►
Description
Salt Lake City Planning Division Appeals Hearing - April 08, 2021
More information & Agenda here:
https://www.slc.gov/boards/appeals-hearing-officer-agendas-minutes/
A
Everyone
here
to
the
salt
lake
city
planning,
a
division's
appealing,
appeals
hearing
for
salt
lake
city.
It's
now
past
the
start
time
of
four
o'clock,
as
you
heard
from
wayne
mills
just
to
let
everybody
know
again,
although
everybody
may
have
heard
our
agenda
is
as
follows.
We'll
first
hear
the
appeal
of
a
planning
commission
decision
for
the
windsor
court
planned
development
at
1966,
south
windsor
street,
and
because
that
is
an
appeal
of
a
planning
commission
decision
where
a
public
hearing
has
already
been
held.
A
A
The
second
item
on
the
agenda,
because
it
is
a
public
hearing
as
an
appeal
of
an
administrative
decision
on
the
saint
mary's
stealth
antenna
at
2496,
st
mary's
drive,
because
that
is
a
public
hearing,
as
mr
mills
stated
that
we
will
not
have
the
the
that
matter
cannot
be
heard
until
after
5
00
pm.
So,
if
anybody's
here
for
the
stealth
antenna
appeal
that
will
be
heard
at
at
5
00
pm
at
this
same
link
so
again,
we'll
we'll
now
hear
the
case
number
pln
app.
A
2021-063
and
what
I'd
like
to
first
to
hear
from
katya
pace
the
city
staff
planning
member
and
then
have
her
just
just
briefly
describe
the
context
and
and
the
history
there
and
then
we'll
turn
time
over
to
the
appellant
and
any
appellate
representatives
to
to
present
their
their
their
thoughts
and
matters
and
items
on
the
case.
Katya.
B
B
B
B
A
No
thank
you.
That's
that
that
that's
helpful
to
put
this
in
in
context.
Thank
you
and
as
far
as
far
as
the
appellants,
I
see
that
we
have
lance
howell,
the
property
owner
and
appellant
on,
and
also
mike
spain
howard,
who
I
think,
was
also
going
to
speak
I'll
turn
the
time
over
to
one
or
both
of
of
of
those.
A
We
can't
introduce
new
evidence
in
this
hearing.
It
has
to
be
pointed
out
that
something
in
that
planning
commission
hearing
was,
you
know
in
incorrect
or
in
the
words
of
of
the
law
that
it
that
the
decision
was
not
supported
by
substantial
evidence
or
that
it
violates
a
law
statute
or
ordinance
in
effect,
and
so,
if,
if
you
could
help
me
by
pointing
out
those
areas
that
that
that
would
be
very
helpful
because
that
onus
or
that
responsibility
for
doing
so
rests
upon
the
appellant.
A
C
C
Okay,
so
yeah
reading
through
the
report,
I
can
understand
that
there's
a
point
where
there's
just
an
opinion
that
they
made
a
wrong
decision.
But
all
this
was
based
on
their
wrong
perception
of
the
front
yard
area.
They
had
the
big
concern
about
the
south
property
line,
being
the
front
yard
line
and
technically
and
by
law.
C
A
member
that
just
said.
Untruths
about
the
east
property
line
should
be
the
front
yard
setback
area
when
by
law
it
is
the
south
property
line.
That
is
the
front
yard
setback
and
I'd
like
to
see.
If
katya
can
give
some
background
on
when
she
recommended
to
us
that
the
south
property
line
be
the
front
yard
setback
area,
because
there
was,
there
was
other
things
that
went
into
that.
Besides,
just
wanting
to
have
a
front
yard
setback
exception,.
A
Okay,
so
the
appellant
has
asked
for
katya
pace
to
provide
some
evidence
that
was
not
part
of
the
planning
commission
decision
and
and
and
that-
and
that
is
that
is
right.
That
cannot
be
considered,
but
I
I
do
understand
your
point
and
and
have
made
note
of
it
that
and
if
I'm
just
correct,
as
as
I
understand
it,
your
testimony
is
and
having
listened
to
the
planning
commission
meeting
as
well.
A
Is
that
that
your
understand
is
that
the
planning
commission
had,
in
your
words,
an
erroneous
understanding
that
that
somehow,
the
the
frontage,
the
the
front
line
of
the
property
was
somehow
could
somehow
be
changed.
And
your
point
is
it
it
can't
because
that's
the
law,
it's
wherever
the
frontage
is
to
a
public
street
and
and
you're
saying
that
was
misunderstood
by
the
planning
commission.
Is
that
correct
mike?
That's.
C
E
C
So,
based
on
their
comfort,
their
discussions
with
each
other
based
on
that
front
yard,
they
they.
It
was
their
opinion
that
they
wanted
a
different
entrance,
and
so
all
that
all
their
discussion
was
based
on
the
fact
that
they
were
disagreeing
with
the
south
property
line.
Being
the
front
property
line.
A
And,
and
if
you
will
mike
just
take
me
through
a
little
bit
more
as
to
how
that
led
to
their
decisions,
so
you're
saying
they
erroneously
essentially
wanted
a
different
frontage
on
the
property.
Do
you
is
it
great?
Is
it
your
opinion
that,
if
they,
if
they,
if
you
had
changed
the
frontage
that
it
would
have
changed
the
outcome
of
the
decision,
I
don't
want
to
put
words
in
your
mouth.
C
A
C
A
Yeah
well
one
thing
that
will
be
helpful
if
you
can
speak
to
they
based
their
decision
on,
as
I
understand
it,
as
katya
laid
out
standard
c3
I
mean
again
they
have
to
have.
There
are
certain
standards
that
are
met
and
and
and
and
your
job
as
as
the
appellant
to
help
me
is
to
help
me
understand
how
they're
basing
that
standard.
That
c3
standard
was
somehow
erroneous
and
not
based
on
substantial
evidence
and
and-
and
you
know,
you're
saying
well,
that's
their
opinion
and
and
everything
that
and
that's
fine.
C
Okay,
so
the
decision
for
planning
commission's
denial
was
that
the
project
does
not
meet
standard
c3
from
section
21a,
55
050
and
the
decision
to
deny
based
on
c3
verbiage
of
setbacks
are
an
error
for
the
following
reasons.
If
a
design
is
made
with
strict
zoning
regulations,
a
far
less
desirable
design
would
be
built
without
the
need
of
commissions
approval.
C
C
So
we
argue
that
the
lower
structure
will
fit
in
better
with
the
homes
on
windsor.
This
also
will
satisfy
section
c3d,
providing
adequate
sight
lines.
The
10-foot
structure
will
be
much
less
imposing
than
the
30-foot
tall
structure
and
safer
as
cars.
Pedestrians
and
bicyclists
navigate
around
the
structure,
so
we,
so
all
those
verbiage
we
is
is
what
we
designed
to.
