►
From YouTube: City Council Evening Meeting - 11/17/2020
Description
Please visit the following link for information on how to testify during virtual public hearings:
https://www.cityofboise.org/departments/finance-and-administration/city-clerk/virtual-meetings/
A
The
meeting
start
well,
we
just
did
the
pledge
of
allegiance,
that's
it.
Okay.
We
had
a
pause
here
before
calling
the
role
circle.
D
F
G
B
A
I'll
try
to
out-patriot
the
other
person.
Okay.
Next
up,
we
have
requests
for
approval.
The
minutes
of
the
work
session
and
evening
meeting
of
november
10th.
B
B
H
A
And
next
up
under
special
business,
we
have
the
reappointment
of
cindy
montoto
to
the
historic
preservation
commission
for
a
three-year
term,
ending
october
2023
and
I'll.
Just
thank
cindy
for
the
service
she's,
given
us
already
and
her
willingness
to
keep
at
it.
She's
a
great
addition
or
a
great
contributor
to
the
commission
and
has
done
quite
a
bit
for
the
community.
G
A
A
A
I
Mayor,
yes,
thank
you.
Well,
I
have
no
objection
to
this.
In
fact,
I
fully
support
it.
I
just
wanted
to
thank
tiffany
and
thank
the
county
for
filling
this
board
seat.
It's
an
important
board
and
I
know
that
she'll
do
good
work.
I
A
Thank
you
very
much.
I
agree
and
thank
you
for
the
work
that
you
do
with
that
board
as
well.
It's
really
important
all
right.
Next
up,
we
have
the
consent
agenda.
All
items
with
an
asterisk
are
considered
to
be
routine
by
the
council
and
will
be
enacted
by
one
motion.
There'll
be
no
separate
discussion
on
these
items
unless
a
council,
member
or
citizen
so
requests,
in
which
case
the
item
will
be
removed
from
the
general
order
of
business
and
considered
in
its
normal
sequence.
J
A
G
E
Or
d-49-20
an
ordinance
repealing
boise
city
code,
title
1,
chapter
6,
section
3a4,
mayor
and
city
council
salaries
and
eliminating
the
regularly
scheduled
increase
of
the
mayor's
annual
salary
and
provide
an
effective
date.
Ord
50-20,
an
ordinance
repealing
boise
city
code,
title
1,
chapter
6,
section
3b4,
mayor
and
city
council
salaries
and
eliminating
the
regularly
scheduled
increase
of
the
city
council
members
annual
salary
and
provide
an
effective
date.
G
E
Ord-39-20,
an
ordinance
amending
boise
city
code,
title
9,
chapter
1,
boise
city
building
code
to
adopt
the
2018
international
building
code,
including
appendix
h,
signs
appendix
j
grading
and
certain
amendments
to
appendix
j
grading,
standardizing
and
correcting
terminology,
numbering
and
code
references
updating,
fee
schedule,
references,
flood
hazard
maps
and
flood
hazard
regulations
and
separating
the
boise
city
building
code
into
commercial
residential
subsections.
Approving
the
summary
of
the
ordinance
providing
an
effective
date.
E
Ord-41-20.
An
ordinance
amending
boise
city
code,
title
9,
chapter
10,
boise
city
building
code
to
adopt
the
2018
international
existing
building
code,
which
establishes
alternative
methods
and
minimum
requirements
for
work
associated
with
existing
structures.
Approving
the
summary
of
the
ordinance
to
provide
an
effective
date,
ord-42-20
an
ordinance
amending
boise
city
code,
title
9,
chapter
9,
boise
city
energy
conservation
code
to
adopt
the
2018
international
energy
conservation
code
associated
required
state
amendments,
approving
the
summary
of
the
ordinance
and
providing
effective
date,
ord-43-20
an
ordinance
repealing
and
replacing
the
boise
city
electrical
code.
E
Approving
a
summary
of
the
ordinance
provide
an
effective
date.
Ord
44-20,
an
ordnance,
car,
20-0-0-10
or
property
located
at
1976
south
century
way.
Amending
zoning
classifications
of
the
city
of
boise
city
to
change
the
classification
of
real
property,
particularly
described
in
section
1
of
this
ordinance
from
limited
office,
with
design
review
l-o-d
to
light
industrial
with
design
review.
M-1D.
E
An
ordinance
amending
boise
city
code,
title
1
chapter
16
to
allow
for
the
inclusion
of
temporary
expansions
of
alcohol
licensed
premises
to
be
included
on
license
renewal
applications,
as
directed
by
abc,
to
clarify
the
city's
authorization
to
temporarily
expand
alcohol
license
premises.
She'll
enter
the
sunset
date
or
upon
notification
from
abc.
Whichever
comes
first
to
extend
the
automatic
sunset
provision
to
april
30th
2022
and
provide
an
effective
date.
G
Turned
it
off
when
I
sneezed
madame
mayor,
I
move
that
further
reading
of
ord
35-20
be
dispensed
with,
and
the
record
reflect
that
it
has
been
read
a
third
time
in
full.
G
F
B
E
Okay,
ord
37-20
and
ordnance
cr
19-0-0-21
are
probably
located
at
1101,
south
denver
avenue,
1108
south
grand
avenue,
1116
west
beacon,
street
and
1105
south
manitou
avenue
amending
the
only
classifications
in
the
city
of
boise
city
to
change
the
classification
of
real
property,
particularly
described
in
section
1
of
this
ordinance
from
medium
density,
residential
r-2
to
university
district.
U
setting
forth
a
recent
statement
in
support
of
such
zone
change
and
provide
an
effective
date,
ord-38-20
and
ordnance
cer2-0009
for
property
located
at
1709
and
1711
south
federal
way.
B
I
G
A
G
B
H
A
L
A
Sure
and
while
carl
is
looking
at
I'll,
just
say
that
the
so
we
have
carla
from
the
city
boise
who's
presenting
and
then
the
applicant
is
greg
flint.
You
could,
let
us
know
greg
if
you
agree
with
the
staff
report
or
if
you
want
to
say
more
when
we
get
to
you
and
then
we
have
a
neighborhood
of
record
as
west
valley
and
again
not
sure
if
you'll
be
I'm
speaking
or
will
need
to
speak.
But
right
now
we
have
nobody
in
from
the
public
signed
up
in
advance.
L
L
The
point
the
preliminary
plat
has
undergone
a
minor
modification
since
the
planning
and
zoning
commission
hearing.
It
now
includes
two
commercial
lots
along
the
fairview
avenue
frontage.
A
financial
institution
with
a
drive
up
window
has
been
proposed
for
the
southeast
portion
of
the
site
and
is
currently
being
reviewed
for
conditional
use,
permit
approval.
L
Several
conditions
were
approved
with
the
associated
plan
unit
development.
These
conditions
will
buffer
the
townhomes
from
the
surrounding
automobile-oriented
uses
and
will
improve
pedestrian
connectivity
through
the
site.
The
pud
conditions
were
not
appealed
and
revised
plans
now
show
these
improvements.
L
L
And
that
across
the
access
is
provided
between
lots,
three
and
two
also
fairview
avenue
is
planned
to
be
widened
to
seven
lanes
in
the
future,
and
an
added
condition
will
ensure
that
the
sidewalk
along
fairview
be
placed
to
allow
for
an
eight
foot
wide
planter
strip
separation
along
this
busy
arterial
roadway.
The
applicant
has
agreed
to
these
conditions.
L
I
All
right,
madame
era,
yes,
thank
you.
If
I
could,
I
have
just
a
quick
question
of
carla,
given
that
the
overflow
parking
lot
is
included
in
this
application.
If,
in
the
future,
there
was
an
opportunity
to.
I
My
understanding
is
that
the
zoning
would
allow
at
least
as
much
housing,
at
least
the
density
of
housing
as
on
the
rest
of
the
lot,
if
not
a
little
bit
more,
is
that
correct.
L
Madam
mayor
council,
member
clegg,
that
is
correct.
There
is,
however,
an
80
foot
wide
irrigation
easement
that
covers
a
portion
of
that
parking
lot,
which
they
would
have
to
get
some
approvals
through
the
irrigation
company,
but
the
density
would
allow
it.
L
A
All
right,
mr
flint,
are
you
with
us.
C
A
A
A
J
B
Just
I'm
just
attending
on
behalf.
M
Of
the
of
the
client
greg
flint
as
well,
I
just
wanted
to
make
my
presence
known.
I
D
A
So
with
these
it's
similar
to
the
hearing
that
we
just
went
through
with
subdivisions,
but
there
are
more
people
to
speak
on
the
different
items
we
will
with
each
of
these.
When
we
start
it
we'll
start
with
staff,
then
the
applicant
then
a
neighborhood
association
and
at
the
beginning
of
each
one.
I
will
just
make
sure
also
first
I'll
call
on
anybody
that
is
in
the
council
chamber,
so
they
can
leave
if
they
wish
and
then
we'll
see
who's
joined
us
online
and
give
you
an
opportunity
to
speak.
A
I
have
one
item
the
last
item,
where
their
names
signed
up.
So
if
even
if
you
haven't
signed
up,
if
you're
on
zoom,
we'll
give
you
an
opportunity
to
raise
your
little
zoom
hand
and
be
able
to
hear
from
you
and
with
that
carlo
go
great
carla,
you're
still
with
us,
we'll
move
into
the
first
item:
cr
20-13.
L
The
next
item
before
you
tonight
is
a
request
to
remove
the
existing
development
agreement
on
the
property
located
at
5801
west
castle
drive.
The
da
was
placed
on
the
subject
property
in
2008,
with
the
intent
of
expanding
the
residential
care
facility
located
directly
to
the
west.
The
subject
property
retained
is
r1c.
Zoning
designation,
but
the
da
utilize
a
general
exception
to
apply
the
standards
of
the
r2da
zone
to
this
property
and
limited
the
allowable
use
to
a
25
bed
residential
care
facility.
L
The
property
is
now
owned
by
a
separate
entity
who
wishes
to
develop
the
property
within
the
standard
allowances
of
the
rwc
zone.
The
planning
team
recommends
approval
of
the
da
modification,
as
a
request
will
allow
the
property
to
develop
in
a
manner
consistent
with
the
adjacent
rmc
zone
properties.
Thank
you.
N
A
E
N
Hello,
I
I
mayor
council,
I
agree
with
the
staff
and
have
nothing
to
add.
I
Got
a
mirror:
yes,
just
a
real,
quick
question:
it
is
noted
in
the
staff
report
that,
given
the
fact
that
this
is
a
collector,
it's
likely
there
will
be
only
one
driveway
allowed.
Council
president.
I
just
wanted
to
ask
the
applicant
if
they
were
aware
of
that.
Yes,.
A
You
there,
your
internet
is,
is
created
somewhat
of
a
lag,
there's
been
a
voice
lag
the
evening,
but
it
just
got
a
little
worse.
I'm
gonna
suggest
you
turn
off
your
camera
and
ask
your
question
again,
because
we
weren't
able
to
hear
it.
I
N
Here,
yes,
matt,
are
you
great?
Yes,
I'm
still
here
I
mayor
councilmember
clegg.
We
have
not
gotten
into
the
design
phase
yet
on
this.
It
is
our
understanding
that
that's
one
of
the
criteria
and
we
plan
to
look
into
all
ops,
all
options
working
with
council
with
staff
at
that
time,.
A
A
B
H
I
A
Okay,
well,
while
the
council
president's
doing
that,
we
can
go
ahead
and
start
this.
This
is
an
appeal,
so
james
after
the
city
goes,
is
it
the
appellant
and
then
the
applicant?
Okay?
Great?
So,
with
this
one
we've
got,
I
see,
ted
ted
is
here
to
present
for
the
city.
The
appellant
will
go
first.
A
Well,
I
don't
I'm
not
sure,
there's
two
names
applicant
and
appellant.
A
We've
got
bob
stephanockis
and
josh
leonard
just
want
to
make
sure
that
you're
here
and
ready
and
then
the
neighborhood
association
is
nina
and
I'm
not
sure
if
nina
plans
to
testify,
but
also
just
let
us
know
if
you're
here
and
then
we
have
nobody
that
signed
up
in
advance.
A
So
will
you,
if
you
are
on
the
zoom
to
testify
on
this
item
again
just
please
raise
your
hand
and
we
will
be
sure
to
call
on
you
during
the
public
hearing
part
of
this
all
right.
So,
first
off,
why
don't
we
start
with
ted.
M
M
M
This
is
a
street
view
of
the
house
as
generally
as
it
exists
today,
all
properties
in
the
historic
districts
are
surveyed
by
an
architectural
historian.
One
of
the
one
of
the
key
aspects
of
those
surveys
is
to
determine
whether
a
property
is
contributing
or
non-contributing.
M
This
slide
lists
the
applicant's
case
for
reclassification.
The
most
important
of
these
are
the
first
two
as
they
are,
or
were
a
part
of
the
structure's
facade,
design
and
readily
visible
from
the
public
right
of
way.
Other
alterations,
less
visible
would
not
necessarily
be
seen
as
a
detriment
to
the
historic
character
of
the
structure.
Additionally,
maintenance
or
other
issues
with
condition
would
not
necessarily
impact
a
structure's
contributing
classification.
M
As
you
can
see,
from
these
sanborn
maps,
the
original
structure
up
to
1949
had
a
front
porch
on
the
north
side
and
an
entrance
in
the
general
same
location.
So
here's
the
sanborn
map
where
my
cursor
is
and
you'll
see
the
porch.
This
designates
a
porch
was
located
here
on
the
front
of
the
house
in
that
location
and
the
entry
on
that
location
as
well.
Sometime
after
1949
the
porch
was
removed
and
the
entrance
moved
to
the
south
side
of
the
structure.
M
M
City
code
states
that
when
a
house
is
requested
for
reclassification
that
the
following
be
considered
first,
was
there
an
error
in
the
determination
or
did
the
consultants
make
a
mistake
when
classifying
the
house
as
contributing
second?
Were
there
inappropriate
alterations
that
occurred
after
the
survey
was
completed?
That
might
change
the
classification.
M
M
M
Those
factors
addressed
in
more
detail
in
the
report
allude
to
criteria
established
by
the
secretary
of
interior
for
identifying
and
establishing
historic
integrity
in
short
staff,
believes
the
commission
understood
and
addressed
these
criteria
in
their
decision.
Specifically,
they
indicated,
though
the
house
had
undergone
some
change
to
the
facade.
