
that
new
development
is
going
on
and
that
that
area
should
bear
the
burden
of
having
a
tower
in
in
their
area
and
with
that
again,
I
I
support
the
appellant
in
this.
A
N
I
also
agree
with
commissioner
Birch
and
the
people
that
are
sitting
in
the
audience.
This
is
my
first
cell
tower,
but
I
do
believe
that
it
shouldn't
be
confined
to
one
Community.
N
I
am
basing
my
opinions
on
some
of
the
data
and
some
of
the
homes
that
they
did
send
the
letters
to
it
appeared
to
me
personally
that
they
were
all
within
the
same
geographical
area
in
a
very
small
area
and
I
would
have
liked
to
have
seen
some
more
so
you
know,
I
would
like
to
have
seen
you
guys
look
in
some
other
areas,
possibly
in
the
BLM
land
or
possibly
a
little
bit
further
out.
N
You
did
mention
that
you
were
going
to
have
to
put
a
secondary
Tower
anyway,
so
I
didn't
see
the
cause
that
it
should
just
be
in
this
one
area,
because
you
were
already
going
to
have
to
put
a
second
tower
or
you
anticipated,
having
to
put
a
second
tower.
That
was
my
understanding.
So
I
am
going
to
agree
and
uphold
the
appellant
and
I
agree
with
the
city
of
eagle
that
it's
unsightly
and
it's
unfair
for
them
to
Bear
the
burden.
E
Yeah,
so
thank
you
to
everyone
who
shown
up.
Obviously
this
is
my
first
hearing,
so
you
guys
this
is
outstanding
professionalism
but
I'm
I'm,
struggling
with
the
concern
with
the
loss
of
coverage,
and
we
had
a
third
party
come
out,
do
the
actual
tests
and
show
that
there
would
be
bosses
in
coverage.
E
They
may
Annex
this.
Of
course
they
may,
but
right
now
this
is
not
city
of
Eagle,
so
them
voting
on
it,
it
might
be
in
their
impact
area,
looks
really
good
for
them,
but
it
what
it
does
is.
It
shows
that
the
city
of
Eagle
people
can
go.
Look
at
our
our
Council.
They
voted
against
this.
What
are
you
going
to
do?
Commissioners?
Well,
the
commission
has
the
brunt
of
the
responsibility
here,
so
it
was
very
easy
for
a
city
of
Eagle
to
say.
E
Yes,
we
are
with
you
when
it
doesn't
necessarily
impact
in
that
area.
So
I
have
I,
do
have
concerns
of
the
broader
coverage
of
all
the
people
in
that
area.
I
have
a
deeper
look
at.
What
is
the
law
as
Leon
was
talking
about
and
the
reality
is?
Is
we
operate
as
Commissioners
within
the
law
we
operate
as
what
the
law
says,
what
the
code
says
not
trying
to
whether
we
want
to
or
not
make
it
a
better
place
for
everyone
we
operate
within
the
code
as
it's
written.
E
If
the
code
needs
to
change,
it
needs
to
be
changed
through
the
processes
that
it's
changed
in,
not
through
the
the
whims
and
feelings
of
commissions,
and
things
like
that,
so
because
it
falls
within
the
purview
of
the
law
and
because
I
do
have
concerns
about
the
actual
coverage
in
the
area.
For
those
that
aren't
present
here
and
I'm.
Looking
at
the
map
I'm
like
there's
a
lot
of
houses
there,
that
may
not
be
Verizon
customers,
but
they
may
also
be
Verizon.
Customers
I
would
I'm
likely
going
to
recommend
a
denial
of
the
appeal.
A
Very
first
meeting
when
I
look
at
this
one
of
the
things
that
I
thought
was
really
impactful
for
me
was
the
third
party
report
that
we
had
and
the
executive
summary,
and
the
third
party
said
you
know,
there's
probably
a
need,
but
the
data's
we're
still
working
on
the
data,
and
he
said
you
know
that
the
BLM
property
really
hadn't
been
vetted,
and
that
was
clear
in
his
report
and
and
for
me
to
have
somebody.