A
C
C
A
C
A
A
C
C
H
B
H
B
A
A
A
D
It's
brief
there's
not
there's
really
not
a
lot
of
fact
here
to
argue,
because
the
law
requires
that,
in
order
to
disturb
a
decision
of
a
planning
commission,
the
palette
needs
to
show
that
the
commission's
decision
was
arbitrary
and
capricious
or
illegal,
and
they
showed
that
the
decision
is
arbitrary
and
capricious
by
proving
that
there
was
no
substantial
evidence
in
the
record
upon
which
the
commission
made
its
decision
and
within
these
standards
we
look
at
whether
a
reasonable
mind
could
have
made
the
same
decision.
Based
on
the
information
that
was
presented.
D
We
had
a
staff
report,
we
had
testimony,
we
had
a
presentation
and
yeah.
Although
the
staff
recommendation
was
approval,
the
commission
took
all
of
the
information
that
was
presented
to
it
into
consideration.
I
don't
know
if
you
had
a
chance
to
actually
watch
the
video
of
the
planning
commission
meeting.
If
not,
I
would
suggest
you
take
an
opportunity
to
do
that,
because
I
don't
think
that
the
commission
was
under
the
wrong
impression
as
to
what
was
the
front
yard.
D
D
They
pointed
to
the
fact
that
the
language
in
the
code
says
that
a
municipality
may
approve
and
the
standard
in
that
statute
is
for
good
cause,
but
the
court
there
said
you
know
that
this
park
city
didn't
even
need
to
find
good
cause
to
approve
they.
There
could
have
been
good
cause
park.
City
could
have
denied
the
application
based
on
the
fact
that
there's
this
discretionary
word
may
in
the
state
code
and
salt
lake
city's
code,
as
I
just
read,
uses
that
same
may
as
a
permissive
term.
D
D
D
D
Well,
that's
exactly
what
the
court
of
appeals
examined
in
the
baker
case.
Why
are
we
talking
about
a
good
cause
standard,
but
they
what
they
found?
What
the
court
found
there
was
that,
even
with
that
good
cause
standard,
the
permissive
language
may
gave
the
park
city
council
the
ability
to
deny
that
application.
A
Okay,
thank
you
very
much
I'll
give
the
if
the
appellant
has
any
any
final,
any
any
final
things
to
say
or
in
response
to
city.
That's
fine!
If
not
that's!
Okay,
too!
I
just
wanted
to
give
the
appellant
the
the
last
word
and
and
then
we'll
move
forward.
So
mike
anything
you
wanted
to
add
in
response
to
to
the
city's
comments.
There.
C
A
A
We
appreciate
everybody's
time,
and
that
concludes
the
the
hearing
on
on
this
this
matter
and
again
a
reminder,
and
if
there's
anybody
else
that
joined
us,
the
the
second
item
on
our
agenda,
the
appeal
of
the
administrative
decision
for
the
saint
mary's
stealth
antenna,
because
that
is
a
public
hearing
that
will
be
heard
again
by
virtue
of
our
rules
that
we
have
at
the
city
that
will
begin
at
5,
00
p.m.
So
that's
in
approximately
30
minutes.
So
thank
you
very
much.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
K
I
D
I
A
I
That's
what
seems
to
be
the
issue,
it's
interesting,
because
the
appellants
on
the
last
for
the
last
case
were
able
to
actually
get
in
and
they
were.
They
came
in
as
attendees
and
I
moved
them
them
over.
So
we're
going
to
keep
kind
of.
We
have
aubry
and
kelsey
kind
of
frantically
working
on
making
sure
that
everybody
can
get
in
right
now.
A
I
I
I
I
F
I
A
All
right
well,
thank
you
thanks
for
everyone's
patience
as
we
get
the
the
technology
working
to
accomplish
our
purposes
tonight.
My
name
is
matt
worthline,
one
of
the
appeals
hearing
officers
for
salt
lake
city,
and
we
are
continuing
our
appeals
hearing
agenda
tonight
that
began
at
four
o'clock
with
a
a
matter
that
was
not
a
public
hearing
and
by
rules
of
the
city.
Any
public
hearings
are
held
after
5
pm,
which
is
why
we
are
starting
this
after
5
p.m.
A
A
A
But
mr
bush,
if
you
maybe
by
way
of
of
summary
summary
or
emphasis,
can
point
out
things
you'd
like
to
just
have
me
focused
on,
if
you
will,
as
you
give
your
presentation,
that
would
be
helpful.
But-
and
I
know
you
won't
do
this,
but
I
I
don't
need
you
to
read
your
entire
memo
and
materials
and
probably
that's
a
relief
to
you
and
but
but
it
would
be
grateful
for
everyone.
A
The
planning
department
of
the
city
will
will
help
manage
that
process
and
we'll
call
and
get
everybody
an
opportunity
that
wants
to
speak
to
speak
at
that
point
and
then
we'll
close
the
public
hearing
and
give
both
the
city
and
the
appellant
again
a
chance
to
respond
or
to
make
any
final
comments.
So
I
just
just
wanted
to
give
the
lay
of
the
land
as
to
the
process
this
evening.
L
L
K
L
I
will
briefly
cover
the
background
of
the
subject:
property
and
issue
t-mobile
received
conditional
use
approval
in
2005
for
a
roof
mounted
antenna
located
on
the
roof
of
the
subject:
property
in
2020
t-mobile
replaced
and
expanded
the
roof-mounted
antenna
without
a
building
permit
or
a
conditional
use.
Smobile
was
placed
under
enforcement
in
august
of
2020..
L
in
relation
to
whether
conditional
use
was
required
for
the
subject
installation.
The
salt
lake
city
planning
director
issued
a
memo
that
determined
a
wireless
telecommunication
facility
on
the
roof
of
the
subject
property
as
a
stealth
antenna
and
is
allowed
subject
to
meeting
the
provisions
for
stealth
intent,
as
listed
in
21a
4090
e2f.
L
As
noted
in
the
appeal
response,
staff
addresses
the
determinations
and
subsequent
claims,
starting
on
page
29
of
the
submitted
appeal.
There
are
three
main
determinations
provided
by
the
appellant
determination.
1,
permit
required
for
the
antenna
array
suggests
that
the
antenna
expansion
is
a
roof
mounted
antenna
and
thus
should
require
a
conditional
use
for
the
installation
prior
to
addressing
what
antenna
type
the
installation
is
considered.
Staff
addresses
and
should
further
address,
that
there
is
an
obvious
conflict
within
the
salt
lake
city,
zoning
ordinance
pertaining
to
wireless
telecommunication
facilities.
L
In
summary,
the
land
use
table
for
special
purpose
districts
does
not
indicate
that
wireless
communication
facilities
are
permitted
or
conditional
uses,
but
only
provides
a
code
reference
of
c
section,
21a
4090,
comma
table
21a
4090e
of
this
title,
the
first
reference
section
directs
the
reader
to
the
antenna
chapter
of
the
ordinance.
