Nov 17 Boise WTF Appeal Transcript

City of Boise, ID Background

The City of Boise has a strong Mayor-Council form of government in which the Mayor acts as the city executive, overseeing day-to-day operations of the city, while the six-member City Council serves as the legislative body with policy setting and budgetary authority. Council Members are elected at-large by popular vote of all of the residents of the City of Boise. While they are elected to a particular seat, those seats are not determined geographically. The offices of both mayor and city council are non-partisan and elections are held in odd-numbered years.

Boise Mayor Lauren McLean (link)

Boise City Council Members (link)

1. Council President Elaine Clegg, Serving since 2003
2. Council President Pro Tem Holli Woodings, Serving since 2017
3. Council Member TJ Thomson, Serving since 2010
4. Council Member Lisa E. Sánchez, Serving since 2017
5. Council Member Patrick Bageant, Serving since 2020
6. Council Member Jimmy Hallyburton, Serving since 2020

Cody Riddle, City Planning 208-608-7082

Nov 17, 2020 Transcript, Contents

• Link to City of Boise Planning Staff Presentation — Cody Riddle, Planning
• Link to Appellant Presentation — Cathy Cooke, Electromagnetic Radiation Specialist (EMRS) [No City Council Questions for Cooke]
• Link to Applicant Presentation — Melissa Regan, Attorney for Verizon
• Link to City Council — Questions for Staff & Verizon
• Link to Public Comment — Idahoans for Safe Technology
• Link to Applicant Rebuttal — Melissa Regan, Attorney for Verizon
• Link to Appellant Rebuttal — Paul Gee, Scientists for Wired Technology
• Link to City Council — Deliberations
• Link to City Council — Vote, Denied Appeal 7-0

A. 11/17 Start

Mayor McClean (00:00:01 = 1:31:20 in Youtbue video):

I need to ask everybody to have your mask on over your nose. If you wish to remain and chambers, masks need to be on over your nose, if you wish to remain in the chambers. Okay. So next up we have CAA20-127 and appeal to 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 Lehman and Cathy Cooke. Are you in person or online?

Cathy Cooke (00:00:52):

Um, this is Cathy Cooke. I’m online and my legal counsel had an emergency and was not able to make it tonight. So it will be just me.

Mayor McClean (00:00:59):

I’m sorry. Well, thank you for joining us remotely. Um, next up we’ll have the applicant,

Melissa Regan (00:01:02)

Melissa, also online.

Mayor McClean (00:01:14):

And then the neighborhood association of record is the West end, Jason Grand. And then I have people that signed up in advance in both, um, 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. Um, we’ve done our research. So if you disagree then we’ll need to have a distance conversation about it. Um, Heather Chambers and David, is it minor or Miesner? Yeah, a party of record is an appeal means if you want to testify an appeal, then you had to have testified in the first. Okay. All right. And you, sir.

Speaker 3 (00:02:05):

[inaudible]

Mayor McClean (00:02:05):

Okay. So you’re reading a letter under the name of an, a party of record, so we’ll confirm he’s a party of record and that’s that? That is okay. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. So Cody, let’s go ahead and get started.

Council Member Clegg (00:02:20):

Yes. I’m sorry to interrupt, but I wonder if I could put something on the record before we start as a personal privilege. Um, we’ve gotten some letters saying that city council has met with Verizon, but has refused to meet with advocates for regulating 5g. And I’d like to clear up any, um, part that I have in that. Uh, I did in fact meet with a Verizon representative on August 31st, but it was not about 5g. He’s a representative that lives and works in Spokane and was just hired as the new community relations person for them because of COVID and the difficulty that many of our nonprofits have been having. I had a meeting with him to see if there was any opportunity for community grants or community-based philanthropy, uh, that might help some of those nonprofits, uh, out of the or 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 met with David Dehaas and two other advocates, and we discussed all kinds of, um, issues that they believe are true around 5g and ways that they believe cities could, uh, regulate, uh, the, the location of that. Um, it was before this appeal was filed. It was before I had any, um, knowledge that, uh, this might be appealed. And so I would say it is, um, 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 have not with advocates and yes, in fact, I did meet with Verizon, but it was not around 5g. It was around community philanthropy. Thank you.