That's
an
outside
professional,
give
us
that
information.
That
said,
this
really
hadn't
been
vetted.
A
The
way
that
you
know
it
could
have
been
vetted
makes
me
want
to
agree
with
the
appellant
and
and
agree
that
there's
probably
some
more
work.
That
needs
to
be
done
before
this.
This
moves
forward
and
then
looking
through
the
list
of
names
of
people
and
locations
that
were
considered
I'm,
pretty
persistent.
So
it's
hard
for
me
to
say.
Oh
all,
all
of
these
locations
are
not
acceptable
because
the
person
didn't
respond
to
a
passive
letter
and
so
to
have
the
comment
like
here's,
the
list
and
I.
A
This
list
supports
my
comment
that
this
is
the
only
site
that
will
work
it.
The
data
doesn't
support
the
comment
and,
in
my
my
opinion,
based
on
the
way
I
do
my
work
and
so
and
then
the
Millers
Appeal
on
the
organic
farm
and
the
impacts
that
it
would
have
on
on
your
customers
and
your
data
is,
is
pretty
compelling
in
terms
of
harming
the
residents
that
are
immediately
impacted,
and
so
those
are
the
three
things
that
that
really
impact
my
decision,
the
city
of
Eagle.
A
It's
interesting
that
they
voted,
that
they
didn't
want
the
cell
phone
towers,
and
so
they
must
have
some
master
plan
to
get
everybody
to
have
cell
phone
service
in
Eagle,
because
that's
infrastructure
that
people
want,
and
so
that's
kind
of
interesting,
and
that
isn't
my
biggest
biggest
point
when
I'm
making
the
decision.
The
biggest
point
is
the
third
party
data
that
we
got
from
the
consultant,
who
said
that
there's
probably
more
work
that
can
be
done
so
I'll
be
voting
in
favor
of
the
appeal.
D
I
would
like
to
also
you
know,
since
this
is
going
to
the
board
of
County
Commissioners.
There
is
that
you
know
Gap
to
add
more
things
to
the
record,
or
you
know
supplement
and
beef
it
up
a
little
bit.
I
would
like
to
see
the
board
of
County
Commissioners
kind
of
given
based
off
this
discussion
kind
of
see
what
actually
happened
with
the
BLM
land
like
were
applications
in
the
pre-application
meetings
actually
held,
or
was
it
more
of
just
kind
of
what
you
had
discussed?
We
looked
at
it.
D
D
Obviously,
this
has
been
a
very
long
project
from
the
initial
mailing
to
now:
there's
probably
new
homeowners,
new
homes,
even
so
I
think,
potentially
having
that
Fresh
Start
on
the
public
testimony
side
going
into
this
next
word
of
county
commissioner
meeting,
if
that's
like
feasibly
possible,
because
I
know
that
can
be
a
big
logistical
ask.
I
think
that
can
also
be
a
great
way
to
you
know
essentially
hit
Refresh
on
the
public
opinion
of
that
area.
Besides,
you
know
the
immediate
neighbors
not
saying
that
your
guys's
opinions
aren't
any
less
valid.
D
D
Yeah
I
would
be
really
intrigued
to
see
you
know
what
again,
what
really
happened
with
the
BLM
sites.
I
can
understand
based
off
what
was
there
with
the
propagation
Maps,
why
two
of
them
wouldn't
really
be
of
interest,
but
just
kind
of
see
that
they
did
the
due
diligence
due
diligence
of
actually
having
at
least
the
contact
and
I
do
also
agree.
Yeah
the
the
passive
just
the
letter,
with
no
reply,
you
know
now
that
you
mentioned
that
that
does
see.
D
P
Chair
this
is
the
point
of
clarification.
Whatever
Direction
you
go,
you
can
ask
the
board
to
consider
you
know
additional
information
be
gathered
between
now
and
the
board
hearing.