It
still
maintained
its
historic
integrity
and
character
of
a
vernacular
structure
in
the
historic
district.
M
Staff
did
receive,
we
actually
received
four
emails
originally
from
neighbors
in
the
area
supporting
the
change
of
status
to
non-contributing,
based
on
the
information
provided
in
the
application
packet
due
to
no
errors
being
identified
in
the
historic
preservation
commission
decision
staff
does
recommend
denial
of
the
appeal.
Thank
you.
H
I
just
have
some
questions.
I
guess
for
some
clarification
I
need,
since
I
haven't,
sat
in
on
a
ton
of
these,
so
if
it
is
listed
as
contributing
that
would
eliminate
the
possibility
for
it
to
be
demolished,
but
not
necessarily
the
possibility
for
it
to
be
added
on
to.
Is
that
correct?.
A
C
Did
you
have
one
question
right?
Yeah,
thanks,
hey
ted!
As
I
understand
you
know,
we,
the
historic
preservation
committee,
commissioner,.
C
On
the
original
preservation
documenting
and
and
then
I
noted
that
we
didn't
get
a
separate
one-
is
that
common
to
rely
on
the
original
one
rather
than
getting
a
separate
one
during
this
process,
just
checking.
M
O
H
M
Right,
so
so
that
that
madam
mayor
councilmember
thompson
that
you
know
the
the
original
survey
is
really
all
we
have
right
now
to
go
off
of
so
a
second
survey.
Another
survey
wasn't
completed.
That
certainly
could
have
been
something
pursued
by
the
applicant
or
the
appellant.
In
this
case
that
could
have
pursued.
M
I
Madam
mayor,
yes,
go
ahead.
Ted.
I
think
that
answers
my
question,
but
I
just
want
to
clarify
if
we
were
to
do
the
appeal,
I
pulled
a
decision
of
the
historic
preservation
commission.
Is
there
any
time
limitation
on
the
applicant
pursuing
their
own
survey
and
coming
back
with
new
information
if
it
shows
that.
M
M
So
there
would
be
some
time
to
actually
create
the
survey
document,
establish
new
criteria
potentially
for
this
property
and
then
have
that
certified
by
the
state
historic
preservation
office.
But
there's
no
timeline
on
that.
That
is
certainly
something
that
that
could
be
done
in
this
case
and
then
down
the
road.
We
could
readdress
the
classification.
I
So,
thank
you
just
to
follow
up
then.
So,
unlike
sometimes,
if
we
or
turn
down
a
particular
kind
of
application,
the
applicant
cannot
reapply
immediately
for
the
same
thing.
This
is
a
different.
I
I
just
wanted
to
establish
the
different
kind
of
process
and
there
wouldn't
be
that
limitation.
M
I
I
A
J
Madam
mayor,
can
you
hear
me
and
and
and
see
me.
J
I'm
here
I
represent
bob
and
jen
stefanokos
and
I'm
gonna
mess
that
name
up
all
night,
and
I
apologize
to
my
client
who's
sitting
here.
He's
tried
to
correct
me
several
times
he's.
A
J
J
There
were
minor
changes
to
the
home
before
that
that
significant
changes
occurred
after
that,
and
then
a
reconnaissance
survey,
which
is
the
type
of
survey
that
was
performed,
was
conducted
in
february
of
1999..
Bob
stefanikos
bought
the
home
a
couple
years
later
and
then
you
can
see
he
was
married.
J
His
his
son
theo
was
born
in
2009,
daphne
was
born
in
2012
and
a
couple
of
years
ago,
almost
a
couple
years
ago
in
may
of
2019,
an
application
was
submitted
for
a
certificate
of
appropriateness
and
council
member
halliburton
to
your
question,
although
he
it
becomes
easier
to
demolish
the
home.
J
If
this
application
is
granted,
the
application
in
may
of
2019
that
was
granted
allows
the
applicant
to
take
the
house
down
to
the
studs
and
lift
it
and
actually
and
do
some
do
some
some
major
work
there.
So,
although
not
a
full
demolition,
it
is
significantly
demolished.
J
For
all
intents
and
purposes,
you
saw
this
from
from
ted
the
the
criteria
for
reviewing
classification
change,
we're
not
going
to
pursue
the
second
one
here
the
changes
were
made
since
the
original
survey
we're
hanging
our
hat
on
the
fact
that
an
error
was
made
on
the
original
survey
or
a
mistake
in
classification.
J
I
want
to
point
you
to
the
contributing
the
standard
for
contributing
that
it's
it's.
There
are
two
pieces
of
this
standard.
First,
it
was
present
present
during
the
period
of
significance
and
possesses
historic
integrity
or
that
it
individually
meets
the
the
national
register
eligibility
criteria.
In
this
case,
there's
no
dispute.
It
doesn't
meet
the
national
register
eligibility
criteria
individually,
there's
also
no
dispute
that
it.
It
was
present
during
this
period
of
significance.
It
all
comes
down
to
whether
the
historic
integrity
of
this
home
remains
intact
in
boise
city
code.
J
Again,
integrity
is
the
ability
of
a
property
to
convey
its
significance.
These
concepts
are
key
to
the
to
integrity,
their
location,
design,
setting
materials,
workmanship,
feeling
and
association.
J
Just
a
quick
chart,
rather
than
going
through
of
each
of
them
at
length.
Put
together
put
this
together.
The
integrity
of
location
yeah,
that's
met,
it
absolutely
is
the
location
of
this
home
has
not
changed
since
1949..
The
integrity
of
the
setting
the
neighborhood
layout
and
the
use
are
also
unchanged
since
1949.
J
J
The
rest
of
the
the
elements,
though,
of
integrity,
are
not
met.
In
this
case
I
want
to
go
through,
and
the
first
one
I
want
to
hit
obviously
is
integrity
of
design,
but
before
I
do
that,
I
want
to
point
to
a
a
quote
from
the
design
guidelines
for
residential
historic
districts,
though
a
property
does
not
necessarily
have
to
possess
all
seven
points
of
integrity
to
be
considered
historic,
it
should
possess
or
reflect
most
of
them
going
back
here.
It
only
possesses
two.
J
It
lacks
design
integrity,
pointing
to
the
sanborn
maps
that
that
were
mentioned.
The
important
ones
are
the
1949
and
the
1956
the
1949,
because
it
it's
at
the
end
of
the
period
of
significance
and
sets
a
baseline
for
subsequent
changes.
You
can
see
here
that
in
1949
the
porch
was
here
and
the
front
door
was
located
here.
These
slashes
aren't
don't
indicate
front
door
or
where
the
door
is,
they
actually
indicate
where
the
that
the
home
is
largely
built
of
fireproof
construction,
but
with
a
wood
roof,
and
these
over
here
indicate
one
story.
J
If
you
looking
at
this
porch,
you
can
see
on
the
1956
outside
the
period
of
significance.
It
was
not.
It
was
removed
after
the
period
of
significance,
and
if
you
look
at
the
sketch,
that's
on
the
ada
county
assessor's
web
page
now,
you
can
see
that
the
porch
has
been
re-added
at
some
point
since
1956.
J
This,
I
think,
provides
a
little
bit
better
description
or
depiction
of
what's
happened.
I'll
note
for
you,
though,
that
this
is
flipped
180
degrees,
so,
just
to
confuse
you
a
little
bit
about
which
end
is
up
the
front
here
is,
is
right
here
on
the
bottom
facing
sixth
street.
You
can
see
that
the
that
the
porch
was
removed
after
1949.
J
J
The
materials
are
very
different
from
what
what
were
there
in
1949,
in
addition
to
the
the
original
windows
being
replaced
with
aluminum
windows,
they've
used
unmatched
prior
to
bob
purchasing
the
home
unmatched
siding
has
been
used
to
repair.
The
sides
of
the
home
and
second-rate
decorative
elements
have
been
added
and
you'll
see
what
you
saw.
What
that
looks
like
in
in
the
pictures
that
ted
that
ted
showed
also
the
workmanship
is
bad
in
that
the
and
it
lacks
integrity
of
workmanship.
J
In
that,
as
these
different
sections
have
been
built,
taken
off
relocated
over
built,
much
of
the
workmanship
is
pretty
shoddy,
and
you
can
see
that
from
close
up.
I
also
want
to
hit
the
integrity
of
feeling.
This
is
a
a
tough
one
to
describe,
as
mentioned
on
this
on
this
table,
the
scale
the
massing,
the
design
of
the
materials
and
the
character
of
the
home
all
have
changed
since
1949.
J
More
than
that,
though,
this
home
has,
it
has
a
cuteness,
and
in
talking
with
architects,
about
how
we
were
going
to
approach
this,
they
all
said
the
biggest
hurdle
you're
going
to
have
to
overcome,
with
the
the
historical
historic
preservation
commission
and
with
the
city
council,
is
that
this
home
is
cute
and
it
is
from
a
distance.
I
would
suggest
that
it
lacks
feeling,
though
it's
like,
if
you
wanted
to
go
to
paris,
but
instead
you
went
to
las
vegas
and
stayed
at
the
paris
instead
of
going
to
europe.
J
It
just
has
a
kit,
a
kitsch,
that's
not
historic.
It's
it's
like
the
the
owner
prior
to
bob,
went
to
hobby
lobby
and
bots
are
artificially
distressed
and
aged
ornaments
and
hung
them
on
the
outside
of
the
house.
The
last
one
here,
integrity
and
so
of
association
and
that's
easy.
No
historically
significant
person
or
event
is
associated
with
the
home
ted
covered
the
basis
for
error.
I'm
not
going
to
I'm
not
going
to
go
too
deeply
into
that.
J
A
J
You
very
much
one
of
the
comments
was
that
if
the
period
of
significance
ended
in
1970
instead
of
1949,
the
changes
to
the
home
would
be
within
the
period
of
significance.
None
of
these
are
valid
basis
for
denial.
One
of
the
other
ones
was
that
that
the
the
significant
changes
to
the
home
could
be
reversed
and
it
could
be
returned
to
its
original
appearance.
Those
are
not
basis
for
for
for
denying
this
application.
J
J
It
only
has
one
I'll
grant
that
the
that
the
the
city's
current
file
includes
all
of
those
additional
sanborn
maps,
but
according
to
the
survey,
they
only
reviewed
the
1903
sandburn
fire
insurance
map,
meaning
that
they
didn't
have
the
the
other
ones
with
them.
Additionally,
there's
no
building
permits
listed
here,
although
there
are
three
posts,
era
or
period
of
significance
in
the
city's
file.
Now
it's
the
later
ones
that
are
the
most
important,
the
ones
that
are
after
the
period
of
significance,
because
they
show
those
changes.
P
P
Good
evening,
madam
mayor
and
city
council
members,
I
thank
you
for
hearing
our
appeal
again.
I
just
want
to
reiterate
I
I
purchased
this
home
back
in
2001
shortly
after
the
historic
district
was
established.
P
I
have
since
grown
my
family,
I'm
a
contributing
member
to
the
to
the
city,
my
I'm,
a
special
ed
teacher,
my
wife's,
a
teacher
in
the
boise
district
as
well.
We've
been
there
for
20
years
almost
and
we
want
to
stay
there
and
we
would
like
to
see
these
errors
corrected.
P
There
are
major
changes
done
to
this
house.
Yes,
it
is
a
cute
house
from
a
distance,
but
if
you
go
inside
and
you
see
the
ornament
things
that
they've
done,
the
construction
is
not
worth
saving
and
we
we
are
fully
prepared
and
we
want
to
put
a
new
home
there
add
on
whatever
we
need
to
do
in
order
to
keep
it
the
aesthetics
of
the
neighborhood
we've
been
there.
We
love
it.
That's
why
we're
there?
B
B
J
Absolutely
the
the
best
shot
that
I
have
here
is
that
the
commission's
decision
was
arbitrary,
capricious
or
an
abuse
of
discretion,
in
that
it
was
made
without
an
made
without
a
rational
basis,
and
the
the
basis
for
that
argument
is
that
the
face
of
the
of
the
inventory
that
was
performed
in
1999
indicates
that
only
one
sanborn
map
was
reviewed
and
subsequently,
apparently
the
there
were
additional.
J
There
was
additional
information
added
to
the
city's
file,
but
the,
but
it
was
not
corrected
the
there
is
no
evidence
or
no
fact
in
the
record
to
suggest
that
the
to
counter
this.
The
evidence
on
that
the
face
of
that
inventory
that
only
the
1903
sanborn
map
was
considered.
I
E
I
Thank
you,
madam
mayor,
so
my
question
is
also
for
josh.
It's
it's
this
at
any
time
during
this
process.
I
know,
as
I
look
back
through
the
record,
you
assume
that
the
staff
should
conduct
a
second
survey
at
any
time
during
this
process.
Did
you
consider
just
paying
for
a
second
survey
and
taking
it
to
the
shippo
and
getting
it
certified.
J
Thank
you,
madam
mayor
and
council
president
clint,
yes,
and
and
due
to
time
constraints
and
also
financial
constraints
didn't
go
that
route.
I
appreciated
your
questions
earlier
about
the
the
time
and
and
the
delay
that
would
happen
after
this
application
were
to
be
were
the
application
to
continue
to
be
denied
and
that's
something
we
would
consider
going
forward.
H
Madam
mayor,
yes,
question
for
appellate
bob
actually
and
then
council
may
want
to
jump
in,
but
I
start
with
bob
bob
first.
You
know
thanks
for
thanks
for
you
and
your
wife's
occupation
as
teachers.
I
think
it's
a
really
challenging
time
to
be
a
teacher
right
now
and
I
I
can't
imagine
that
special,
a
teacher,
the
challenges
that
you're
having
to
come
overcome
there.
H
So
thank
you,
my
question,
I
guess
is
so
when
you
moved
into
the
house,
you
understood
that
it
was
in
a
historic
district
and
I
guess
my
question
is:
did
you
did
you
understand?
It
was
a
historic
district
then,
and
you've
changed
your
mind
because
now
you've
gotten
to
know
the
house
and
you've
looked
at
the
integrity
of
materials
and
design
and
you've
changed
your
mind
because
you
know
the
house
better.
Is
that
what
you're
arguing.
P
Well,
I
think
it
was
twofold:
it
was
brand
new.
I
was
31
years
old,
it's
the
first
house
I've
ever
bought.
I
didn't
like
that.