The
second
reference
provides
a
list
of
wireless
communication
facility
types
and
an
indication
of
permitted
or
conditional
use
for
each
facility.
Type
self
antennas
were
left
off
of
the
table
found
in
subsection
e.
L
However,
they
are
specifically
addressed
as
allowed
uses
in
the
following
section
found
in
21a4090e2f,
which
is
a
subsection
of
21a4090e
per
state
code.
An
identified
conflict
within
city
regulation
requires
a
decision
in
the
favor
of
the
applicant
for
more
information
on
this
conflict.
Please
refer
to
page
3
of
the
appeal
response.
L
L
A
L
I
yeah
he's
getting
louder
and
louder
shut
the
door,
okay,
determination,
2
compliance
with
stealth
antenna
definition.
The
provided
definition
of
stealth
antenna
indicates
that
a
stealth
antenna
can
either
be
completely
disguised
as
another
object
or
otherwise
concealed
from
view,
thereby
concealing
the
intended
use.
End
quote
the
subject's
stealth.
Antenna
is
disguised
as
an
elevator
bulkhead,
which
is
an
allowed
stealth.
Antenna
object
located
on
a
flat
roof.
L
The
subject
antenna
meets
this
definition
due
to
the
appearance
being
both
disguised
as
another
object
is
concealed
from
view.
The
subclaims
associated
with
determination.
2
includes
a
further
claim
that
suggests
the
self
antenna
does
not
meet
the
definition
of
stealth
antenna
due
to
the
exterior
material
change
associated
with
electrical
equipment
and
hbac
units.
L
L
E
I
A
L
So
compliance
with
stealth
and
tennis
standards,
as
discussed
in
the
appeal
response,
the
appellant's
interpretation
of
the
stealth,
intent
definition
and
associated
standards,
is
incorrect.
The
definition
of
stealth
antenna
found
in
21a62
includes
the
following
language:
completely
disguises
another
object
or
otherwise
concealed
from
view,
thereby
concealing
the
intended
use
and
appearance
of
the
facility.
This
implies.
There
are
two
options
for
the
stealth
antenna,
first
being
completely
disguised
as
another
object
and
second
otherwise,
concealed
from
view.
L
Per
the
provided
illustration
and
the
discussion
on
page
10
of
the
response
table
21a36020c
for
height
exceptions
permits
elevator,
bulkheads
and
fairway
towers
to
extend
16
feet
above
the
maximum
building
height
allowed
within
specific
zoning
districts.
That
does
include
the
pl
the
stealth
antenna
disguises
the
elevator
bulkhead
is
well
within
this
requirement.
L
Additionally,
the
appellant
suggests
that
additional
criteria
should
be
applied
to
ensure
compatibility
of
stealth
antennas.
The
suggested
criteria
are
not
standards
found
within
the
salt
lake
city,
zoning
ordinance,
nor
were
they
ever
considered
or
adopted
by
the
salt
lake
city
council,
and
this
would
be
illegal
for
staff
to
apply.
L
I
provide
a
couple
photos
of
the
subject
property
the
western
elevation
of
the
subject
property.
This
is
the
eastern
elevation.
This
is
on
the
property
in
the
parking
lot,
and
this
is
from
roxbury
of
the
stealth
antenna
that
does
include
my
presentation
at
this
time.
Mr
appeals
hearing
officer
would
be
happy
to
address
any
questions.
A
A
F
Okay,
I
am
giving
this
a
try
here,
so
you
can
see
that
yes,
okay,
thank
you,
okay!
Well,
thank
you
for
taking
the
time
to
hear
the
appeal
today,
but
the
at
the
outset
here
I
I
want
to
be
clear
that
our
objections
to
this
cell
tower
are
motivated
by
one
thing:
the
protection
of
our
children
and
families
and
to
enable
us
to
live
in
our
homes
without
fear
of
the
harmful
effects
of
this
cell
tower.
F
F
C
F
While
simultaneously
doing
nothing
to
support
independent
research,
the
federal
laws
here
have
vastly
exceeded
the
rightful
authority
and
ursured
local
rights
and
declaring
environmental
without
effects
quote
unquote.
The
kind
of
genteel
code
for
health
and
safety
risks
is
out
of
bounds
as
grounds
to
reject
where
cell
towers
is
placed,
and
this
frankly
just
leaves
us
the
residents
or
our
community
with
no
choice
but
to
come
up
to
speed
on
zoning
laws
to
find
ways
to
protect
our
families.
F
Under
our
constitution,
the
power
of
the
government
derives
from
the
people.
Yet
in
this
instance,
it's
been
the
organs
of
government
that
have
perversely
wielded
the
authority,
given
them
to
take
action
to
suppress
the
will
of
our
community,
which
is
really
the
very
source
of
the
legit,
their
legitimacy
to
govern.
F
F
The
school
field
is
lined
by
homes
that
are
at
a
raised
elevation,
which
you
can
see
in
the
pink
as
such.
Most
of
the
homes
surrounding
the
east
side
of
the
school
property
are
at
or
above
the
roof
line
of
the
school
and,
by
extension,
at
or
above
the
level
of
the
cell
tower
cell
towers
are
typically
and
ideally
constructed
on
a
pole
or
a
tower
that
is
above
the
surrounding
structures,
antennas
project,
a
powerful
main
beam.
F
That's
intended
to
project
above
the
surrounding
structures
and
attenuate
down
the
ground,
and
this
puts
broader
and
more
efficient
coverage
by
the
south
by
the
cell
tower
when
it's
built
this
way,
but
given
the
location
of
the
cell
tower
in
indian
hills
below
surrounding
structures.
In
a
large
section
of
the
coverage
area,
neighborhood,
the
antenna
has
to
project
the
powerful
main
beam
through
homes
rather
than
over
them.
F
F
Some
of
our
neighbors
have
taken
similar
readings
in
our
homes
and
their
children's
bedrooms,
and
I
think
it's
important
to
note
that
the
readings
were
taken
on
with
only
three
of
these.
Now
six
antennas
turned
on
what
this
means
is
that
our
children
are
exposed
to
continuous
round-the-clock
24
hours
a
day
radiation,
seven
days
a
week,
365
days
a
year
for
every
year
of
their
lives.
F
Research
has
proven
that
children
with
smaller
body,
masses
and
less
dense
tissue
have
a
higher
specific
absorption
rate
per
unit
of
power.
Density
and
specific
absorption
rate
is
a
determinant
of
index.
The
index
of
radio
frequency
radiation's
biological
effects
approving
this
tower
condemns
our
children
to
this
heightened
level
of
radiation
for
the
duration
of
their
childhoods.