So
whatever
recommendation
you
go
with
that's
at
your
discretion
to
include
that
in
the
motion
and
then
I
will
say
we
do
notice,
oh
okay,
cool
for
all
public
hearings
and
we
will
send
out
another
notice
for
the
board
hearing
on
this
one
perfect.
Thank
you.
E
O
A
I
think
I
would
comment
that
we've
had
several
cell
phone
towers
that
have
given
us
multiple
information
on
the
health
risk
and
so
I'm
sure
that
the
County
Commissioners
has
gotten
all
of
that
data,
and
we
would
just
ask
the
staff
to
make
sure
that
that
data
gets
gets
forwarded
to
them.
In
the
way
I
mean
we've
had
late
nights
of
health
information,
so.
A
A
Will
our
motion
at
hand
is
that,
based
on
the
findings
of
fact,
that
the
commission
recommends
denial
of
the
project
number
the
appeal
and
affirms
the
commissioner's
approval
project
of
the
project?
So
that's
the
motion
that
we
have
so
I'm
going
to
call
for
the
vote
on
that.
So
all
those
in
favor
of
that
motion
that
commissioner
Exton
made
please
say
aye.
A
I
Madam,
chair
I,
moved
to
based
on
the
based
on
the
based
upon
findings
of
fact
and
conclusions
of
law
contained
here
in
and
the
testimony
from
the
public
hearing.
The
commission
recommends
approval
project
number
2021-02816,
a
and
overturns
the
commission's
approval
of
project
number
2021-028
16
cu.
A
A
All
those
in
favor
of
this
motion
raise
your
hand,
so
we've
got
four
in
favor
of
the
motion.
All
those
opposed
raise
your
hand.
We've
got
three
opposed,
so
the
motion
passes
by
a
slim
margin.
So
thank
you
very
much.
I
A
D
A
Post
and
let
the
motion
or
the
minutes
reflect
that
that
motion
passed
so
thank
you
very
much.
Okay,.
P
Yeah,
thank
you,
chairman
Commissioners,
so,
at
the
board
hearing
last
night
we
had
a
pretty
packed
agenda.
The
first
item
was
the
RV
park
out
on
Vallejo,
which
many
of
you
I
believe
made
a
recommendation
of
denial
that
was
tabled
by
the
applicant
just
for
additional
time
to
work
on
their
presentation
to
the
board.
P
The
board
ultimately
approved
the
modification
to
or
approved
Boise
Idaho's
request
to
allow
that
School
site
to
go
to
more
than
just
strictly
a
West
data
school
and
opening
it
up
to
other
par
Public
Schools,
including
Charters,
and
so
that
that
was
approved.
And
if
you
have
questions
on
any
of
these
feel
free
to
stop
me
or.
P
P
I
mean
they
they
claimed
they
made
the
statement.
Yes,
we'd
like
to
retain
the
site
to
eventually
someday,
possibly
build
the
school,
and
so
the
community
is
a
little
was
tired
of
that
was
in
her
homes
like
we
just
want
to
go
to
school
now,
and
so
the
board
heard
that
and
allowed
for
modification
of
that
condition.
It
doesn't
prohibit
West
data
from
being
the
school.
P
It
just
says:
whoever
is
ready
to
go
now,
show
up
and
we'll
deed
the
land
to
you,
so
you
can
build
a
school,
so
the
next
one
was
a
contractor's
yard
out
on
Canada
Road
that
you
heard,
and
then
the
board
heard
and
approved,
and
then
unfortunately,
due
to
an
ordinance,
publishing
issue,
we
had
to
read
here
at
the
board
level
that
one
was
approved,
a
pretty
simple
one.
Most
things
were
pretty
simple:
it
was
only
the
first
and
the
last
one
that
took
some
time.
P
Another
one
was
a
variance
for
addition
to
a
single
family
dwelling
out
on
Fox
brush
Court
had
some
issues
with
the
drain
field,
impacting
his
ability
to
expand
his
home
in
a
certain
area,
and
so
the
board
approved
an
encroachment
of
the
rear
setback
to
allow
the
addition
to
the
single
family
home.