B. 11/17 Planning Staff Presentation — Cody Riddle, Planning

Video link → https://youtu.be/-wcQ_JqFOBU?t=1h35m50s

Mayor McClean (00:04:30):

Thank you, council president. All right, Cody.

Cody Riddle (00:04:34):

Okay. Can everyone hear me? Yes. And we see your slides. All right. Thank you. Madam mayor. It’s kind of a little, little different format again this evening. So I apologize for any trouble in advance. Um, Madam mayor, members of council. This item has an appeal of the planning and zoning commissions approval of a wireless communication facility located at 601 North 27th street. As you, as you noted, uh, the commission essentially in, in approving the facility, upheld the July, uh, approval, uh, of the installation by the planning staff, uh, that approval did allow the installation of a 5g antenna on the street light pole, um, slightly modified, as you can see here, as detailed in your packet, this kind of installation is administratively allowed. That being said, the decision has been appealed. And I would like to just briefly respond to the grounds. First, the appellant suggests that the that we violated our own code and that a propagation study wasn’t included in the original submittal, uh, that is actually true. Uh, the applicant didn’t originally include a propagation, uh, study. Uh, 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? Um, the code is really based on traditional towers, not and older technology and not this newer technology that being said, uh, there, as you know, there is an open record at the planning and zoning commission and the applicant did provide, uh, subsequently a propagation study. As you can see here, that’s clear, there is a gap in what is all, um, otherwise almost non-existent coverage in this area. Uh, the appellant also believes that that gap might only apply to phone or text coverage and not data. Uh, the city code or development code does not currently make that distinction. Um, and so in summary with this ground, if there was an error in that original administrative action action, we do believe it was remedied through the planning and zoning commission process. Uh, the next next ground, the appellant believes we should be looking at environmental impacts as it relates to 5g installation. Uh, they, and they do contend that I believe you’ll hear that we are not preempted by the FCC. 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. Um, 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, um, an error in the, in our local, uh, decision. Uh, next, the appellant believes that additional written analysis to support the installation should have been required. It is true that there was minimal, uh, 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. Um, it really, however the code does promote, uh, installations precisely like the one is that it is a pro proposed and was approved by the commission. However, like the propagation study, uh, if there was any air in this regard, it was remedied at the planning and zoning commission with an additional, um, 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 and 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 diff or appellant has a different interpretation of federal law, or they believe there’s some sort of some distinction between phone, text, and internet or broadband as it relates to telecommunications and suggest that that gives us the authority to consider, again, those environmental or health impacts we’ve consulted with, with our own legal counsel and simply don’t believe that to be the case. And again, like the other ground, even if proven true, uh, it’s not currently a requirement of, of city code and would not demonstrate an error in the decision that has occurred. So in, in closing my comments, I want to be clear, not intended to downplay the appellant’s concern. Uh, the fact is that we actually have a very, very narrow focus here and are quite limited in what we can actually consider. Uh, so based on that, uh, and the current standards of the code, we don’t see where there’s been an error and are recommending denial of this appeal this evening. I would note just as a reminder of the mayor touched on it, the testimony this evening is, is limited to parties of record in this case. Thank you.

Mayor McClean (00:09:23):

Thank you, Cody. Any questions for Cody? No. Yeah, I’m sorry right now. Um, council’s asking questions and then we’ll hear from the appellant and 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. All right. It looks like there aren’t there aren’t further questions. So we will now have the appellant join us from zoom, Cathy.

Cathy Cooke (00:10:13):

Thank you. Um, can I share my screen here? I’ve Got just a few slides I wanted to Show.

Mayor McClean (00:10:21):

Great. Thanks, Kathy. And I know we’ve got it, but I just need to ask you to, um, state your name and address for the record as you get going to.