F
F
F
F
F
First,
you
know
the
the
planning
director
has
asserted
that
the
land
use
table
refers
to
both
the
entire
antenna
section,
as
well
as
the
wireless
telecommunication
table
and
paragraph
e
of
the
section
and
applies
this
kind
of
provably.
False
grammatical
analysis
that
a
comma
separating
the
section
and
the
specific
table
indicates
a
list
rather
than
a
reference.
F
I
mean.
That's
just
not
true.
The
grammar
doesn't
work
that
way.
It's
it's
it's
a
reference,
and
this
is
an
important
error
that
leads
to
correct
incorrect
conclusions.
Rather,
the
reference
in
the
land
use
table
clearly
refers
to
the
wire
wireless
telecommunications
facility
table
and
paragraph
e
alone.
F
F
In
order
for
there
to
be
a
conflict,
you
have
to
accept
that
the
reference
the
land
use
table
in
21a
33070
refers
to
the
entire
antenna
regulation
section
and
not
to
the
specific
table
in
paragraph
e,
but
given
that
this
interpretation
is
provably
false
that
the
land
use
table
note
is
only
a
reference
to
the
wireless
facility
table.
There
is
in
fact,
no
conflict,
but
rather
clear
definition
requiring
a
conditional
use
permit,
taking
a
hint
from
seven
habits.
F
To
begin
with
in
mind,
planning
is
eager
to
declare
conflict
in
the
ordinance
prefiguring
that
this
will
resolve
in
favor
of
the
cell
tower
because
of
the
state
statute
associate
case
law
in
the
event
of
a
conflict,
but
ultimately,
planning
staff
does
don't
address
head
on
the
logic
failures
and
the
determination,
namely
that
the
land
use
table
refers
to
the
wireless
facility
table
and
the
stealth
antenna.
Subparagraph
e2f
says
nothing
about
it
being
a
permitted
use,
as
it
does
for
every
other
antenna
type,
not
in
the
table.
F
F
You
know
tv
antennas,
permitted
satellite
dishes
permitted
amateur
radio
facilities
permitted.
You
know,
then
we
get
to
the
wireless
ones
I
mean
the
bottom
line
is
is,
is
there's
a
consistent
pattern
throughout
all
the
language?
It's
also
permitted.
The
only
one
where
it
says
allow
allowed
only
is
in
the
the
stealth
one,
the
stealth
paragraph,
clearly
an
antenna
meeting
the
stealth
antenna
definition
is
foremost
subject
to
the
requirements
of
its
underlying
type.
This
is
a
this
is
a
unique
feature
of
stealth
antennas.
F
Planning
is
has
also
conflated
permitted
with
allowed,
which
are
fundamentally
different
terms,
one
having
a
specific
implication
for
permitting
and
the
other
having
no,
no
specific
implication
for
permitting
you
know
allowed,
is
permitted
or
allowed,
as
a
conditional
use
specifically
defines
the
category
of
permit
permit
required,
but
the
word
allowed
alone,
without
any
qualification
as
to
categorization
permit,
is
insufficient
to
define
the
use
as
a
permitted
use,
especially
in
light
of
the
fact.
The
wireless
facility
table
states
clearly
that
its
purpose
is
intended
to
define
the
permit
requirements
by
wireless
facility
type.
F
Now
to
say
a
few
things
about
the
legislative
history
presented.
First,
I
continually
the
plain
language.
The
ordinance
is
clear
and
no
conflict
exists
that
justifies
overruling
the
actual
language
and
the
ordinance
and
sifting
through
decade-old
material
materials
presented
as
legislative
history
that
the
language
and
the
ordinance
should
be
the
focus
of
this
discussion.
Not
whatever
was
drug
in
and
presented
this
legislative
history.
F
But
beyond
this,
the
legislative
history
presented
is
fundamentally
unreliable
as
to
its
ability
to
reflect
the
intent
of
the
city
council
at
the
time.
Clearly,
the
language
and
the
ordinance
does
not
reflect
what
is
in
the
legislative
history
presented,
and
although
it's
clear
that
the
planning
is
trying
to
read
the
intent
of
the
documents
they
provide,
but
but
it
is
clear
that
the
planning
is
trying
to
read
the
intent
of
the
documents
they
provided
into
the
ordinance.
F
What
is
presented
in
terms
of
planning,
commission
minutes,
city
council
meeting
agendas
reflects
what
planning
in
2011
wanted
in
the
ordinance.
It
doesn't
reflect
what
actually
wound
up
in
the
ordinance,
nor
what
the
city
council
an
entirely
separate
legislative
body
intended
planning
is
attempting
to
conflate
planning's
intent
as
a
petitioner
with
the
city
council's
intent.
F
This
is
why
the
materials
presented
are
completely
irrelevant
in
terms
of
establishing
the
antenna
city
council
in
terms
of
language
adopted
actually
adopted
in
the
ordinance
taken
together.
The
planning
staff
have
made
a
determination
using
incorrect
grammar
to
justify
declaring
a
conflict
in
the
ordinance
to
justify
referring
to
documents
that
highlight
their
own
department's
objectives,
rather
than
any
actual
intent
of
the
city
council.
F
Rather
than
accepting
a
clear
and
straightforward
reading
of
the
ordinance
that
a
roof
meant
an
antenna
requires
a
conditional
use
permit.
This
is
a
really
tortured
attempt
to
pervert,
what's
actually
in
the
ordinances
and
really
the
opposite
of
the
plain
language,
meaning
and
two
other
points
that
also
deserve
discussion.
First,
I've
already
noted
that
the
motivation
behind
planning
declaring
a
conflict
is
is
directly
motivated
by
the
by
the
strategy
that
conflict
and
the
ordinance
has
to
be
found
in
favor
of
the
land
land
use.
F
F
Interestingly,
in
this
instance,
the
the
property
owner,
a
public
school
board
objects,
the
land
use
salt
lake
city
school
district,
finally,
coming
to
its
senses
and
parent
that,
and
parents
with
parents
vowing
not
to
send
their
kids
back
to
the
school
until
the
tower's
removed,
has
sent
a
notice
of
default
t-mobile
and
subsequently
asked
t-mobile
mobile
to
remove
the
tower
which
t-mobile
has
refused
school
district
appears
stuck
because
it's
in
an
abusive
30-year
contract
of
adhesion
like
that
is.
This
is
the
case.
F
But
that
said,
the
school
district
feels
like
it
has
limited
options
to
force
the
tower
off
off
the
school
given
the
contract,
but
given
that
this
is
public
land
granted
to
the
school
district
for
the
sole
purpose
of
educating
our
children,
how
is
this
little
tower,
which
has
sent
families
fleeing
from
the
school?
Accomplish?
F
Their
claim
is
that
the
city
that
city
officials
response
was
in
fact
correct
and
reflected
the
permit
permitting
requirements
based
on
what
they
knew
at
the
time,
but
the
t-mobile
subsequently
submitted
plans
for
a
stealth
enclosure.