I
gotta
notice
that
it
was
historic,
but
I
didn't
even
know
the
difference
between
contributing
non-contributing
and
then
yes,
as
I've
gotten
to
know
the
house
and
know
my
neighbors,
because
one
of
my
neighbors
actually
thought
about
buying
it
but
knew
how
much
money
it
was
gonna
take
to
get
it
into
good
shape
and
we
love.
P
We
love
the
house,
we
love
our
area
and
we
just
are
looking
for
the
opportunity
to
stay
where
we
are,
but.
P
P
H
Perfect
thanks
bob.
I
bought
my
house
at
about
the
same
age
and
I
I
know
what
you're
saying
so
just
to
follow
up,
I
guess
with
council,
so
I
guess
kind
of
what
bob
was
talking
about
there
a
little
bit.
What
you're
saying
is
that
when
you
look
at
this
house
from
the
outside,
it
looks
like
a
cute
historic
house,
but
then,
when
you
start
looking
at
the
changes
that
have
happened,
the
bones
on
the
inside
when
you
take
a
closer
look,
the
integrity
of
design
is
no
longer
there.
J
Madam
mayor
and
council
member
haley
bergen,
I
I
would.
J
A
little
bit
different
than
that,
our
argument
isn't
based
on
the
time
that
he's
been
there.
Rather,
our
argument
is
based
on
the
fact
that
the
changes
that
have
occurred
have
been
to
the
exterior
front.
The
facade
of
this
home
and
are
are
readily
apparent
from
from
looking
at
the
home,
but
only
if
you
have
the
right
documents
in
front
of
you
to
show
what
those
changes
have
been
since
the
period
of
significance
ended.
J
If
you
don't
have
those
or
if
you
don't,
have
a
baseline
during
the
period
of
significance
to
know
what
it
looked
like,
then
it
just
like
looks
like
a
north
end
home,
but
with
all
that
documentation
in
hand,
it
changes
your
perspective
and
you
can
see
that
it
that
it
isn't
a
contributing
home
and
that
that
design
integrity
has
not
been
maintained.
H
And
madam
mayor
just
one
follow-up-
and
this
may
be
again
for
for
council
or
maybe
for
staff.
So
when
the
house
was
came
when
the
house
was
evaluated
when
somebody
came
and
evaluated
it
did
they
determine
that
it
had
that
integrity
of
worksmanship,
of
materials
of
design
still.
J
J
Our
main
argument
is
that
they
didn't
have
the
documentation
necessary
to
be
able
to
show
that
that
all
of
these
changes
occurred
after
that
period
of
significance
so
that
it
isn't
actually
contributing
the
other
way
to
look
at
it
is
that
they
checked
the
wrong
box
that
there
was
a
mistake,
made
a
simple
human
error
as
opposed
to
a
a
substantive
mistake.
H
Thank
you
and
then
I
guess
just
to
staff
the
same
question,
if
I
could
is
it
interpreted
from
the
evaluation
that
took
place
that
it
did
have
that
integrity
of
worksmanship
materials
design
when
that
evaluation
was
done
or
is
that
able
to
be
determined
from
that
report?.
H
And
then
ted,
I'm
sorry
to
take
up
so
much
time
here,
but
so
ted.
When
you
are
talking
about
the
integrity
of
materials
and
design.
Are
we
typically
talking
about
the
actual
bones
frame
structure
of
the
house
or
would
a
a
porch
relocation
and
a
door
relocation?
H
M
M
As
far
as
yeah
typically,
you
know
if,
if
somebody
were
to
come
to
us
and
ask
to
remove
a
porch
on
a
contributing
house,
that
would
have
to
go
to
the
commission
and
and
almost
certainly
it
would
be
denied,
because
the
porch
is
considered
a
significant
factor
as
on
the
design
of
a
home.
I
think
what
the
commit,
what
the
historic
commission
determined
here
is
that
the
style
of
the
house
as
a
vernacular
structure,
which
means
essentially
that
it
was
it,
was
constructed
using.
M
You
know
local
materials,
local
design,
concepts
that
it's
still
even
with
the
the
porch
moved
or
removed
it
still
held
on
to
that
vernacular
style
and
design
that
kept
it
contributing.
M
You
know
if
this
were
a
house
that
was
more
a
more
traditional
styled
house
like
a
craftsman
house
or
a
queen,
anne
or
a
tudor
style
house.
M
The
porch
or
the
entry
would
be
may
have
been
seen,
as
is
really
a
critical
component
of
that
structure,
but
in
this
case
I
think
you
know
the
the
commission
determined
that,
with
the
vernacular
design,
the
vernacular
style
of
the
house
is
still
intact.
Even
though
the
porch
has
been
has
been
moved
or
relocated.
I
A
I
Yes
go
ahead.
I
just
wanted
to
ask
one
question
that
I
think
maybe
corrects
a
misperception
that
happened
during
this
questioning
ted.
While
the
surveys
were
done
in
1999,
the
historic
district
was
not
established
until
2000.
I
I
can't
remember
if
it
was
late,
2004
early
2005,
but
when
mr
stepquanos
bought
this
home
it
was
not
in
an
historic
district.
Is
that
correct.
M
Madam
mayor
councilmember
clegg,
yeah,
the
the
the
surveys
are
typically
the
first
step
or
one
of
the
first
steps
to
be
done
when
creating
a
new
historic
district.
So
this
this
the
surveys
help
us
determine
the
integrity
of
a
potential
historic
district.
How
many
contributing
structures
do
we
actually
have?
How
many
historic
structures
do
we
have?
So
that's
done
first.
So
that
was
done.
You
know
in
in
1999
and
usually
the
historic
district.
M
N
A
A
A
B
G
Madam
mayor,
yes
go
ahead,
this
is
my
old
neighborhood
and
bob
and
jen
were
my
old
neighbors
and
I
adore
them
so
very
much
and
having
lived
in
one
of
these
little
1940s
vernaculars
for
many
years
and
starting
our
family
there.
G
We
also
saw
the
limitations
with
the
house
and
ended
up
having
to
leave
the
neighborhood
that
we
loved
so
dearly.
But
these
little
vernaculars.
A
B
A
And
open
it
up
for
josh
to
give
what
do
we
have
for
a
rebuttal,
a
five-minute
rebuttal,
and
then
we
will
start
again.
Sorry
about
that.
D
J
That
is
that,
up
there,
okay,
there
we
go.
Yes,
I'm
going
to
speed
ahead
a
little
bit
here.
I
want
to
show
you
a
couple
of
pictures,
because
the
if
you
can
see
that
on
here,
the
on
the
left
is
a
is
a
home
that
was
in
a
1993
survey
for
the
north
end
historic
district
that
was
correctly
classified
as
non-contributing
and
exists
as
non-contributing
today
on
the
right
is
the
stephonicus
home,
which
was
incorrectly
classified
as
contributing.
J
The
reason
I
want
to
show
this
to
you
is
that
the
home
on
the
left
is
likely
exactly
what
the
stefanikos's
home
looked
like
during
the
period
of
significance
with
the
home
facing
with
the
eve
to
the
right,
the
door
facing
forward
and
on
the
left
side
and
a
small
porch
over
time.
After
the
period
of
significance,
it
became
what
you
see
on
the
right,
which
is
a
significantly
different
appearance
than
what
it
was
back.
J
J
J
We
were
struck
by
the
fact
that
that
there
there's
not
a
requirement
on
the
application
to
include
that,
and
I
strongly
suggest,
if
that's,
if
that's
going
to
be
a
basis
for
denial
going
forward,
including
a
a
point
on
that
application
to
provide
a
new
survey.
We
believed
at
the
time
and
still
believe
that
we
had
found
a
sufficient
error
on
the
face
of
that
1999
survey
in
the
fact
that
they
weren't
and
it's
not
an
intentional
error.
J
It's
a
a
mistake,
or
even
they
just
didn't,
have
the
documentation
from
1956
and
those
those
building
permits
from
later
to
be
able
to
to
determine
that
the
changes
had
occurred,
as
you
can
see
from
the
pictures.
The
the
way
it
looked
then,
and
the
way
it
looked
now
are
very
different.
I'd
also
note
that
there
were,
as
ted
mentioned,
there
were
four
emails
in
not
just
in
support
but
inadequate
support
of
this
for
the
staffanikusas.
J
This
is
a
situation
where,
as
I
as
I
mentioned
earlier,
they
have
the
ability,
under
their
existing,
permit
their
certificate
of
appropriateness
to
take
this
house
down
to
the
studs.
It's
just
a
matter
of
of.
I
believe
it's
about
60
000
more
dollars
to
do
it.
That
way,
as
opposed
to
to
proposing
an
entirely
new
structure.
If
that
sixty
thousand
dollars
achieved
the
benefit
and
and
preserved
the
appearance
of
the
house
in
a
historic
way
or
or
of
a
contributing
structure,
they
would
be
all
for
it
that
that's
the
way
they
are.
J
However,
sixty
thousand
dollars
to
completely
eliminate
everything
that
you
see
in
the
picture
and
only
leave
the
studs
it
it
just
doesn't
make
sense
to
them,
and,
and
hopefully
they're
they
are-
are
not
priced
out
of
this
neighborhood.
Hopefully,
they're
able
to
stay
here
and
raise
their
home
and
raise
their
family
in
the
only
home
that
they've
known
and
ask
ask
you
to
to
reverse
and
and
approve
the
application.
G
Take
a
second
crack
at
this,
madam
mayor,
I
move
to
deny
drh
20-294
the
appeal
of
the
historic
preservation
commission's
denial
of
a
certificate
of
appropriateness,
request
to
reclassify
the
contributing
single-family
structure
to
non-contributing
at
1316,
north
sixth
street.
G
Madam
mayor
I'll
I'll,
just
kind
of
blip,
bl
flip
back
and
rewind
a
little
bit
so
again
I
used
to
live
in
this
neighborhood
and
I
know
bob
and
jen
well
and
we
had.
I
mean
it
was
just
a
few
months
ago
that
we
had
another
vernacular
in
the
north
end.
G
That
was,
you
know
almost
the
identical
situation
and
our
job
is
to
figure
out
if
there
was
an
error
on
the
side
of
historic
preservation,
commission
in
denying
the
certificate
of
appropriateness-
and
I
don't
believe
there
was
if
we
need
to
have
a
larger
conversation
around
the
role
of
vernaculars
in
the
north
end,
and
if
we
consider
them
worthy
of
preservation,
then
we
should
have.
G
We
should
have
that
conversation
as
a
historic
preservation
commission
with
our
historic
preservation,
community
members,
but
absent
that
and
not
seeing
any
mistake
by
our
his
historic
preservation.
Commission
members
who
are
subject
matter
experts.
I
see
no
reason
to
uphold
the
appeal.
A
B
B
At
the
same
time,
we
have
the
rules
and
we
have
the
laws
and
we
have
them,
because
presumably
we've
had
this
conversation
and
decided
that
that
cost
benefit
is
worth
it
and
we
may,
in
the
future,
have
that
conversation
again
and
decide
it
differently
sitting
here.
The
important
thing
to
do
is
apply
the
rules
fairly
and
not
substitute
my
discretion
or
my
judgment
or
my
set
of
personal
political
beliefs
about
private
property.
For
what
the
law
says
and
what
the
law
says
is
absent
in
error
by
the
historic
preservation
commission,
we
should
affirm
their
decision.
B
N
B
There
are
some
arguments
and
suggestions
as
to
why
it
may
have
concluded
differently,
but
its
conclusion
isn't
an
abusive
discretion
in
that
it
had
no
rational
basis.
I
can
see
the
rational
basis
for
its
decision
and
so
under
the
standard
of
review
that
we
have
to
follow.
It's
our
job
to
affirm
their
decision.
C
Better
mayor,
yes,
yeah,
thank
you
there's
no
way.
I
can
say
this
any
better
than
councilmember
beijing
just
did.
I
agree
with
every
everything
that
he
just
stated,
and
I
agree
with
the
points
made
by
council
pro
tem
woodings
as
well.
I
mean
this.
This
is
a
very
tough
one.
For
me,
I
certainly
believe
in
the
race
to
you
know,
update
your
home.
C
C
We
have
these
rules
in
place
at
the
historic
district
and
they're
tough
and
they
go
along
with
living
in
the
historic
district,
and
I,
at
the
end
of
the
day
we
have
to
decide
if
there
was
an
error
made
and
based
on
the
sound
analysis
just
provided
by
a
council
member
of
agent.
There
is
no
error.
Thank
you.
I
I
So
I'm
not
quite
sure
where
the
vote's
going,
but
I
you
know
this
is
one
I'm
very
torn
on.
I
was
in
fact
a
member
of
this
council
when
we
voted
to
establish
this.
This
historic
district.
I
was
a
member
of
the
public
advocating
for
it
before
that
and
helped
advocate
to
get
the
surveys
done.
I
Those
surveys
were
done
to
my
knowledge
pretty
meticulously.
There
were
a
lot
of
people
watching
when
that
happened,
and
it's
true
that
I've
watched
this
neighborhood.
I
lived
not
very
far
away
lose
all
of
its.
I
What
one
would
consider
working
class
buildings
over
the
last
few
years
and
it
does
over
time
change
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
and
if
the
purpose
of
a
historic
district
is
to
protect
that
character,
I
think
losing
at
least
the
outline
and
the
size
dimensions.
Setbacks
of
these
vernacular
homes
does
in
fact
change
that
character.
I
I
So,
while
I'm
torn,
I
think
the
arguments
that
council
member
beijing
voiced
are
are
certainly
true.
I
can't
find
this
decision
to
be
arbitrary
or
capricious.
H
I'll
be
voting
with
the
motion
as
well.
I
think,
like
everyone
else,
I'm
a
little
bit
torn.
I
may
be
for
slightly
different
reasons
in
that
I
don't
know
if
it's
contributing
or
not,
you
know,
there's
some
things
that
I
heard
that
I
think
are
a
little
bit
alarming
things
that
have
been
done
to
this
house
that
wouldn't
be
allowed
to
be
done
to
any
other
house
at
this
point
of
time
or
likely
wouldn't
be
allowed
for
these
houses,
but
at
the
same
time
it
was.
H
There
was
an
evaluation
that
was
done
on
the
house
by
someone
who
knows
a
lot
more
about
this
than
I
do.