Another
one
is
a
vacation
and
a
property
boundary
adjustment
for
the
construction
of
a
secondary
dwelling.
This
is
a
kind
of
cleaning
it
up.
After
the
fact
they
had
pulled
a
building
permit
for
us.
P
They
had
started
construction,
nearly
completed
construction
and
during
the
construction
process.
It
inaccurately
marked
the
property
boundary
for
the
inspector
and
it
was
discovered
that
they
had
basically
almost
crossed
over
into
their
neighbor's
property,
and
so
they
worked
out
in
the
adjustment
with
the
neighbor
and
a
vacation
of
an
easement
for
the
plot
to
resolve
that
issue,
and
so
the
board
approved
that
as
well
you're,
lucky
you'll
get
variances
here.
There's
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
variances
like
that
that
go
straight
to
the
board.
P
We
had
a
two
lot
subdivision
out
on
McDermott
Road,
that
you
heard
the
holsclaw
Estates
subdivision.
That
was,
you
recommended
approval
that
was
approved
by
the
board.
P
If
you
recall
that
I
think
you
had
a
pretty
lengthy
hearing
that
night
I
actually
was
out
of
town
and
got
to
go
to
bed
before
you
guys
finished,
your
hearing,
I
was
listening
to
part
of
it,
and
I
was
in
Bismarck
North
Dakota.
P
To
go
to
sleep,
but
you
had
recommended
denial.
I
think
it
was
a
close
vote
3-2
at
the
time.
The
board
unanimously
denied
it,
but
they
said
you
know
we're
open
to
a
future
mixed
use
project
here.
If
you
want
to
come
back
with
another
application
that
would
incorporate
residential
and
Commercial,
they
heard
loudly
from
the
neighborhood
that
the
neighborhood
wants
commercial
in
the
area.
P
Was
a
bunch
of
single
family
and
like
duplex
units
by
all
one
ownership
that
are
rental
units,
it's
kind
of
a
new
model
for
housing
we've
seen
Meridian
has
one
of
these
right
now,
and
this
would
have
been
the
second
one
in
the
valley,
but
apparently
it's
kind
of
a
popular
new
model
around
the
country.
P
A
lot
of
really
great
discussion.
Applicants
did
a
good
job.
Neighborhood
did
a
great
job
spent
a
lot
of
time
working
through
this
one.
P
You
know
I
think
the
biggest
ones
were.
You
know.
This
was
zoned
commercial
in
the
past
and
as
a
part
of
a
larger
PUD,
with
a
bigger
Vision
attached
that,
like
everything
else,
was
going
to
be
residential,
and
this
was
going
to
be
the
commercial
component
and
you
know
I
think
they
were
the
biggest
rub,
is
probably
the
getting
rid
of
the
commercial
component
promised
to
the
original
Hazelwood
development,
and
you
know
what
that
means.
P
What
that
means
for
the
activity
center
I
think
they
cited
the
city
of
Boise
letter
pretty
heavily
is
why
they
also
were
voting
against
it,
which
the
city
of
Boise
letter
was
complicated
because
it
said
we
just
want
higher
density
and
commercial
on
the
same
site.
So
we'll
see
what
comes
out
of
that
I
it'll
be
interesting.
Discussion
you'll.
Have
it
in
front
of
you
again
if
they
do
reapply
but
yeah?
That
concludes
my
summary.
So
any
questions
go.
I
P
I
think
they
just
wanted
to
work
through
some
of
the
you
know.
They
had
heard
some
stuff
here
at
pnz.
They
also
kind
of
were
looking
ahead
and
saw
that
agenda
was
pretty
packed
with
a
lot
of
things,
and
so
they
just
requested
a
table.
We
didn't
have
a
real
specific
request
beyond
that,
but
we
will
see
them
in
December
at
the
port.