They
determined
to
classify
as
a
stealth
antenna
and
the
e2f
requirements
then
applied.
F
F
Let
me
back
up
if
planning's
common
approach
is
that
a
tower
can
be
a
stealth
tower
and
reduce
its
permit
requirements.
Accordingly,
then,
the
wireless
facility
table
would
never
be
cited
without
including
the
stealth
and
tenant
ordinance
language,
since
the
wireless
facility
table
is
incomplete
and
the
likelihood
is
that
every
developer
is
going
to
take
advantage
of
this
permissive
stealth
requirements.
F
The
fact
that
the
senior
building
services
manager
in
consultation
with
the
zoning
administrator
zoning
administrator
in
response
to
my
query,
asking
for
confirmation,
the
permit
requirements
for
the
site
sent
the
wireless
facility
table
alone
without
any
reference
to
the
stealth
antenna.
Subparagraph
demonstrates
the
point.
F
F
F
There
wasn't
any
ongoing
work
at
the
time
enforcement
began.
It
was
no
longer
an
active
construction
site
after
the
installation
was
completed.
There's
no
viable
claim
that
that
there
was
still
an
installation
and
process
in
the
event
t-mobile's
claim
of
a
yet
to
be
built.
Stealth
enclosures
really
moved
given
their
decision
to
install
the
roof
mount
antenna
without
seeking
permits.
F
F
The
city's
actions
here
accepting
a
revisionist
history
presented
by
a
developer
like
t-mobile
after
its
non-compliance,
is
called
out
with
full
awareness
of
the
reduced
permit
requirements
in
the
face
of
our
community's
opposition
is
disingenuous.
Is
a
disingenuous
defense
of
the
community
rights
and
protection
of
protection,
affordable
afforded
in
the
zoning
ordinances
that
were
violated
and
is
excessively
generous
to
a
violator?
F
F
In
the
absence
of
any
meaningful
penalty
for
unpermitted
construction,
t-mobile
has
pretty
has
pretty
clearly
and
demonstrably
adopted
a
strategy
of
conscious
unpermitted
construction.
T-Mobile
knows
full
well,
they
can
fall
back
on
accommodating
support
from
the
city
to
provide
a
pain-free
path
to
compliance
that
circumvents
conditional
use
scrutiny.
F
This
approach
is
highly
biased
against
residents
in
favor
of
the
cell
developer
and
abrogates
the
protections
for
communities
defined
in
the
ordinance.
This
is
a
recurring
theme
with
the
city's
handling
of
this
issue.
They
seem
to
view
developer.
Compliance
is
the
ultimate
goal,
rather
than
seeking
balanced
outcomes
for
communities
and
property
owners,
as
is
ostensibly
the
objective
of
zoning
ordinances.
F
F
F
F
Now
I'll,
walk
through
how
this
facility
is
out
of
compliance
out
of
compliance
with
these
requirements.
First,
the
antenna
facility
is
not
entirely
disguised
as
an
elevator,
bulkhead
or
otherwise,
concealed
from
view.
The
plans
call
for
a
staircase
to
access
the
antennas,
elevator
bulkheads,
don't
have
staircases.
F
The
facility
has
obvious
wires
running
out
of
the
area
of
the
antenna
mounting.
Let
me
get
some
elevator
bulkheads,
don't
have
wires
running
out
of
them.
Additional
hvac
units
that
are
not
part
of
the
school
originally
have
now
been
added
to
support
the
cell
tower,
none
of
which
are
required
for
an
elevator
bulkhead.
F
None
of
this
conforms
with
the
requirements
the
facility
be
entirely
disguised
or
comp
or
otherwise,
completely
concealed
from
view
planning
attempts
to
explain
this
away,
the
age
facts
are
allowed
on
the
roof
or
that
there's
a
provision
for
where
electrical
equipment
should
be
located.
But
none
of
these
responses
address
the
underlying
argument
that
there's
element
that
these
elements
betray
the
installation
is
not
being
completely
disguised
or
concealed
from
view.
F
The
larger
than
the
lower
structure,
the
the
antenna
facility,
clearly
doesn't
meet
any
of
either
of
these
requirements
as
being
completely
disguised
as
another
object
or
otherwise,
concealed
from
view
and
planning
is
also
submitted.
Zoomed
out
photos
in
an
attempt
to
to
counter
our
zoom
zoomed
in
photos,
but
you
know
here's
the
reality,
all
the
photos
I
shared
were
taken
with
a
phone
camera.
All
of
us
who
own
property
surrounding
the
school
can
see
all
the
things
that
are
in
the
photographs.
F
F
F
F
F
One
must
accept
the
plausibility
that
an
elevator
school
elevator
would
surf
service
the
roof,
which
is
neither
plausible
nor
argued
by
the
planning
director
as
such.
Additionally,
I
provide
evidence
that
no
other
school
has
an
elevator
that
services
the
roof.
The
bottom
line
is
the
structure
cannot
possibly
meet
the
requirement
of
conforming
to
the
dimensions
it's
disguised
and
and
being
in
concert
with
its
surroundings.
F
The
planning
director
memo
takes
the
tack
of
evaluating
the
stealth
provisions
individually
in
a
vacuum,
allowing
the
most
advantageous
possibility
for
the
cell
tower
developer
for
each
individual
standard
of
the
stealth
provision
in
e2f,
while
not
considering
that
all
the
requirements
have
to
be
met.
Concurrently.
F
With
respect
to
the
question
of
whether
the
tower's
in
concert
with
the
surroundings,
again,
it's
fairly
obvious.
I
don't
think
anyone
in
our
community
feels
like
it
fits
in
or
meets
the
definition
of
being
in
concert
with
its
surroundings.
The
point
I
try
to
make
is
that
the
conditions
and
circumstances
described
as
allowable
in
the
planning
director's
memo
taken
as
a
whole
fundamentally
fail
any
reasonable
litmus
test
for
this
being
a
stealth
antenna.
F
The
appeal
contains
numerous
photographs
that
just
demonstrate
that
the
school's
roof
is
flat
and
has
very
little
else
of
note
on
it.
This
is
this
is
substantial
evidence
in
the
record.
It's
it's
a
flat,
nondescript
roof
and
the
massive
structure.
Now
there
is
obviously
out
of
place
it's
out
of
proportion,
there's
nothing
stealthy
about
it,
there's
nothing
about
it.
That
makes
it
in
concert
with
its
surroundings.
F
In
conclusion,
we
don't
believe
that
the
antenna
meets
any
of
the
stealth
antenna
standards,
given
the
the
entirety
of
the
circumstances
that
t-mobile
erected
an
unambiguously
roof-mounted
antenna
on
the
roof.