That
evaluation
was
examined
by
the
historic
commission,
who
has
a
lot
more
experience
with
this
than
I
do,
and
if
they
are
finding,
if
that's
the
finding
that
they
have
and
it
meets
those
seven
different
criteria
or
most
of
those
seven
criteria,
then
I'm
gonna
have
to
go
along
with
that.
H
I
guess
you
know
one
of
the
things
that
we,
I
think
try
to
do
in
situations
like
this
is
try
to
make
sure
that
we
let
people
know
what
their
their
options
are.
Going
forward
and
whether
that's
something
that
happens
here
tonight
or
at
a
later
date,
I
would
certainly
be
interested
in
knowing
what
those
additional
options
going
forward
are,
whether
it's
an
additional
evaluation
that
can
be
re-applied,
whether
it
is
a
different
way
of
remodeling,
the
house
or
whatever
it
may
be.
But
I
will
be
voting
with
the.
S
Motion
mayor
go
ahead.
Thank
you,
madam
mayor.
I
agree
with
council
president
clegg.
This
is
hard
because
you
know
the
north
end
is
special
and
part
of
what
makes
us
special
is
the
moves
that
electeds,
like
council
president
clegg
made
to
protect
its
character,
but
we're
also
talking
about
people
and
you
know
never.
S
Has
the
importance
of
people
been
made
more
clear
than
this
here,
and
you
know
I
echo
council,
member
halliburton
stakes
to
this
family
for
taking
up
a
very
noble
profession
as
teachers
and
again
what
a
time
to
be
a
teacher
in
2020,
but
I
also
know
we
have
to
make
choices
in
life
and
I
too
had
to
make
a
choice
in
the
early
2000s.
When
I
purchased
my
home,
I
wanted
a
cute
old
home
too.
S
I
would
have
loved
to
have
purchased
a
home
of
the
north
end,
but
I
had
to
be
practical,
and
so
my
practical
choice
was
to
to
have
new
construction
in
one
of
those
controversial
tall,
skinny
houses
near
boise
state,
but
but
yeah.
I
knew
that
if
I
chose
the
other
route
to
have
a
cute
little
bungalow
little
cottage
in
the
north
end
that
there
might
be
consequences
for
that
on
down
the
road
and
I've
never
had
a
job
that
made
a
lot
of
money.
S
Much
like
a
teacher,
and
so
I
had
to
make
that
choice
to
go
the
practical
route.
So
what
I'm
hoping
is
that,
since
we
are
having
these
come
before
us-
and
there
seems
to
be
some
heartache
in
some
of
this
decision,
making
I'm
hoping
that
we
will
find
ways
to
improve
the
process
to
take
a
closer
look
at
the
situation
so
that
we
can
embrace
a
third
way.
A
All
right,
I
think
that
that
has
been
everyone
and
I'll
just
say.
I
won't
be
voting.
It
looks
like,
but
I
do.
I
do
think
that
there's
some
merit
in
looking
at
the
you
know,
aside
from
one
particular
item,
I'm
looking
at
the
rules
and
the
guidelines
as
they're
written
and
to
see,
if
you
know
in
it
and
and
the
classifications
of
contributing
to
see
if
inadvertently,
there
aren't
more
and
potential
issues
in
the
future
that
we'd
want
to
avoid.
A
It's
a
vernacular
house,
the
working-class
house
that
we're
trying
to
protect
in
the
north
end,
but
it
becomes
harder
and
harder
for
and
working-class
people
to
live
in
the
houses
that
were
working-class
houses
and
you
lose
that
part
of
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
or
you
risk
that
as
and
I
and
I
think
that
could
in
fact
be
an
inadvertent
impact
of
the
work
that
was
done
to
protect
the
character
of
the
neighborhood,
so
something
the
historic
commission
and,
together
with
council,
it
sounds
like
there's
some
interest.
E
A
P
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Chambers,
okay,
so
next
up
we
have
caa
20-127
an
appeal:
the
planning
and
zoning
commission's
approval
of
a
wireless
communication
facility
at
601
north
27th
street.
First
up
we
have
cody.
I
see
you
cody
on
zoom
and
then
we'll
start
with
the
appellant
harry
layman
and
kathy
cook.
Are
you
in
person
or
online.
T
A
I'm
sorry
well,
thank
you
for
joining
us
remotely
next
up
we'll
have
the
applicant
melissa,
regan,
melissa,
also
online.
A
And
then
the
neighborhood
association
of
record
is
the
west
end
jason
durand,
and
then
I
have
people
that
signed
up
in
advance
in
both
online
we'll
start
with
people
in
the
room.
There
are
two
people
that
signed
up
in
the
room
that
are
not
parties
of
record,
so
I
just
want
to
bring
this
up
now.
We've
done
our
research.
So
if
you
disagree,
then
we'll
need
to
have
a
distance
conversation
about
it,
heather
chambers
and
david.
Is
it
minor
or
misner
yeah
a
party
of
record
and
an
appeal
means?
A
A
A
I
I
I
had
a
meeting
with
him
to
see
if
there
was
any
opportunity
for
community
grants
or
community-based
philanthropy
that
might
help
some
of
those
non-profits
out
of
the
organization
that
he
runs
within
verizon.
We
did
not
talk
about
5g
on
august
6th,
however,
I
did
meet
with
advocates
who
would
prefer
to
see
more
regulation
of
5g.
I
I
met
with
david
de
haas
and
two
other
advocates,
and
we
discussed
all
kinds
of
issues
that
they
believe
are
true
around
5g
and
ways
that
they
believe
cities
could
regulate
the
the
location
of
that
it
was
before
this
appeal
was
filed.
It
was
before
I
had
any
knowledge
that
this
might
be
appealed,
and
so
I
would
say
it
is.
I
It
was
not
ex-parte
communication
concerning
this
particular
application.
It
was
broad
communication
around
the
issue
in
general,
so
I
just
wanted
to
clear
up
that.
Yes,
in
fact,
I
had
met
with
advocates
and
yes,
in
fact,
I
did
meet
with
verizon,
but
it
was
not
around
5g.
It
was
around
community
philanthropy.
Thank
you.
U
Your
slides
all
right,
thank
you,
madam
mayor.
It's
kind
of
a
little
a
little
different
format
again
this
evening,
so
I
apologize
for
any
trouble
in
advance.
Mata
mayor
members
of
council.
This
item
is
an
appeal
of
the
planning
and
zoning
commission's
approval
of
a
wireless
communication
facility
located
at
601
north
27th
street.
As
you
as
you
noted,
the
commission,
essentially
in
approving
the
facility,
upheld
the
july
approval
of
the
installation
by
the
planning
staff
that
approval
did
allow
the
installation
of
a
5g
antenna
on
the
street
light
pole
slightly
modified.
U
U
First,
the
appellant
suggests
that
the
dis
that
we
violated
our
own
code
and
that
a
propagation
study
wasn't
included
in
the
original
submittal
that
is
actually
true.
The
applicant
didn't
originally
include
a
propagation,
a
study.
I
I
would
note,
though
this
is
a
new
technology
with
these
5g
antennas.
We
essentially
at
that
point,
have
we
effectively
have
no
coverage
throughout
much
of
the
city?
U
The
code
is
really
based
on
traditional
towers
and
not
and
older
technology,
and
not
this
newer
technology.
That
being
said
there,
as
you
know,
there
is
an
open
record
at
the
planning
and
zone
zoning
commission
and
the
applicant
did
provide
subsequently
a
propagation
study.
As
you
can
see
here,
it's
clear
there
is
a
gap
in
what
is
on
otherwise
almost
non-existent
coverage
in
this
area.
U
U
The
city
code
or
development
code
does
not
currently
make
that
distinction,
and
so,
in
summary,
with
this
ground,
if
there
was
an
error
in
that
original
administrative
action
and
action,
we
do
believe
it
was
remedied
through
the
planning
and
zoning
commission
process
the
next
next
ground.
The
appellant
believes
we
should
be
looking
at
environmental
impacts
as
it
relates
to
5g
installation
they,
and
they
do
contend
that.
I
believe
you'll
hear
that
we're
not
preempted
by
the
fcc.
U
We've
looked
at
that
carefully
actually
a
number
of
times
along
with
our
own
legal
camp
council
and
are
confident
that
we
are
in
fact
preempted
and
even
if
we're
wrong,
it
is
not
a
current
standard
of
our
development
code
that
nepa
review
is
a
federal
standard
and
again
not
a
local
standard
in
our
in
our
development
code.
So
if
it's
deficient,
it's
that,
through
the
federal
system
that
it
would
need
to
be
challenged
regardless,
the
ground
does
not
reflect
an
error
in
this
in
our
local
decision.
U
Next,
the
appellate
believes
that
additional
written
analysis
to
support
the
installation
should
have
been
required.
It
is
true
that
there
was
minimal
written
information
included
in
that
original
application.
But
again
our
code
really
is
based
on
some
of
that
older
technology
and
doesn't
necessarily
reflect
5g
installations
perfectly
it
really.
However,
the
code
does
promote
installations
precisely
like
the
one
is
that
it
is
a
pro
proposed
and
was
approved
by
the
commission.
U
However,
like
the
propagation
study,
if
there
was
any
error
in
this
regard,
it
was
remedied
at
the
planning
and
zoning
commission
with
an
additional
letter
of
explanation
provided
to
the
commission
again.
The
purpose
of
that
open
record
at
the
commission
is
to
try
and
resolve
any
sort
of
discrepancies
in
in
that
regard,
and
we
do
believe
that
that
occurred
the
final
ground.
The
appellant
is
also
based
on
on
what
the
appellant
believes
is
a
different
appellant
has
a
different
interpretation
of
federal
law.
U
In
closing
my
comments,
I
want
to
be
clear
not
intended
to
downplay
the
appellant's
concern.
The
fact
is
that
we,
we
actually
have
a
very,
very
narrow,
focus
here
and
are
quite
limited
in
in
what
we
can
actually
consider
so
based
on
that
and
the
current
standards
of
the
code.
We
don't
see
where
there's
been
an
error
and
are
recommending
denial.
This
appeal
this
evening.
I
would
note
just
as
a
reminder
the
mayor
touched
on
it.
The
testimony
this
evening
is
is
limited
to
parties
of
record
in
this
case.
Thank
you.
A
A
A
Yeah,
I'm
sorry
right
now
some
council's
asking
questions
and
then
we'll
hear
from
the
appellant
applicant
and
then
when
oh,
no,
that's,
okay,
yeah,
it
wasn't
clear.
I
was
just.
I
was
staring
at
the
council
members
who
were
on
the
screen
but
yeah.
So
this
is
just
for
council
right
now,
that's!
Okay!
A
T
Thank
you.
Can
I
share
my
screen
here.
T
Sure,
yes,
kathy
cook
address
is
688:
north
29th
street
boise,
idaho
83702.
T
And
so
thank
you,
mrs
mayor
and
city
council
members,
for
taking
the
time
to
hear
our
appeal
this
evening.
I
know
that
you've
had
an
extraordinary
year
and
I'm
grateful
for
your
time
and
consideration
in
this
matter.
I
should
state,
however,
that
I
am
very
disappointed
with
the
refusal
to
meet
with
the
many
citizens
that
have
made
countless
requests
to
discuss
this
issue.
T
T
T
T
I
did,
however,
state
relevant
facts
about
the
law
and
how
the
city
has
disregarded
their
own
city
development
code,
and
I'm
not
here
to
discuss
the
alarming
things
that
you
know.
I've
seen
about
5g
on
the
internet,
but
rather
where
the
city
has
fallen
short
in
its
duties
and
how
they
failed
to
protect
the
public
and
to
give
you
the
basic
legal
facts
that
your
colleagues
have
failed
to
understand.
T
T
T
T
T
T
This
is
not
a
propagation
study.
A
propagation
model
means
that
a
mathematical
formulation
for
the
characterization
of
radio
wave
propagation
as
a
function
of
the
frequency,
distance
and
other
conditions
should
be
supplied.
T
T
T
T
So,
as
mr
riddle
implied,
there
is
the
difference
between
title
1
and
title
2
when
it
comes
to
the
fcc
guidelines-
and
this
is
important
to
note-
the
planning
and
zoning
staff
has
admitted
that
they
do
not
know
the
difference
between
title
one
and
title
two,
and
so
you
should
note
that
title.
One
services
per
federal
law
are
about
data,
streaming,
email,
telemedicine
and
other
advanced
technologies.
T
T
T
T
T
There
is
no
information
about
the
effective
radiated
power
in
these
slides
whatsoever.
As
you
will
see,
in
the
document
files,
the
antennas
listed
are
tbd,
meaning
the
antennas
that
they
listed
aren't
even
listed
in
the
application
documents.
They
are
to
be
determined.
T
Therefore,
your
staff
is
approving
this
technology
without
even
knowing
what
the
effective
radiated
power
is.
This
is
not
in
alignment
with
fcc
guidelines,
and
this
is
true
for
about
all
150
applications
plus
that
have
been
approved
to
date.
I
have
yet
to
see
an
application
where
the
antennas
are
actually
listed.
T
So
again,
I
want
to
remind
the
city
of
its
liability
in
this,
and,
in
short,
your
staff
and
legal
counsel
have
demonstrated
that
they
do
not
have
a
solid
understanding
of
of
the
federal
commission
communication
guidelines,
nor
are
they
experts
in
radio
frequency,
as
we
would
not
expect
them
to
be.
What
we
would
expect,
however,
is
that
you
consult
with
independent
experts
free
from
the
indoctrination
that
the
industry
has
so
easily
imposed
on
you.
T
Now
that
you
have
this
information,
I
look
forward
to
your
reasonable
enforcement
of
the
law
as
pertaining
to
the
fccf
wcf
application
submitted
from
now
on.
I
also
look
forward
to
your
approval
of
this
appeal,
as
it
clearly
did
not
meet
boise
city
development
code
and
because
no
information
regarding
the
effective
radiated
power
is
listed
in
this
or
any
other
wcf
application.
T
A
A
A
A
V
Okay-
my
apologies.
It's
better
on
my
audio
than
my
computer
system
and
to
that
end
I'll,
introduce
myself
and
then
I
will
turn
off
my
video
just
because
I
also
have
the
lag
with
the
powerpoint
but
melissa
reagan
appearing
on
behalf
of
the
applicant
verizon
wireless
service
outside
council,
with
sherman
and
howard
633
17th
street
suite
3000,
denver
colorado,
and
I
appreciate
you
thank
you,
madam
mayor
and
council
members,
for
allowing
me
to
present
to
you
this
evening.