Without
permits
that
the
plain
language,
the
ordinance
clearly
requires
a
conditionally
used
permit
for
the
antenna
that
hasn't
been
obtained
and
further
that
the
antenna
meets
none
of
the
standards
for
the
stealth
antenna.
F
And
finally,
I
want
to
reiterate
our
profound
concern
with
the
planning
division's
handling
of
this
matter.
The
the
planning
director's
memo
reflects
a
grotesque
perversion
of
the
ordinances
meant
to
facilitate
balanced
land
use
outcomes
in
favor
of
a
cell
developer,
with
a
long
tracker
of
his
own
track
record
of
zoning
violations
and
against
the
residents
of
the
city,
the
behavior
of
the
senior
planning
staff
to
force
issuance
of
this
permit,
despite
my
rights
as
an
impeller
to
state
that
the
permit
issuance
is
a
serious
violation.
F
A
Mr
bush,
thank
you
very
much.
Will
you
be
sure
to
send
your
presentation
materials
to
the
city
just
so
we
officially
have
them
in
this
part.
Okay.
Thank
you
great.
So
I'm
wayne
with
your
permission,
I'm
going
to
turn
the
time
over
to
you.
We
will
now
open
the
public
hearing
and
again
we'll
give
anybody
who
wishes
to
speak
two
minutes
and
if
you
could
keep
your
comments
limited
to
the
the
issues
at
hand.
F
A
K
When
I
bought
the
house,
I
don't
think
the
cell
tower
was
there,
or
at
least
not
one
with
as
high
of
power,
and
I
know
that
when
brad
had
someone
come
out
to
independently
gauge
radiation,
the
amount
of
radiation
in
my
backyard
was
above
the
limit
that
was
dictated
as
safe
by
the
european
union
union.
I
believe,
but
within
guidelines
for
the
f
fcc.
If
that's
correct,
so
I
I
just
don't
know
if
there's
been
long-term
studies,
I
don't
know
how
this
is
affecting
my
three-year-old
or
my
one-year-old.
E
I
K
I'm
sure
I
wasn't
intending
to
but-
and
I've
been
following
this
issue
from
kind
of
when
it
first
reared
its
head,
because
I
was
on
the
school
community
council
at
indian
hills.
I
live
in
the
neighborhood
and
I'm
on
the
east
bench.
Community
council
and
the
story
just
keeps
changing.
When
I
mean
when
brad
first
kind
of
saw
these
things
go
up
on
the
roof,
he
was
like
well,
who
approved
it
like
what
contract
is
this
under?
Who
got
a
building
permit?
It
was
like.
K
Oh
you
don't
you
don't
need
one,
but
that
it
sounds
like
the
more
and
more
questions.
Brad
asks
the
more
and
more
it's
like.
Oh,
that
wasn't
done
right
or
that
wasn't
done
right,
or
that
wasn't
done
right
now
to
hear
that
the
attention
all
along
was
to
build
it
as
a
stealth
tower.
On
top
of
the
existing
elevator
box
is
that's
totally
new
because
they
installed
it
not
that
way
and
then
left
like
the
project
wasn't
still
under
construction
before
it
turned
into
a
stealth
box.
K
So
it
sounds
like
the
process
has
kind
of
been
maybe
run
by,
like
brad
said
run
by
like
let's
see
how
we
can
get
this
thing,
that's
been
built
into
compliance
instead
of
saying
this
is
how
you
build
a
a
cell
tower,
that's
allowed
in
our
city,
and
I
I
feel
like
that's.
That
is
backwards.
I
think
we
would
all
agree.
That's
maybe
not
the
point
of
zoning
and
the
planning
commission
and
it's
a
it.
It
is
worrisome
that
things
happen
in
the
city,
not
not
in
the
order.
K
It's
supposed
to
happen
and
in
favor
of
the
big
you
know
the
big
companies
instead
of
the
residents
and
neighbors.
So
I
was
surprised
to
hear
a
lot
of
that
that
brad
said,
and
it
sounds
pretty
bad,
but
at
any
rate,
maybe
if
the
decision
is
to
go
back
and
and
look
at
doing
a
conditional
permit,
there
would
be
more
more
consideration
made
to
it.
That's
all.
Thank
you.
J
J
I
just
could
not
be
more
disappointed
in
this
entire
process
with
how
the
city
has
handled
it.
We,
I
think
brad
outlined
the
points
you
know
quite
quite
perfectly,
and
the
biggest
issue
for
from
my
family-
and
I
suspect,
for
many-
is
that
indian
hills
is
is
really
the
quintessential
neighborhood
neighborhood
elementary
school
right
in
the
middle
of
the
neighborhood.
J
I
can
see
it
literally
every
day
outside
every
window
in
my
home
and
it
is
used
constantly,
not
just
children,
but
you
know
it's
a
de
facto
dog
park
and
countless
neighbors
use
it,
and
and
the
fact
that
I
mean
we
all
joke
up
here
where
it
talks
about
the
fcc
guidelines.
It
refers
to
9
minutes,
30
minute,
there's
no
extrapolation
for
24
7.
and
that's
effectively
what
this
is.
This
is
not
a
tower
that
is
over
all
roofline.
J
It
is
literally
underneath
most
roof
lines
in
our
neighborhood,
so
I
I
just,
I
think,
the
unique
topography
of
this
school.
I
think
for
all
the
reasons
brad's
cited
this.
This
entire
process
has
been
incredibly
disappointing.
Having
grown
up
in
this
city
and
sort
of
naively
assuming
things
happen,
the
way
they're
supposed
to
happen
and
then
watching
the
way
this
has
transpired
has
just
been
a
joke
and
I
appreciate
brad
and
all
the
work
he
put
in
and
and
I'm
hopeful
that
this
will
be
rectified.
I
E
E
Okay-
I
I
okay
I'm
just
coming.
I
missed
the
first
part
of
the
meeting
I
just
had
a
hard
time
getting
in,
but
I
would
just
like
to
make
the
observation
that
I
think
that
there
is
more
than
one
problem
here.
That
needs
to
be
addressed,
and
we
speak
as
though
this
tower
is
the
problem
that
the
tower
is
some
independent
entity
that
just
sprang
up
by
itself,
but
it
sprang
up
through
a
process
through
the
district
office,
with
oversight
by
the
district
board
of
education,
and
so
I
mean
the
cell
tower.
E
And
my
understanding
is
that
this,
the
district
board
oversees
that
office,
that
they
are
the
that
they
are
the
boss
of
that
office,
at
least
the
boss
of
the
boss
of
that
office,
and
so
I'm
hoping
that
we
can
keep
that
in
mind
that
this
is
a
process
that
brought
this
into
place.
It
wasn't
some
loosely
construed
mistake.
E
And
so
I
guess
you
know
I
could
say
more
about
the
cell
tower,
but
I
think
it's
so
much
bigger
than
that.