V
V
So
I
will
not
spend
a
lot
of
time
rehashing.
We
agree
with
the
city
staff's
report
and
recommendation
that
the
city
council
deny
the
appeal.
We
also
submitted
written
arguments
to
the
city
council,
both
on
october
8th
as
our
affirmative
arguments,
as
well
as
in
response
to
appellant
written
submission
on
october
15th.
So
those
include
several
of
our
arguments
and
responses,
including
the
legal
legal
citations
and
the
like
that
we'll
be
talking
about
during
our
presentation
this
evening.
We
are
available
to
answer
any
questions
that
the
city
council
may
have.
V
V
I
wanted
to
jump
in
and
address
some
of
the
issues
that
the
appellant
has
raised,
but
first
just
want
to
recap:
the
boise
planting
and
zoning
commission's
written
decision
that
they
stated
on
the
record
that
the
grounds
for
appeal
don't
do
not
demonstrate
an
error
in
the
planning
team's
decision
and
while
certain
submittal
documents
were
initially
missing,
they
have
since
been
received
and
have
been
found
to
comply
with
the
boise
city
code
and,
as
mr
riddle
informed
the
city
council.
That
is
a
permitted
application
that
is
allowed
to
happen.
V
The
planning
and
zoning
commission
can
consider
new
evidence
that
wasn't
previously
in
the
record
in
its
decision
to
uphold
the
permit
issuance
and
deny
the
appeal
and
as
they
stated
while
the
appellant
has
included
grounds
for
the
appeal
they
had
failed
to
demonstrate
any
error
in
the
administrative
decision
and
how
the
application
does
not
comply
with
the
minimum
criteria
established
by
the
boise
city
code.
V
So
the
planning
and
zoning
commission's
decision
to
deny
the
appeal
is
a
presumptively
valid
decision,
and
the
city
council
must
give
deference
to
that
decision,
and
it
cannot
grant
an
appeal
unless
it's
committed
a
specific
error
and
those
are
four
different
errors
which
the
appellant
has
not
demonstrated
that
any
have
those
errors
exist
in
the
record.
We
do
not
have
any
violation
of
constitutional
state
or
city
law.
V
I
do
want
to
just
spend
a
few
minutes
talking
about
why
this
site
is
needed
and
why
verizon
is
expanding
the
wireless
network-
and
this
is
particularly
important
in
the
times
we're
living
in
right
now
with
coved
we
have.
Eighty
percent
of
all
small
businesses
are
using
and
supporting
more
small
cell
deployment.
Eighty
percent
of
nine
one
one
calls
are
made
from
wireless
devices.
V
90
of
us
households
are
using
wireless
services
with
almost
50
percent
of
57
percent
of
households,
only
having
wireless
service
not
having
a
landline
and
and
today
of
the
world
of
covid19.
In
particular,
this
really
has
brought
to
the
forefront
the
importance
of
wireless
services
as
you'll
see
just
from
2019
to
2020.
We
have
a
significant
expansion
of
the
types
of
products,
applications
and
services
that
are
used.
V
We've
got
the
work
from
home,
for
so
many
businesses,
the
telemedicine
services
that
we
need
to
support
and
provide
our
wireless
services,
for
we
talked
about
capacity
that
5g
is
more
of
a
capacity
site
than
it
is
necessarily
coverage
site
coverage,
meaning
the
calls
that
you
make
from
your
phone.
But
this
app
this
site
itself
is
both
a
4g
and
5g
site.
V
So
it's
supporting
the
infrastructure,
that's
already
in
existence
of
our
4g
lte
network,
which
does
provide
coverage
services
as
well
as
capacity,
and
so
we
just
talk
about
how
much
capacity
each
of
these
sites
can
handle,
and
it
only
has
a
limited
amount.
Smartphones
are
taking
up
50
times
the
amount
of
network
capacity
of
the
standard
phone,
and
so
in
order
to
meet
our
services.
We've
got
to
deploy
in
these
areas
just
to
provide
a
little
bit
more
of
an
explanation
on
the
propagation
map
that
the
appellant
spent
some
time
on
green
means.
V
Wireless
service
is
good,
yellow
means
wireless
service
needs
to
be
improved.
Gray
means
wireless
service
needs
to
be
a
bad.
Now
you
heard
the
appellant
mess
mentioned
that
these
propagation
studies
are
not
sufficient
in
order
to
meet
the
requirements
of
the
boise
code.
Well,
first,
contrary
to
the
representations
by
the
appellant
coverage
and
capacity
are
both
regulated
by
the
fcc.
V
They
certainly
are
underlying
those
formulas
that
the
rf
engineers
were
not
required
to
provide
that
as
part
of
the
city
code
and
I'll
note
that
the
city
council
has
to
consider
what
is
in
the
record
before
it,
the
appellant
has
not
provided
any
propagation
map
that
demonstrates
there
is
not.
There
is
sufficient
coverage
or
capacity
for
this
area,
nor
did
they
provide
an
expert
or
their
own
analysis.
V
Verizon
provided
these
maps.
They
complied
with
the
city
code
and
that's
the
evidence
city
council
has
before
it
to
consider
tonight
I'll
just
state
that
we've
met
all
the
legal
requirements.
V
As
mr
riddle
already
stated,
what
the
city
code
required,
we
provided
the
propagation
maps
and
the
written
analysis
while
it
was
after
the
fact
that
is
permitted
under
the
boise
city
code
to
provide
that
as
part
of
the
open
record,
the
boise
planning
and
zoning
department
and
the
commission
said
that
both
of
these
were
sufficient
and
that
they
demonstrated
the
information
they
needed
to
in
order
to
comply
with
the
code.
V
The
appellant
mentioned
that
federal
law
does
not
require
a
significant
gap
in
coverage
or
that
it
requires
a
significant
gap
in
coverage,
not
capacity
and
that's
actually
incorrect.
The
fcc
no
longer
applies.
A
significant
gap
in
coverage
determine
whether
there
was
an
effective
prohibition
of
wireless
services
under
the
telecommunications
act
again
going
back
to
the
2018
fcc
order,
which
was
just
upheld
by
the
ninth
circuit.
V
It
states
that
the
coverage
gap-based
approaches
are
not
compatible
with
where
the
world
we
are
today
and
the
types
of
facilities
that
are
being
deployed
to
add
network
capacity.
As
mr
riddle
mentioned,
the
code
as
it
exists
today
really
kind
of
still
focuses
on
the
macro
facilities
that
we
were
looking
at
previously
and
hasn't
been
brought
in
to
play
with
the
updated
technologies
and
types
of
services
that
wireless
providers
are
deploying
these
days.
V
There
was
a
lot
of
information
in
the
appellant
submissions
that
the
boise
code.
They
should
have
received
nepa
reviews
or
additional
rf
information
to
be
clear.
That
boise
code
does
not
require
that
type
of
information.
It's
not
one
of
the
required
documentations
the
applicant
was
required
to
produce.
V
V
The
planning
and
zoning
commission
made
that
in
the
record
before
it
and
the
appellant,
in
fact
in
this
case,
has
filed
a
complaint
with
the
fcc
they've
filed
that
proper
procedure
just
kind
of
summarize
again,
we've
talked
about
how
this
applies
to
voice
and
data.
It
won't
rehash
that
point,
but
really
importantly,
kind
of
to
put
a
bow
about
around
this
is
that
the
fellow
federal
telecommunications
act
of
section
332
states
that
a
local
government,
a
jurisdiction
can't
have
the
effect
of
prohibiting
personal
wireless
services.
D
V
The
boise
team's
approval
of
this
permit
allows
us
to
do
so.
It
allows
us
to
fill
the
coverage
and
capacity
gaps
and
the
surrounding
areas,
and
importantly,
give
the
residents
and
your
emergency
service
providers
your
schools,
your
work
from
home,
the
services
that
they
sew
they
so
need
in
these
times,.
V
B
Madam
mayor,
yes,
one
question
for
miss
regan
and
this
pertains
to
the
difference
between
title
one
and
title
two
that
came
up
earlier.
I
understand
332
c7
and
I
understand
its
principle
about
commingled
services
and
its
prohibition
against
us
from
prohibiting
commingled
services.
But
my
question
for
you
is
more
about
how
the
technology
works.
There's
no
such
thing
as
analog
cell
service
anymore.
B
It's
all
digital,
a
telephone
call,
a
text,
it's
all
ones
and
zeros,
and
it's
all
data,
and
so
I'm
trying
to
get
my
head
around
the
distinction
between
voice
and
text
versus
broadband
data.
When,
as
I
understand
it,
it's
all
digital
and
it's
all
data,
can
you
just
help
me
understand
how
the
technology
works
and
how
that
fits
into
title
1
and
title.
A
B
D
B
I
hope
about
how
the
technology
works
and
how
that
then
fits
into
the
title
1
and
title
2
framework,
and
I
want
to
preface
it
by
saying
that
I
do
understand
the
332
c7
rule
about
commingled
services,
and
I
do
understand
that
it
prohibits
us
from
prohibiting
them,
and
I
got
that
part
of
your
argument.
But
what
I
don't
understand
is
how
how
to
think
about
the
technology
now,
because
in
2020
all
telephone
calls
are
digital.
All
texts
are
digital,
which
means
they're
all
really
ones
and
zeros
sent
in
packets
over
the
airwaves.
V
So
it's
a
great
question:
it's
it's
a
pretty
complicated
question,
so
I
will
do
my
best
to
answer
it,
but
really
this
is.
There
is
still
it's
not
all
text
it.
We
have
two.
As
I
mentioned,
the
facility
serves
two
purposes.
It
serves
the
existing
lte
4g,
which
would
not
all
be
over
the
digital
that
you're
talking
about
it.
Also,
it
depends
on
what
type
of
phone
the
user
has
too
as
well.
V
So
unless
a
user
has
the
5g
phone
and
that's
the
only
phone
they're
that
they're
using
then
that
may
be
all
digital
in
that
capacity.
But
in
most
instances
most
of
us
still
have
you
know
the
smartphones
that
are
not
completely
5g
or
a
lot
of
us
don't
even
have
5g
capability
from
our
existing
smartphones,
and
so
part
of
the
purpose
of
this
facility
is
to
fill
in
the
lte
4g
services
and
also
to
provide
the
5d
services.
H
Madam
mayor
council,
member
holly
burton.
A
H
The
appellate
brought
up
something
about
the
propagation
study
being
insufficient
and
in
your
presentation
you
talked
about
how
it
was,
and
perhaps
you
you
went
into
details
here
and
I
just
perhaps
missed
it.
You
could
clarify
it
again,
who
decides
whether
or
not
what
the
regulations
are
sufficient
for
a
propagation
study
when
you
submit
it
to
us.
V
So
let
me
just
make
sure
I
understand
your
question
council
member
hallie
burton
when
you
say
regulations.
What
are
you
referring
to
the
city
like
the
council
regulations,
what
they
would
say
a
propagation
study
is
or.
H
Yeah,
so
we
require
you
to
sit,
submit
a
propagation
study
and
it
was
submitted
later
on,
but
it
was
determined
that
it
was
sufficient,
but
the
appellate
is
saying
that
it's
not
sufficient,
so
I'm
trying
to
figure
out.
How
can
you
tell
if
a
propagation
study
is
sufficient
or
insufficient?
Is
it
regulated
federally?
Is
it
regulated
by
our
city?
How
do
we
determine
whether
the
propagation
study
you
submitted
was
enough.
V
So
our
propagation
studies
are,
you
know:
verizon
has
a
team
of
thousands
of
rf
which
radio
frequency
engineers
and
they
they
create
these
propagation
maps
from
their
very
sophisticated
systems
and
studies
and
the
like,
and
we
submit
these
types
of
propagation
maps
to
jurisdictions
across
the
country
and
are
accepted,
and
in
this
case
the
rf
engineer
for
this
region
did
their
search
ring,
which
is
where
do
we
need
coverage
and
capacity
looking
for
facility
and
then,
as
part
of
that,
they
create
these
propagation
maps
to
say:
look,
we
don't
have
coverage
and
capacity
in
this
area
and
therefore
we
need
to
build
this
facility.
V
So
this
is
the
type
of
map
that
we
use.
You
know
federal
district
court,
all
the
way
up
and
down,
and
then
we
provide
it
to
the
city
and
the
city
in
its
capacity
planning
and
zoning
commissions.
Often,
you
know
their
specialty
expertise
to
review
these
maps
to
determine
whether
or
not
they're
sufficient.
I
think
in
particular
in
this
case
we've
got
a
situation
where
there
really
isn't
any
capacity
there
and
that's
what
this
map
shows.
So
the
facility
is
going
to
provide
that.
V
The
other
point
I
would
make
is
that
in
many
cases
where
we
have
appeals
or
like
a
pellet
or
whoever
it
may
be,
will
hire
their
own
expert
to
come
in
and
perform
its
own
analysis
to
determine
whether
or
not
and
demonstrate,
if
there's
coverage
or
capacity,
and
that
wasn't
provided
in
this
case.
V
V
A
Other
questions
all
right,
it
looks
like
we
will
move
on
now.
If
there
is
a
neighborhood
association.
A
Yeah
because
we've
had
the
appellantly
applicant,
the
neighborhood
association
of
record
is
the
west
end
for
maybe
jason
durand
all
right.
We
thought
it
was
unlikely
that
they
would
speak,
but
we
had
them
listed
just
in
case
okay
with
that
we
will
move
into
public
testimony
if
there
are
no
further
questions
for
staff.
Before
we
do
that.
D
H
If
I
could
just
ask,
maybe
the
same
question
to
cody
about
the
propagation
study,
how
do
you,
how
do
you
determine
whether
this
propagation
study
is
sufficient
or
insufficient?.
U
Madam
mayor
councilmember,
hallie
burton
you
know
in
this
case
initially
with
the
administrative
review,
as
as
I
I
guess,
admitted
or
acknowledged,
we
didn't
have
a
propagation
study
in
issuing
that
original
approval.
With
this
5g
installation
we
can,
we
can
actually
visit
visit
the
site,
whether
it
be
in
person
or
through
virtual,
and
see
that
there's
no
antenna
in
the
area.
These
5g
antennas
cast
such
a
small
radius
that
it's
it's
pretty
apparent
that
there
is.
There
is
no
no
coverage.