It's
so
much
more
disappointing
and
disillusioning
as
far
as
trust
in
our
leaders,
trust
in
this
organization
of
of
the
district
office,
and
I
I
would
just
hope
that
that
could
be
remedied
immediately.
They've
all
they've
all
had
time
to
look
at
this.
They
all
know.
What's
going
on
this
idea,
we
have
to
go
back
and
look
at
this.
It's
like
no,
you
don't
you've
had
plenty
of
time
to
know
so.
J
I've
just
seen
a
lot
of
things
that
have
made
me
very
alarmed
about
what
local
culture
must
be
in
the
district
or
whatever
they.
Clearly,
I
felt
like
they've,
been
very
contemptuous
of
us
when
we've
asked
questions
or
when
we've
tried
to
find
out
information
and
we
have
been
misled.
There
has
been
dishonesty,
it's
very
clear
that
there
was.
J
J
I
feel
that
the
antenna
should
be
dismantled
as
quickly
as
possible,
and
the
whole
process
needs
to
start
from
the
beginning,
with
the
community
being
asked
what
they
think,
with
everybody
being
invited
to
meetings
when
we're
invited
to
meetings.
We
should
be
told
the
correct
time
that
the
meeting
will
start
if,
if
brad's
told
that
the
meeting
will
be
about
one
topic,
the
meeting
should
only
be
about
one
topic.
J
If
brad
prepares
a
presentation,
he
should
be
allowed
to
actually
give
the
presentation.
Unfortunately
I
missed
the
one
he
gave
today,
but
it
sounds
like
he
actually
got
to
give
it
this
time,
which
is
nice,
but
it's
been
a
disaster,
but
it's
been
by
design
and
it's
been
very
obvious
and
clear,
and
so
I
just
want
to
say
I
completely
support
what
the
previous
person
said
and
it
mirrors
what
I
felt
and
what
I've
observed
in
this
process.
J
I
G
G
I
remember
going
out
into
the
field
one
day
with
my
four-year-old
daughter
and
seeing
this
thing
on
top
of
the
building
and
like
knowing
exactly
what
it
was
like
knowing
there
was
a
cell
tower
and
being
surprised
like
how
did
how
did
this
get
here?
When
did
this
get
here
like
just
being
confused
and
knowing
that
you
know
we
just
had
some
work
done
on
our
street,
and
I
got
a
notification
about
that.
G
Just
now
they're
doing
some
construction
work,
we
have
stuff
hanging
on
our
door
and
just
knowing
that
typically
like
we're
informed
when
there's
something
happening
in
our
neighborhood
and
then
to
have
this
there
and
not
knowing
if
it's
good.
If
it's
bad
for
me
and
my
family
and
my
my
daughter
and
my
health,
you
know
not
just
being
confused
and
feeling
left
out
has
been
really
hard.
So
I
would
just
encourage
everyone
here
that
I
mean
I'm
echoing
what
a
lot
of
people
have
said.
G
K
K
K
I
I
M
You
I
I
also
live
on
the
field.
I've
lived
on
the
field
for
10
years
and
the
couple
points
I
want
to
make
the
first
is
that
brad
has
done
a
fantastic
job
reading
through
the
ordinances
and
pointing
out
where
there's
been
missteps
and
I've
read
both
his
appeal.
I
read
your
responses.
I
listened
to
the
responses
at
the
beginning,
and
I
read
the
ordinances
myself.
M
M
The
the
idea
that
it's
been
done
in
a
wild
west
format
is
very
real.
They
went
up
and
did
construction
made
changes
put
up
a
bunch
of
new
antennas.
We
have
photographic
proof
date,
timestamps
of
it,
and
the
process
by
which
they've,
seemingly
buttoned
it
up
and
covered
off
on
on
on
the
requirements
is,
is
is
invalid,
but
the
question
remains:
why
are
we
so
supportive
and
and
so
protective
of
t-mobile's
efforts
to
enhance
this
facility
when
they
don't
have
to
have
it
here?
M
K
I
I
K
H
H
I
was
stunned
at
the
response.
I
mean
that
is
everybody
that
reads.
The
code
can
understand
that
this
tower
went
up
in
violation
of
the
rules,
and
it
seems
quite
clear
that
the
planning
allowed
it
to
go
up
and
then
justified
it
and
I'm
not
sure
how
how
that
happens
or
how
it
happened.
In
this
case,
you
know
I've
seen
fences
that
were
three
feet
off
of
where
they
should
have
been
denied
and
forced
to
be
pulled
down,
and
here
we
have
a
tower
that
potentially
emits
radiation.
H
All
of
the
neighbors
that
have
spoken
tonight
have
been
against
it,
and
yet
there
was
no
comment
period
allowed
because
the
the
developer
did
not
pull
the
proper
permits
and
did
not
obtain
the
proper
conditional
use
permit,
which
denied
everyone
public
comment
and
a
full
understanding
of
what
happened
here
and
and
what
what
the
technology
is
and
what
the
technology
emits
in
terms
of
radiation.
So
those
are
my
comments.
H
I
would
point
out
that
I
think
everyone
that
has
spoken
has
been
against
this,
which
should
say
something,
and
I
am
firmly
against
it
and
think
that
it
should
there
should
be
a
public
process
and
a
public
comment
period
as
required
under
the
code
and
this
conditional
use
or,
however,
this
was
permitted.
It
was
not
permitted
under
the
normal
process
of
public
comments,
etc,
and
I
would
ask
that
it
be
thrown
out
taken
down
and
redone.
Thank
you.
I
A
A
I
will
now
close
the
public
hearing,
but
I
will
remind
again
just
saying
in
case
there
are
any
further
comments
that
we
will
continue
to
receive
public
comments
today
and
and
we'll
take
those
into
consideration.
So
I'm
gonna
turn
some
time
now
over
to
the
the
city
for
any
response,
final
thoughts
and
and
then
we'll
give
mr
bush
the
the
final
word
on
our
on
on
this
matter.
L
L
However,
the
roof,
the
antenna
is
not
roof
mounted
due
to
the
provisions
in
21a4090e2f
because
they
built
a
a
elevator
bulkhead
around
that
antenna
mount
which
is
permitted,
and
I
do
understand
the
code
confusion,
which
is
what
we
discuss
in
the
appeal
response
and
in
the
memo
versus
permitted
and
allowed
uses.
However,
the
legislative
history
is
very
useful
in
relating
to
what
the
intended
language
was
and
staff
does
use
legislative
history
regularly
to
clarify
intent
of
ordinance
language,
especially
when
questions
come
up
and
there's
an
identified
conflict.
L
D
Yeah
first,
mr
worthing,
I
wanted
to
address
a
lot
of
the
conversation
in
this
appeal
has
been
about
the
potential
health
hazards
of
a
wireless
antenna,
and
you
know
it's.
It's
certainly
the
right
of
the
folks
who
are
here
today
to
express
those
concerns,
but
it's
absolutely
something
that
the
city
cannot
consider
in
an
application
for
a
wireless
antenna
and
since
this
matter
is
being
heard
de
novo
and
mr
worthlin
you're
standing
in
the
shoes
of
the
land
use
authority.
Here,
you
are
bound
by
the
same
rules.
Ms
lindquist's
staff
report.
D
federal
law
is
very
clear
that,
while
local
governments
do
have
the
authority
to
consider
these
these
applications
in
light
of
their
own
zoning
regulations,
we
cannot
consider
the
health
impacts
of
the
the
wireless
antenna
device.
We
just
absolutely
cannot,
and
that
was
reiterated
just
a
few
years
ago
by
the
u.s
supreme
court
in
t-mobile
versus
roswell
georgia.
D
D
We've
talked
about
the
language
in
the
code
that
establishes
what
a
stealth
antenna
is
and
in
order
to
overturn
that
decision
of
the
planning
director,
you
would
have
to
find
that
the
plain
language
of
the
code
clearly
prohibits
a
stealth
antenna
and
the
interpretation
that
was
made
by
the
planning
director.
I
think
that's
going
to
be
really
really
difficult
to
determine.
D
D
So
we
can
have
this
conversation
about
the
city
shouldn't
allow
these,
but
our
hands
are
tied.
Let
me
just
say
one
final
thing
about
some
of
the
pejorative
things
that
have
been
said
about
city
staff.
In
this
case
I
take
exception
to
the
accusation
that
city
staff
somehow
has
it
out
for
the
neighborhood.
That's
absolutely
not
true.
The
city
staff
is
doing
their
best
to
apply
the
state
and
federal
laws
as
they
have
been
presented
to
us.
D
I
I
am
confident
that
there
are
similar
concerns
that
have
been
expressed
here,
but
we
cannot
let
things
that
are
outside
the
scope
of
what
we're
allowed
to
consider
dictate
the
decisions
that
we
make
and
that's
that's
all
I'm
going
to
say
about
that.
There
have
been
some
fairly
pejorative.
Things
said
about
staff
as
to
staff,
motivations
and
there's
been
absolutely
no
evidence
of
that.
It's
just
accusations,
and
you
know
that
that
doesn't
have
any
place
here
and
it
certainly
doesn't
have
any
place
in
the
hearing
officer's
decision
of
this
matter.
That's
all.
F
First,
I
I
just
want
to
say
that
I
object
to
everything
that
mr
nielsen
has
said.
First,
there's
a
there's,
a
gross
asymmetry
where
he
as
a
as
an
attorney
representing
the
city,
is
able
to
come
into
a
forum
like
this.
Where
I'm
unrepresented,
you
know,
I'm
just
I'm
just
a
guy
trying
to
trying
to
keep
his
family
safe.
F
I
don't.
I
don't
have
an
attorney
to
represent
me
to
provide
counterpoint
to
all
the
arguments
that
he's
made
totally
inappropriate
his
to
his
point,
but
that
I've
that
I've
made
pejorative
assertions
about
the
city
without
evidence.
I
would
direct
you
to
the
20
pages
of
evidence
that
I
put
into
the
memo.
I
mean
these
are
fallacious
assertions
to
the
to
to
to
again
to
speak,
to
this
point
that
that
the
health
and
safety
issues
cannot
be
a
consideration
one.
F
I
think
you've
heard
from
many
of
us
here
who
have
to
worry
about
that
every
night,
every
day
when
I
go
out
and
on
on
the
trampoline
when
I,
when
I
play
with
my
son
in
this
in
the
sandbox,
it's
it's
that
that's
it's,
that
meter
buried
continuously
and
and
I'm
not
the
only
one
you've
heard
from
you've
heard
from
a
lot
of
our
neighbors
like
this
is.
This
is
an
ever-present
concern
that
we're
forced
to
deal
with
now.
Here's
the
reality
you
can
absolutely
consider
it.
F
Can
it
be
the
basis
upon
which
you
make
a
decision?
No,
it
can't
based
on
99
1996
federal
telecommunications
act.
Is
it
a
consideration?
It
absolutely
should
be
a
consideration,
and
you
know-
and
mr
nielsen
you
know
I
I
think
I
think
the
problem
here
is
the
city
kind
of
takes
these
positions
of
you
know
it's
it's
it's
an
alligator
arm
assertion
that
there's
nothing
we
can
do
and
you
know
we're
our
hands
are
tied.
This
just
isn't
isn't
the
case.
F
F
All
of
us
as
a
community
are
dumbfounded
as
to
why-
and
you
know,
just
going
back
to
to
kelsey's
points-
I
mean
you
know:
she's
she's,
essentially
just
kind
of
recapping
everything
like
there's,
you
know
all
of
the
evidence
still
stands
in
the
in
the
appeal
memo.
So
again,
I
just
want
to
reiterate
you
know
this
is
this
is
a
matter
of
of
a
fundamental
concern
for
for
us
as
a
community
like
we're
coming
here,
not
I
mean
we've
we've
put
a
lot
of
arguments
out
there.
This
is
a
fundamental
human
issue.
F
This
is
this
is
about
moms
and
dads,
worrying
about
their
kids
and
again,
there's
the
the
the
science
on
this
is
is
a
whole
is
a
whole
thing
to
talk
about,
and
we're
not
going
to
spend
the
time
here.
But
you
know
you,
as
you
can
tell
we're,
not
we're
not
conspiracy,
theorists
or
or
you
know,
people
that
that
that
don't
dig
deep
into
issues
this.
These
are
based
upon
the
studies
from
the
largest
from
the
largest
institutions
out
there.
F
We're
never
going
to
get
enough
proof
for
anybody
to
be
able
to
to
to
prove
human
harm
because
the
the
no
no
one's
going
to
sacrifice
their
kid
for
it,
and
so,
in
the
meantime,
the
the
wireless
industry,
the
fcc
and
evidently
mr
nielsen
are
comfortable
talking
about
how
this
is.
This,
isn't
something
that
we
should
consider.
F
But
this
is
absolutely
what
we,
what
every
one
of
us
have
to
go
home
and
think
about
every
night
because
of
the
you
know
the
failure
of
all
the
organs
of
government
to
protect
us.
So
I
ask
you
to
consider
this
on
behalf
of
this
community,
to
to
find
this
determination
and
error
and
and
allow
us
to
pursue
the
appropriate
process
and
the
ordinance.
A
And
I
I
will
take
this
matter
under
advisement
and
issue
my
decision
when
I'm
ready
in
the
coming
days,
and
so
that
does
conclude
our
appeals
hearing
tonight
and
again
welcome
any
additional
comments.
If,
if
any
through
the
rest
of
the
day,
that
we'll
leave
the
public
comment
open
until
then
and
again,
thank
you
very
much
and
and
and
wish
everyone
a
a
a
good
evening.