U
That
being
said,
the
applicant
did
supplement
the
application
of
the
planning
and
zoning
commission,
and
that
was
that
was
clearly
depicted
graphically
with
that.
With
that
color
illustration
and
and
honestly
we're
not
experts
in
in
radio
frequency
and
and
things
like
that,
but
based
on
the
fact
that
there
are
no
antennas
in
that
immediate
vicinity,
it
was
pretty
clear
that
that
that
was
enough.
R
Allen,
hello
hi,
madam
mayor
city,
council,
hank,
allen,
687
west
rush
court,
so
the
propagation
study
can
I
take
this
off
home.
R
R
So
I'm
a
general
contractor
kind
of
a
simple
guy,
and
I
know
that
if
I
go
in
that
area
on
my
old
cell
phone
that
uses
4g,
I
have
plenty
of
coverage,
so
there's
plenty
of
silk
cell
coverage
throughout
all
the
boise
with
a
4g
coverage.
So
when
patrick
asked,
the
question
help
me
understand
digital
and
what
part
of
this
is
broadband?
R
We
can
all
talk
on
our
cell
phones,
and
we
know
that
now
when
it
comes
to
5g,
which
is
going
to
be
a
broadband
digital
signal,
of
course,
there's
no
reception
there,
it's
a
new
technology,
but
we
don't
need
it
right.
We
have
right
now
for
broadband,
we're
all
wired,
hardwired
to
our
houses
for
the
most
part
in
the
whole
treasure
valley,
we
have
what
is
it
centurylink
and
old
table
one
right,
so
we
have
plenty
of
hardwired,
safe
broadband
coverage.
R
We
don't
need
5g,
okay,
which
is
a
wireless
broadband
coverage,
so
the
verizon
representative
is
kind
of
trying
to
split
hairs
on
what
patrick
is
is
bringing
up
that.
We
need
a
different
propagation
study.
It's
incorrect,
okay!
So
now,
let's
ask:
let's
get
a
a
propagation
study
for
4g
basic
title:
2
coverage
and
you'll
see
there's
plenty
of
service
here.
We
don't
need
any
more
cell
towers.
Okay
now
for
myself.
R
The
reason
I'm
so
passionate
about
this
is
electromagnetic
radiation
makes
me
sick
right
being
here
in
the
office
or
in
this
in
this
facility,
with
wi-fi
on
cell
towers
around,
I
will
walk
home
I'll,
have
heart,
palpitations
and
I'll
be
lethargic
and
feel
like.
I
have
the
flu
for
the
next
two
days.
Okay,
so
I
avoid.
Personally,
I
avoid
having
wi-fi
routers
on
in
my
house.
We
don't
have
a
microwave
oven
and
I
moved
out
in
the
country.
R
So
I
could
avoid
being
around
cell
towers,
so
I'm
not
irradiated
24,
7.,
okay
and
by
allowing
5g
and
these
cell
towers
to
be
close.
Coming
in
close
to
my
house
and
irradiating
me
and
my
family
24
7
is
not
acceptable
because
we
already
have
hardwired
broadband
to
the
house.
We
do
not
need
this
make
sure
to
ask
her.
I
want
to
see
a
4g
propagation
study.
We
all
know
we
have
plenty
of
coverage,
don't
listen
to
it.
Okay,
I'm
out
of
time.
Thank
you
guys
appreciate
it.
A
K
Thank
you,
mayor
and
city
council
members,
vivian
lockery
2211,
north
19th
street,
a
boise
resident
of
27
years,
public
health,
scientist
and
medical
professional,
and
from
that
background
I
make
my
testimony.
I
attest
and
affirm.
The
following
statements
are
true,
accurate
and,
within
my
personal
knowledge,
I
spoke
to
planning
and
zoning
about
my.
K
K
I
spoke
to
planning
and
zoning
about
public
safety,
and
I
want
to
talk
to
you
about
public
safety
because
current
city
approvals
for
these
wtfs
or
wcfs
wireless
communication
facilities,
the
fcc
refers
to
them
as
wtf
aka.
Small
cells
constructed
in
the
public
rights
away
as
close
to
30
inches
per
our
city
development
code
did
not
provide
even
the
most
basic
public
safety.
K
Now
miss
reagan
spoke
to
you.
She
brought
up
numerous
points
about
this
2018
fcc
order.
What
she
didn't
tell
you
was
that
in
2019
august
of
2019,
significant
portions
of
that
order
were
vacated
by
the
d.c
circuit
court.
Okay.
So
I'm
going
to
tell
you
about
that.
It
was
decided.
K
K
Because
the
fcc
mischaracterized
the
scale
size
and
footprint
of
the
anticipation
anticipated
nationwide
deployment
of
the
800
000
unit
network
of
wtfs
also
decided
such
wtfs
are
crucially
different
from
the
consumer
signal
boosters
and
wi-fi
routers,
to
which
the
fcc
compares
them,
also
decided
it's
impossible
on
this
record
to
credit.
The
claim
that
wtfd
regulation
will
leave
little
or
no
environmental
impact
also
decided.
The
fcc
fails
to
justify
its
conclusion
that
wtf's
as
a
class
or
by
nature
their
nature
are
inherently
unlikely
to
trigger
potential
significant
environmental
impacts.
K
A
Yes,
yes,
I
gave
you,
I
try
to
give
one
or
two
sentences
after
the
time
goes
up,
so
I've
your
time's
up
all
right.
Thank
you.
Thank.
W
My
name
is
carla,
kyle
3508,
west
kootenay
street.
Under
this
permit,
the
placement
of
a
small
wireless
communication
facility
will
go
into
a
residential
neighborhood
in
front
of
someone's
house
a
recent
permit
response
from
verizon
attorney
mr
lachance.
This
was
like
two
weeks
ago
to
the
fcc
states.
Verizon
maintains
a
proposed
facility
will
fully
comply
with
commission
radio
frequency
emission
rules,
although
emissions
for
the
proposed
facility
may
be
well
below
the
fcc's
general
population
limits
at
ground
level.
W
W
W
Once
again,
verizon
attorneys
have
used
language
that
circumvents
the
actual
problem
of
the
potential
of
effective
radiated
power
and
the
microwave
radiation
being
emitted
until
the
city
of
boise
understands
that
no
one
is
looking
out
for
its
residents
best
interests.
This
means
you
me
and
everyone
in
this
room.
W
You
simply
do
not
know
what
is
being
put
out
in
terms
of
microwave
radiation,
by
the
very
fact
that
this
permit
and
hundreds
of
other
permits
approved
in
boise
have
no
documentation
of
a
tennis
and
canisters
the
fixtures
that
will
be
put
on
the
tower.
I
ask
you:
where
is
your
due
diligence
in
regards
to
the
safety
of
residents
in
our
neighborhoods?
W
I'm
asking
the
boise
city,
council
and
mayor
mclean
to
do
your
job,
educate
yourselves,
protect
me,
my
family,
my
neighbors
and
yourselves
as
you
update
and
amend,
and
put
in
place
a
better
ordinance
in
city
code
surrounding
4g
5g
infrastructure.
If
this
is
not
your
job,
whose
is
it
until
you
do
this,
I
ask
you
to
uphold
this
appeal
for
the
small
cell
tower
to
be
deployed
in
front
of
someone's
home
due
to
lack
of
city
code.
W
W
There
is
not
enough
code,
and
again,
I'm
asking
you
please:
do
your
own
research,
listen
to
everything
we
have
to
bring
facts
to
in-law
to
you.
Thank
you
for.
A
I'm
gonna
we're
all
gonna
have
to
not
clap.
We
just
ask
people
just
not
to
react
for
or
against
things
we
stay
orderly
and
we
can
move
through
this
more
easily.
But
thank
you
so
that's
the
last.
I
know
that
some
of
you
came
in
after
the
sign
up
sheet
was
brought
in.
So
that's
the
last
person
I
have
on
the
list
so
now
we're
just
going
to
take
people
one
by
one,
but
first
I
want
to
see
if
oh,
no,
no,
that's
what
ma'am.
A
Please
I'd
like
to
say,
I'm
going
to
go
through
the
list
to
see
if,
if
anybody-
and
I
forgot,
sir,
yes,
because
I
marked
him
as
not
being
here
if
anybody
that
signed
up
in
advance
that
we
put
online
is
actually
here
so
then
I'll
do
that
next
and
then
we'll
go
through
everybody
else
and
then
to
online.
So
yes,
so
mr
misner
for
brandon
yeah
come
on.
D
X
Yeah
nice
to
see
you
all
mayor
and
councilman,
I'm
here
for
brandon
thompson
and
he
has
a
letter
that
he's
written
and
I'm
to
read
that
letter
too.
X
Okay,
anyway,
here's
a
letter,
dear
council
members,
I
attest
and
affirm
that
the
following
statements
are
true,
accurate
and,
within
my
personal
knowledge,
my
name
is
brandon
thompson.
I
hold
degrees
in
electrical
engineering,
physics,
mathematics
and
have
practiced
as
a
professional
electrical
engineer
for
over
22
years,
thus
thereby
provide
expert
testimony
on
fiber
optics
and
wireless
equipment.
X
X
X
X
X
That
means
you've
got
to
to
up
the
power
use
more
electricity
to
get
the
signal
through
you've
also
got
the
burden
of
the
4g
lte
tracking
of
every
wireless
device.
The
system
needs
to
know
24
7,
where
each
device
is,
and
then
you
got
to
have
5g
beam,
forming
to
focus
the
radiation
on
that
device
with
the
high
concentration
of
radiation
on
the
user
and,
more
so
on.
Anyone
in
between
this
is
not
only
inefficient.
It
makes
a
signal
vulnerable
to
weather
changes
and
moving
objects
within
the
beam
which
can
break
up
the
signal.
A
A
A
X
A
And
then
I'll
just
kind
of
start
over
here
and
move
this
way
for
people
to
make
sure
that
people
want
to
testify
and
and
you
and
because
some
of
you,
we
don't
have
your
names,
we
weren't
able
to
confirm
that
you
were
parties
of
record.
So
if
you're
here
in
the
in
the
room
and
you
hope
to
testify
on
this,
you
had
to
have
testified
at
the
first
hearing
and
that's
what
makes
you
a
party
of
record,
because
this
is
an
appeal
go
ahead.
Y
Y
I
sent
a
letter
13
days
ago.
I
referenced
three
sites
on
the
internet
of
medical
research.
Did
you
look
at
any
of
these
articles?
Do
you
know
how
many
research
papers
there
are
out
there
on
pulse,
modulated
microwave
radiation,
there's
over
20
000
and
it
shows
harms
in
all
species
tested,
including
pets,
farm
animals,
insects,
bees
plants
and
humans?
Y
Y
Many
boise
residents
are
asking
the
same
question
as
facilities
are
being
erected
in
front
of
their
homes.
What
is
the
power
from
the
facilities?
Guess
what
it's
a
proprietary
secret?
There
could
be
more
effective
radiated
power
coming
from
the
4g
towers,
on
the
hills,
and
yet
it
could
be
30
inches
from
your
home.
Y
What
if
your
child
gets
sick
from
this
radiation
will
verizon
help
with
the
medical
bills?
No
verizon's
company
doesn't
stand
behind
even
one
facility
but
uses
phony
companies
with
no
assets.
When
you
sue
for
medical
compensation,
these
phony
companies
will
declare
bankruptcy
and
then
who
will
pay
the
city
of
boise?
Will
you
are
assuming
the
responsibility
of
harm
here
and
how
many
of
these
claims
until
the
city
of
boise
is
bankrupt
so
as
to
your
city?
Y
These
devices
include
motorized,
wheelchairs,
pacemakers
or
hearing
aids
such
as
is
needed
by
the
hearing
impaired
child
living.
Next
to
this
proposed
facility
powered
by
clean
energy,
these
facilities
can
fall
down
start
on
fire
need
repairs
and
are
a
huge
energy
drain.
Shared
prosperity
across
neighborhoods
illnesses
from
five
g's
will
cause
an
exodus
of
people
with
health
issues.
Real
estate
values
will
plummet
a
second
warning.
There
will
be
a
loss
of
the
tax
base
in
a
bankrupted
city
from
the
legal
actions
of
health
harms.
Y
How
does
this
create
prosperity,
commitment
to
transparency
and
openness
in
government
tell
us
how
boise's
income
has
benefited
from
verizon's
facility.
Erections
tell
us.
If
any
of
you
have
personally
benefited
from
the
5g
rollout.
Will
you
protect
the
people
who
elected
you
or
the
companies
that
have
no
personal
stake
in
our
lives?
Our
prosperity
in
our
community
stand
up
and
protect
us
like
you
promised
I've
expressed
no
matter
of
mere
concern,
but
solely
matters
of
substance
fact
and
law.
A
A
Here
we're
gonna
go
through
folks
in
the
room
and
then
we'll
call
you
back
all
right.
Thank
you,
blue
jacket,
orange
trim.
Are
you
yellow
hat
nope,
okay
nope,
so
you
were
planning
on
talking
for
barb.
Do
you
want
to
speak
for
yourself.
A
And
just
to
clarify,
if
any
of
you
sent
emails,
not
just
generally
about
5g,
but
about
this
specific
application
before
the
september
14th
meeting
for
the
september
14th
meeting,
then
you
are
a
party
record
okay.
We
will
go
online
now
so
barb,
since
you
were
ready
so
promptly
we'll
go
ahead
and
have
you
go
and
then
next
up
I've
got
paul,
gee
or
g
and
david
de
haas,
if
you'll
just
be
ready.
Q
Thank
you
very
much
bar
partially
10
900.
What
west
y
I've
worked
as
an
entomologist
who
studies
insects
in
case
somebody
doesn't
know
what
that
is
for
many
years
previously
at
the
denver
museum
of
nature
and
science
and
presently
for
five
years
in
a
local
orchard.
I've
done
research
on
insects
and
many
conferences
and
gone
to
many
conferences
and
discussed
research.
Q
I
I
would
like
to
address
the
the
frequency
issues.
You
know
people
have
talked
about
them
affecting
people,
and
I
just
want
you
to
know
that.
There's
some
real
research
out
there
that
it
does
affect
people,
but
it
also
affects
insects,
the
the
frequencies,
for
instance.
We
know
that
honeybees
are
really
necessary
for
our
existence.
Well,
it
adversely
affects
the
bees
behavior,
the
physiology.
It
derives
colony
collapse.
Q
It
affects
their
motor
activity
to
the
comb.
It
makes
bees
aggressive.
It
decreases
their
colony
strength.
It
causes
difficulty
for
them
to
return
to
their
hives.
It
creates
problems
in
swarming
and
there's
other
problems
here.
But
what
I'm
just
trying
to
show
is
that
the
frequencies
really
affect
these
insects
or
actually
any
insect
we're
dealing
with
a
decrease
in
honeybee
population.
Already
and
adding
this
frequency
will
only
serve
to
increase
this
problem.
There's
also
effects
on
trees.
You
know
you're
the
city
of
trees,
well,
the
colorado
excuse
by
phone.
Q
In
the
background,
the
colorado
research
study
has
shown
adverse
effects
on
aspen
and
pine
trees.
They
show
that
the
trees
that
are
tall
that
are
affected
by
towers
because
they're
tall
enough
have
lesions
on
them
and
the
trees
that
are
smart,
smaller,
do
not
until
they
grow
up
taller.
Q
The
telecommunications
act
of
1996
states
that
local
and
governmental
and
entities
may
make
use
of
the
public
right-of-way
subject
to
regulatory
objectives
such
as
those
relating
to
public
safety
and
welfare.
The
above
issues
would
disrupt
our
food
train
our
chain,
our
plants,
our
trees
certainly
affect
our
public
safety
and
welfare.
Q
So
I
I'm
submitting
to
you
that
these
frequencies
have
been
shown
and
researched
to
affect
animals
and
insects
and
trees.
I'll
leave
the
medical
stuff
to
my
a
previous
speaker
there,
and
I
think
that
that
the
boise
city
council
is
is
or
whoever
is
advising
them
to
do.
This
is
being
short-sighted
and
having
this
radiation
on
the
people.
I
that's
just
my
my
my
opinion
there.
I
think
it's
very
dangerous
and
I
agree
with
the
person
that
said:
fiber
optics
is
the
way
to
go.
There's
no
problem
with
that.
Z
Okay,
perfect,
I'm
at
688,
north
29th
street
boise,
idaho,
83702,
now
listen.
I
am
an
expert
in
measuring
and
mitigating
pulsed
data,
modulated,
radio
frequency,
electromagnetic
microwave
radiation,
rf
emr,
just
like
kathy
cook,
the
appellant
we're
the
only
two
experts
before
you.
We
were
also
there
for
the
appeal
yeah,
the
applicant
didn't
bring
any
experts
the
study,
the
city
staff
admitted
they
don't
have
any
expertise.
Z
Hey
the
city
staff
didn't
do
the
basic
due
diligence
of
hiring
a
consultant
who
had
expertise.
You
have
no
expertise
at
all
from
the
other
side
to
judge
whether
the
propagation
map
is
worth
anything.
You
have
three
experts
telling
you
it's
worth
nothing,
the
two
of
us
and
andrew
campanelli.
He
is
the
number
one
telecom
attorney
in
the
united
states
he's
seen
the
courtroom.
Unlike
miss
reagan,
who
is
a
slick
saleswoman
who
passed
the
bar.
I
doubt
she's
ever
seen
a
courtroom.
Z
He's
won
5
000
cases
against
people
like
verizon,
and
you
know
I'm
going
to
give
you
his
quote
exactly
so
look
you're,
relying
in
the
appeal
on
your
attorney's
assessment
of
the
rf
report.
Your
attorney
has
no
rf
expertise,
full
stop.
That
is
fatal
to
the
application.
Full
stop,
that's
it!
You
can't
accept
it.
Z
Z
This
is
what
your
code
says
quote:
a
propagation
study
showing
the
location
of
existing
phillies
within
the
coverage
area
and
radio
frequency
modeling,
of
which
there
was
none,
because
there
is
no
math
modeling
implies
math,
providing
evidence
as
to
why
the
wtf
is
needed
at
the
chosen
location.
Keyword
needed
needed
needed.
Z
It
is
not
needed
whatsoever
because
we
have
absolute
evidence.
If
you
looked
at
the
appeal,
what
did
we
do?
We
made
phone
calls
all
over
the
place?
Yes,
it
is
all
about
phone
calls.
When
you
talk
about
the
word
coverage
you
see,
coverage
is
the
one
in
your
code.
It's
not
capacity.
It's
coverage
once
again.
Facilities
within
the
coverage
area,
ding,
ding,
ding,
ding,
ding
phone
calls.
We
have
the
evidence
fatal
to
the
application.
You
must
support
the
appeal.
Here's.
Z
What
andrew
campanelli
says
quote
the
applicant
will
come
in
with
propagation
maps,
many
of
which
are
bogus
like
this
one.
Without
the
data
behind
the
maps,
the
municipality
does
not
know
if
the
propagation
math
is
worth
the
paper
it
is
printed
on.
The
truth
is
that
no
federal
court
would
take
a
propagation
map
without
verification.
Z
In
short,
comma,
these
maps
are
not
probative
evidence.
You
could
have
gotten
verification
by
hiring
an
expert.
Your
city
staff
did
not
your
city
staff
already
admitted
they
are
not
experts.
Your
attorney
is
the
one
that
approved
the
map
come
on
folks.
This
is
a
quasi-judicial
proceeding.
You
have
to
take
care
of.
What's
in
the
record,.
A
B
Just
a
point
of
privilege
or
observation,
mr
campanella,
the
attorney
is
obviously
not
a
party
of
record
and
he
did.
D
A
D
AA
Welcome
my
name
is
david
de
haas,
1116,
south
vista
boise,
idaho.
If
the
city
of
boise
is
to
follow
the
written
ordinance,
this
tower
application
must
be
denied.
The
application
did
not
provide
a
legitimate
propagation
study.
There
are
no
specifications,
no
drive
tests
cited
only
a
colored
map
that
any
first
reader
could
have
drawn.
This
is
not
a
valid
propagation
study.
A
real
propaganda
must
be
done
independently,
with
a
cell
phone
and
meters.
AA
In
order
for
the
tower
to
be
built,
there
must
be
a
gap
in
coverage.
We
know
from
our
own
study.
There
is
no
gap
in
coverage.
I
am
shocked.
Your
legal
department
has
been
very
sloppy
in
processing
this
application.
Many
are
not
signed,
none
have
a
propagation
study.
We
pointed
this
out
earlier.
When
we
did
the
applicant
brought
on
a
shaded
map,
the
legal
team.
The
city
has
failed,
you,
the
council
and
the
citizen.
The
city
has
a
duty
and
a
right
to
protect
the
private
enjoyment
of
our
property.
AA
AA
This
is
bigger
than
covid.
Why
can
I
say
that
well,
at
least
with
covet,
I
can
boost
my
immune
system
and
mitigate
my
wrist,
this
technology
or
unwanted
pollution.
I
can't
dodge
it.
I
can't
protect
myself
or
my
family.
Where
is
verizon's
proof?
They
provided
none
just
colored
maps.
The
falsehood,
the
verizon
of
a
pride
are
numerous.
I've
sent
you
all
data
on
the
law,
the
real
law,
even
the
most
recent
ruling.
You
can
and
must
probably
regulate
this
technology.
AA
None
of
these
towers
should
have
been
allowed
to
be
turned
on,
as
they
have
not
met
the
ordinance
requirements.
I
have
sent
you
the
information
of
some
of
the
17
000
studies
that
show
these
unwanted
pollution
radiates
all
the
way
through
a
baby's
brain.
It
decreases
melatonin
levels
and
is
where
the
towers
are
located.
Those
homeowners
will
experience
a
20
decrease
in
property
value.
AA
We
should
not
be
here
at
all
tonight.
Quite
frankly,
I'm
very
disappointed
in
the
city's
response
to
our
quest
for
a
meeting
that
we
get.
We
asked
for
back
in
june.
I
have
spoken
to
two
of
you,
I'm
thankful
for
that,
but
we've
not
had
a
dialogue
back
on
the
day
of
my
45
years
in
business.
Whenever
I've
had
a
problem
with
either
planning
and
zoning
department,
or
some
things
came
up,
we
sat
down.
We
had
a
cup
of
tea,
we
met.
AA
In
this
case.
I
felt
completely
disenfranchised
and
shut
out
the
process,
while
verizon
gets
to
meet
with
the
citizens
and
continue
to
bring
data.
That's
not
sufficient
at
all.
Other
cities
are
keeping
this
technology
out
of
the
neighborhoods
and
creating
setbacks
of
2500
feet
from
residences.
They
have
put
a
cap
on
power.
Some
cities
have
completely
shut
out
5g,
including
our
own
mountain
home
and
ammon,
idaho
and
they're
doing
fiber
optics
to
the
premises.
This
is
safe
and
faster
speeds.
Some
cities,
like
eagle
and
harrison
idaho,
have
asked
us
to
come
in.
AA
They've
allowed
us
one
hour.
Presentation
harrison
has
asked
us
to
give
a
whole
day
of
a
meeting
to
provide
them
with
the
information
they
need
to
make
the
decisions
to
properly
regulate
this
further.
Who
is
providing
the
liability
to
protect
the
city
for
the
health
of
damages
lawsuits
that
are
shared
to
come?
There
is
no
insurance
that
provides
any
city
or
entity
with
insurance
against
health
effects
from
emf.
Why
do
you
think
verizon
uses
independent
contractors
to
apply
for
these
applications
and
own
these
towers?
It's
called
the
shell
game.
AA
Verizon
mitigates
liability
by
putting
independent
contractors
in
place
of
them,
and
this
is
outlined
in
their
prospectus.
There's
not
one
insurance
company
in
the
entire
world,
who
will
give
you
insurance
and
get
the
health
effects
of
emf
that
should
be
raised.
The
hackles
on
the
back
of
your
neck
right
now,
look
we're
all
in
this
together.
We
just
want
to
get
together
and
have
this
properly
regulated
and
keep
it
out
of
our
neighborhoods
and
keep
us
safe
and.
S
A
G
Mayor
before
we
move
on,
I
would
similarly
to
council
president
clegg
I'd
like
to
address
the
accusation
that
we
met
with
verizon
representatives
about
5g.
I
have
never
met
with
a
verizon
representative
regarding
5g
and
have
actually
met
with
citizens
who
were
concerned
about
5g.
So
I
just
wanted
to
kind
of
put
that
to
bed.
A
All
right,
thank
you.
I
have
nobody
else
signed
up
in
advance.
Are
there
people
whose
hands
are
raised
on
zoom
that
I
can
call
on.
A
Okay,
I'm
heidi
hassell,
we're
just
checking
you
might
be
able
to
answer
we're
just
checking
to
see
if
you're,
a
party
of
record,
in
which
case
will
open
up
the
line
for
you.
A
Hey
I'm
jason,
evans
and
jason
before
you
speak.
I
just
want
to
explain
to
heidi
that
this
is
an
appeal,
and
so
I'm
not
sure
if
you
were
on
when
I
explained
to
the
folks
in
the
room
in
order
to
testify
on
this
tonight,
you
had
to
have
testified
at
the
first
planning
and
zoning
hearing,
and
so
that's
what
we
mean
when
we
say
that
you
were
not
a
party
of
record
and
our
records
indicate
that
you
did
not
testify
at
that
one.
A
If
you
need
to
send
a
note
to
the
clerk,
I
think
you
can
do
that
through
the
chat
and
we'll
go
ahead
with
the
person
who
is
a
party
record
whose
name
I've
already
forgotten.
I'm
sorry,
jason,
evans,
jason,
evans,.
O
A
A
We
don't
have
anybody
else,
so
I'm
gonna
give
the
city
council
an
opportunity
to
ask
additional
questions
of
staff.
If
you'd
like
to
do
that
before
we
move
into
rebuttals
or
do
we
do
additional
questions
at
the
end,
oh
yeah,
before
yep
as
as
stated
before
rebuttal.
So
if
there's
anything
else,
cody's
online.
K
V
Okay,
thank
you.
I
just
we
heard
a
lot
of
testimony
from
people
on
record
and
the
applicant
or
sorry
and
the
public
about
rf
admissions
and
the
cities
needing
to
regulate
rf
admissions
and
the
like,
and
I
just
want
to
direct
the
city
council's
attention
first
to
its
own
code
and
that
it
does
not
require
any
rf
admission
information
from
the
applicant
but
for
the
propagation
maps
and
then
second,
I
want
to
reference
the
federal
telecommunications
section
or
federal
telecommunications
act,
section
332,
c7b,
subsection,
4.
V
No
local
government
can
regulate
the
placement
of
personal
wireless
facilities
on
the
basis
of
effects
of
rf
admissions,
to
the
extent
that
the
facilities
themselves
comply
with
the
fcc
regulations
concerning
such
admissions,
and
so
that
is
going
back
to
the
idea
that
the
federal
government
has
provided
the
fcc
with
the
authority
to
regulate
this
arena
and
that
it
preempts
the
federal
law,
preamps
state
and
local
regulation.
Here,
verizon
wireless
facilities
have
to
comply
with
the
fcc
regulations
on
rf
admissions.
V
They're
prepared
by
technically
trained
rf
engineers
in
the
company,
and
they
use
their
mathematical
formulas
and
data
to
provide
those
propagation
maps.
And
really
this
comes
kind
of
back
to
verizon
is
not
in
the
business
of
just
building
facilities
to
build
facilities,
their
cost.
They
have
to
spend
money
in
order
to
do
so,
and
so
these
rf
engineers
are
looking
at
the
coverage
and
capacity
and
deciding
where
they
need
to
place
facilities
and
that's
what
this
decision
is
made
on.
A
A
Z
Z
A
Z
All
right,
so
the
best
I
can
do
for
you
now
is
try
to
teach
you
some
of
the
things
that
the
verizon
attorney
was
telling
you.
That
is
just
not
true.
So
I'm
trying
to
give
you
true
facts
here,
because
we
have
done
really
good
work
on
this.
Okay,
so
number
one
the
way
that
the
fcc
is
looking
at
this.
This
is
a
first
professor
trevor
marshall
made
this
comment
to
the
fcc
june
17th
of
2020..
Z
I
just
want
to
let
you
know
that
he's
reporting
that
they're
looking
at
this
all
wrong.
Okay,
instead
of
asking
how
much
power
is
safe
to
radiate
from
one
of
these
cell
towers,
they
should
be
asking
how
much
power
is
needed
to
get
the
job
done.
So
what
you
have
to
understand
is
when
you
get
this
close,
you
need
very
little
power
to
get
it
done.
The
whole
scale
of
this
thing
is
off,
so
we
have
taken
actual
measurements
that
are
in
your
public
record,
and
this
is
how
it
goes.
Z
If
you
have
a
macro
tower
2500
feet
away
by
the
time
in
200
feet
in
the
air,
the
antennas
by
the
time
it
gets
to
houses,
it's
about
.002
radiation
units
and
that
equals
five
bars
on
a
cell
phone
life
is
good.
That's
-85,
dbm
on
their
propagation
maps,
they
would
say
that's
good
coverage
when
you
take
a
small
cell,
which
they
did
admit
tonight
was
4g
and
5g
both
two
sets
of
antennas
tonight.
They
tell
us
that
it's
not
specified
in
your
file.
Z
Therefore,
no
one
has
the
ability
to
do
the
effective
radiated
power
calculations.
That's
another
fatal
error
in
the
application
that
was
approved.
You
have
to
specify
exactly
the
antennas
being
used
and
the
model
numbers.
So
people
can
do
the
analysis
to
figure
out
whether
it's
going
to
work
or
not.
Okay.
Z
So
what
happens
then
is
when
you
put
one
of
those
on.
We
have
an
example
in
sacramento
and
I
could
take
it
directly
to
the
page
if
there's
time,
but
essentially
what
it
says
is
that
when
you
put
it
in
a
second-story
bedroom,
it's
50
000
radiation
units.
Z
50
000
is
25
million
times
higher
than
that
needed
for
five
bars
on
a
cell
phone.
That
is
what
you're
doing
you're
doing
this
without
understanding
a
stitch
of
the
technology
you're
doing
with
no
expertise,
you're
doing
having
hired
no
rf
engineer,
you
are
completely
flying
blind
because
you
do
not
have
the
insurance.
You
have
to
understand
that
lloyds
of
london.
Swiss
re
am
best,
have
excluded
injury,
illness
and
death
from
rf
microwave
radiation
exposures
from
all
of
the
liability
coverage.
All
of
it.
Z
They
will
clap
their
hands,
walk
away,
you're,
not
doing
business
with
big
verizon
tonight,
you're
doing
business
with
some
kind
of
entity
that
you
don't
quite
understand
and
they
don't
have
the
assets
to
pay
the
claim.
That's
the
bottom
line.
Hey
we
heard
about
this
telecommunications
act.
Let
me
tell
you
what
goes
on
right
here
shall
not
unreasonably
discriminate
among
providers
of
functionally
equivalent
services.
That's
it
right
there
and
shall
not
prohibit
or
have
the
effect
of
prohibiting
personal
wireless
services.
That's
it
right
there
in
the
law.
Those
are
both
defined
as
wireless
phone
calls.
Z
There
is
no
such
idea
of
capacity
in
the
law.
It's
only
based
on
coverage,
just
as
it
is
in
your
city
code.
All
of
this
mumbo
jumbo.
Oh,
we
need
coverage,
we
need
capacity,
we
need
it
all.
We
mush
it
together.
It's
all
lie,
and
all
you
have
to
do
is
read
the
law
and
the
plain
language
of
the
law
to
understand
what
we
are
talking
about.
Okay,
so
look
at
the
end
of
the
day,
you're
listening
to
an
attorney
who's,
trying
to
sell
you
on
something.
Z
What
you
want
to
do
is
really
look
at
the
law
here.
It
is
47
us
code,
324
use
of
minimum
power.
This
is
the
law
right
here.
In
all
circumstances,
all
radio
that
is
licensed
by
the
fcc
shall
hey
that's
a
that's
a
must
word,
you
don't
have
any
option
here,
shall
use
the
minimum
of
power
necessary
to
carry
out
the
communication
desired.
We
know
the
communication
desired
in
the
law.
It
is
functionally
equivalent
services
which
is
defined
in
the
conference
report
as
personal
wireless
services
competing
one
against
the
other.
Z
That's
verizon's
phone
calls
against
t-mobile's
phone
calls
versus
att's
phone
calls.
That's
it
that's
the
truth.
Okay,
if
you
don't
read
the
laws,
you
don't
know.
What's
going
on,
let's
talk
about
the
sec
order,
18-133
they
talked
about
that
and
they
said.
Oh,
the
fcc
redefined
everything
hey.
It
doesn't
work
that
way
the
fcc
can't
rewrite
law.
In
fact,
that's
what
a
recent
federal
court
judge
said:
the
fcc
has
no
ability
to
rewrite
the
law.
What
they
can
do
is
state
preferences
and
that's
all
they
did
there.
Z
How
do
we
know
fcc
attorney
scott
novick
admitted
it
right
there
in
front
of
the
judges
on
february
10
of
2020..
This
is
a
list
of
preferences
that
does
not
wipe
out
your
case
law.
The
case
law
that
matters
here
is
whether
or
not
there's
a
significant
gap
in
coverage.
We're
the
only
ones
that
prove
there
is
not.
That
is
the
data
that
you
have
before
you.
It
has
nothing
to
do
with
capacity
whatsoever,
nothing
at
all,
and
so,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
you're
going
to
have
to
ask
yourself.
A
A
A
B
A
couple
of
things
kind
of
as
administrative
matters:
first,
nobody,
nobody
has
advised
us
to
make
a
certain
decision
here.
We've
received
some
legal
advice
from
our
city
attorney.
It
has
nothing
to
do
with
what
decision
we
should
make
tonight
and
nobody
has
instructed
us
to
make
any
decision.
B
Second,
this
is
an
appeal,
so
we
have
a
standard
that
we
have
to
apply
and
there
are
arguments
that
were
made
under
that
standard.
The
first
pertains
to
the
propagation
study
and
the
argument
I
think,
as
best
characterized,
is
that
we
did
not
comply
with
our
own
law
by
accepting
an
application
that
was
deficient
in
a
propagation
study
first,
because
the
propagation
study
was
not
attached
with
the
application
and
second
because,
in
view
of
the
appellant,
the
propagation
study
was
inadequate.
B
We
have
an
open
record
procedure
and
a
proper
propagation
study
was
attached,
and,
given
that
procedure
it
was
attached
pursuant
to
our
law,
so
there's
not
an
incorrect
application
of
the
law
there.
The
second
issue
of
the
propagation
study
pertains
to
its
adequacy,
the
argument.
It
was
a
fact-based
argument
in
the
view
of
the
appellants.
The
fact
is
that
this
propagation
study
is
is
not
sufficient
in
the
view
of
the
respondent
in
this
appeal
they
argue.
B
The
fact
is
that
it
is
based
on
their
policy
and
practice
and
other
jurisdictions
and
the
type
of
propagation
studies
that
they
submit.
There
are
arguments
on
both
sides
of
that.
The
planning
and
zoning
commission
resolved
it
one
way
and
there
is
a
rational
basis
for
its
decision,
so
I
don't
think
we
can
disturb
that
fact-based
decision
by
the
planning
and
zoning
commission.
B
The
second
argument
is
that
there
is
a
nepa
review
problem
here,
but
nipah
is
a
federal
standard.
The
national
environmental
policy
act
is
not
something
that
we
enforce
in
the
first
instance,
that
is,
for
the
federal
system,
there's
an
administrative
and
then
a
judicial
procedure
for
that
in
the
federal
system,
and
I
understand
that
the
appellants
here
are
availing
themselves
of
that,
and
that's
that's
good,
that's
their
right,
but
it's
not
it's.
Neither
our
job
nor
our
proper
function
to
be
doing
that.
B
The
third
argument
pertained
to
the
written
analysis,
and
that
goes
again
to
the
propagation
study
issue.
There
was
analysis
attached.
The
argument
is
that
it's
inadequate,
but
that's
a
fact-based
decision,
that
the
planning
and
zoning
commission
made
with
a
record
that
that
is
rational
for
the
conclusion
it
reached.
B
At
a
higher
level,
the
problem
that
I
see
here
with
all
of
these
arguments
is
that
we
are
subject
to
the
telecommunications
act
of
1996
and
that
act
provides
that
no
state
or
local
statute
or
regulation
or
other
local
legal
requirement
I.e.
Our
approval
process
can
prohibit
or
have
the
effect
of
prohibiting
an
entity
from
providing
telecom
services.
B
B
B
Go
much
beyond
that.
Congress
has
said
that
the
city
of
boise
does
not
have
authority
to
hinder
deployment
of
telecom
services
in
these
ways
the
the
final
set
of
issues
and
arguments
dealt
with
title
1
and
title
2,
and
the
distinctions
between
voice
type
communications
and
data
type
communications
and
challenging.
It
sounds
like
from
a
technical
perspective,
but
what
we
know
under
332
c7
is
that
when
those
services
are
co-mingled,
our
hands
are
also
tied
and
again
they're
tied
by
federal
law.
I
don't
have
the
power
we
don't
have
the
power.
B
No
city
of
the
united
states
has
the
power
to
second
guess
the
united
states
congress
on
an
issue
that
it
has
the
ability
to
regulate-
and
that's
certainly
true
here.
So
for
those
reasons,
because
because
we
have
to
follow
the
law
and
we
have
to
respect
the
federal
system,
I
would
you
know.
I
acknowledge
that
there
are
challenges
that
the
appellant
can
bring
in
federal
court
or
through
the
federal
administrative
procedures,
but
that's
the
place
for
them.
We
we
can't
do
it
here.
B
So
for
those
reasons,
that's
those
are
the
basis
of
my
motion.
Final
thing.
I
wanted
to
address
is
concern
that
I
heard
by
email
from
a
lot
of
constituents,
including
some
people
who
testified
here
today,
that
that
we
had
met
with
verizon.
Some
of
us
allegedly
had
met
with
verizon,
but
not
with
members
of
the
public
and
that
this
violated
due
process,
and
many
of
these
emails
demanded
in
very
strong
terms
that
I
meet
with
them.
B
They
came
in
primarily
this
month
and
to
some
extent
last
month
and
their
concern
was
due
process,
but
this
appeal
was
brought
to
the
planning
and
zoning
commission
on
july
15th
and
it
was
brought
it
was
filed
to
come
before
us
on
september
23rd.
As
of
those
dates,
we
are
sitting
in
an
appeal,
type
role.
B
It's
it's
improper
and
due
process
requires
that
we
not
communicate
about
the
substance
of
an
appeal,
particularly
with
the
applicant,
so
due
process
requires
it
that
I
not
respond
to
those
emails
and
that
my
colleague
not
respond
to
those
emails
and
engage
in
those
communications
too.
And
so
I
wanted
to
air
that
issue
that
it's
out
of
respect
for
the
process
and
respect
for
for
your
rights
and
everyone's
rights
that
we
haven't
been
engaging
in
those
types
of
ex
parte
communications
with
you,
it's
it's
a
matter
of
fairness.
Thank
you.
G
Yes,
go
ahead.
Thank
you.
I
want
to
thank
everyone
who
has
reached
out
to
us.
I
have
had
conversations
with
folks,
I
mean
from
like
last
year
about
5g
and
the
various
health
concerns
that
everyone
has
and
when
it
comes
to
health
concerns.
You
know,
like
everyone's
concerns,
are
real
to
you,
and
I
completely
get
that.
G
I
Yep,
thank
you.
Council
member
beijing
talked
about
almost
everything
on
my
list.
He
certainly
covered
the
legal
issues
and
I
agree
with
his
analysis
of
what
the
federal
law
says
versus
what
our
ability
to
regulate
is
in
light
of
that
federal
law,
which
is
pretty
limited,
we
are
allowed
to
regulate
for
aesthetics.
We
don't
do
that.
I
think,
although
that
is
not
something
anyone
brought
up
today,
certainly
something
that
we
should
at
least
consider.
I
Typically,
we
are
allowed
to
regulate
for
public
health.
However,
the
federal
rulings
have
tied
our
hands
in
that
respect.
I
I
found
it
interesting
that
the
main
appellant
made
the
case
that
she
was
not
here
to
talk
about
public
health,
but
nearly
everyone
else
who
testified
testified
around
health.
I
I
It
may
well
be
that
in
the
end
it
it
will
be
ruled
that
fiber
optics
is
a
better
way
or
it
may
not
be.
I
don't
know
that's
not
for
us
today
to
determine
what's
for
us
to
determine
today
is
whether
or
not
within
the
framework
that
we've
been
allowed
to
rule.
I
I
I
also
agree
with
council
member
weddings
that
this
is
an
issue
that's
going
to
be
with
us
for
a
while
and
there's,
certainly
a
few
things
we
can
do
with
our
own
ordinance
to
make
sure
that
it's
more
clear
that
it's
easier
for
both
sides
to
understand
how
to
administer
and
or
argue
against
and
I'll,
be
more
than
willing
to
work
on
that.
In
the
meantime,
I
think
that
this
is
the
correct
decision,
given
the
legal
framework
that
we're
working
within.
H
Founder
mayor
council,
member
holly
burton
I
don't
know
that,
there's
anything
that
I
can
really
add.
That
hasn't
already
been
said.
I
think,
if
I'm
sitting
out
there
and
I'm
one
of
the
people
who
testified
tonight,
it's
probably
feeling,
like
my
concerns,
are
not
heard
or
validated,
and
I've
been
there
before
as
well.
H
So
I
understand
that
I
do
want
it
to
be
on
the
record,
as
other
council
members
have
done
in
saying
that
I've
never
met
with
verizon,
not
only
for
this
reason,
but
for
any
reason
ever-
and
I
certainly
haven't
met
with
anybody
to
talk
about
5g
in
the
last
few
months,
but
I
have
talked
with
people
about
5g
for
the
last
couple
of
years
and
earlier
this
year
as
well
before
we
heard
any
of
this,
I
want
to
make
sure
that
that's
on
record.
H
I
also
want
to
make
sure
that
people
know
that,
like
yeah,
we're
reading
your
messages,
every
single
one
and
it
is
complicated
on
on
how
to
respond
and
how
we
can
respond
and
I'm
sure
that
it
feels
like
you're
not
heard
right
now,
that's
not
the
case,
and
I
think
that
our
other
council
members
already
spoke
to
that.
Thank
you.
C
D
A
All
right,
that
is
the
last
item
on
the
agenda
and
thank
you
everybody
for
coming
out
today.
If
there's
nothing
else
I'll
take
a
motion
to
adjourn,
but
in
may
or
I
move,
we.