C. 11/17 Appellant Presentation — Cathy Cooke, BBEC, EMRS

Video link → https://youtu.be/-wcQ_JqFOBU?t=1h41m47s

Cathy Cooke (00:10:28):

Sure. Um, yes, Cathy Cooke address is 688 North 29th street, Boise, Idaho 83702. And, uh, 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. Um, I should state however that I am very disappointed with, uh, the refusal to meet with the many citizens that have made countless requests to discuss this issue. I share the mayor’s democratic views and visions of this great city, and after enthusiastically voting for her, I’m extremely disappointed that neither her nor her staff is upholding due process for its constituents. So last month I submitted a letter to each of you requesting a meeting about this topic, and I received a canned response from the mayor mayor stating, and I quote, "we know there are alarming. Things said about 5g on the internet. We have seen them too" unquote. Um, personally I find the statement to be very offensive and condescending. Uh, the canned response continued to say, "as per restrictions placed on all local governments in Idaho relating to installation of 5g by the federal communications commission, the city may not consider the health impacts of radio frequency radiation when deciding whether to approve an application for a 5g tower." Um, all of you have received this email and you will note that I did not mention anything about health impacts whatsoever. So either the letter was not read or the substantial fact in law that I did reference were simply dismissed. 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 and its duties and how they’ve failed to protect the public.

Cathy Cooke (00:12:24):

And to give you the basic legal facts that your colleagues have failed to understand. So I am an electromagnetic radiation specialist, and I get my information from my instructors who are electrical engineers, licensed electricians, physicists, medical doctors, and PhDs. I do not consult Google for the information I’m providing you with tonight. I should note here that the planning and zoning staff has admitted multiple times that they are not experts in radio-frequency. This is important to note because your staff are drawing conclusions and making decisions without the necessary knowledge to do so. I should remind you that I am an expert in radio-frequency and I assure you that the decisions from both your staff and legal counsel are not based in fact in law, but rather the heavily influenced wireless industry playbook that seeks to and has apparently succeeded in giving you false information so that they get to do whatever they choose without the nuisance of local control of which is entirely within your jurisdiction. With that understood, there are only three points that I need to discuss tonight. Number 1 is the approval of this application is in direct violation of Boise city development code. As Mr. Riddle already, um, had, has demonstrated. The application was approved without a propagation study. What’s even more concerning is that the applicant did provide a so-called propagation study only after the approval of the application. Um, it is critical for you to note that this so-called propagation study that was submitted has no value or substance whatsoever. This is not a propagation. Um, 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. You will see that nowhere on this document, is there any mathematical formulation. There’s no information about when it was completed? The data use the data, the date the instrumentation used, or any qualifying information whatsoever.

Cathy Cooke (00:14:42):

In fact, this document actually has no merit whatsoever. As the intent of a propagation study is to determine that there is a significant gap coverage of covered services only. Covered services per federal law, 47, USC 253 and 332 (c)(7) are for voice and text services only. It does not include as per federal law data, email streaming self-driving cars, telemedicine, or any other service outside of the ability to make phone calls or send a text. This document does not provide any information whatsoever regarding this covered service. Yet your planning zone staff has stated that this, uh, documentation was sufficient. So, um, 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, um, the planning and zoning staff has admitted that they do not know the difference between Title 1 and Title 2, and so you should note that title one services per federal law are about data streaming, email telemedicine, and other advanced technologies. They are not regulated by the FCC. 5g small cells are intended for are not intended for phone calls, they are intended for data. Title 1 services are not regulated by the FCC. Only Title 2 is regulated by the FCC and Title 2 is about phone calls and texts. So if the wireless applicant cannot prove a significant gap in coverage for phone calls and texts, then this absolute, this, this application can absolutely be denied by the city. The onus is on the applicant to prove there is a gap in coverage. This so-called propagation study attempts, a guess of coverage that may be provided by 5g technology, which as I have demonstrated is about data, not phone calls and text.

Cathy Cooke (00:16:59):

Okay, so the telecommunication industry would like all localities, including the city of Boise to believe that they have no power over local siting issues. This is not true. I am not talking about health effects. What I am talking about is the right that you have to deny an application based on the lack of required documentation, like an actual propagation study and an excess of effective radiated power emissions from a facility. This WCF application was approved without any documentation whatsoever as to the specific technology that would be used. I’m going to go through my slides here because I don’t have enough time. Um, there is no information about the 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. 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. This is a major, major liability for the city because these are being approved without any of the effective radiated power being known.

Cathy Cooke (00:18:48):

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 community 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. If we, if you had responded, even once to our numerous requests, for information, we could have worked together to impart this information with you and your staff, and to assure a safe, aesthetically, pleasing, and energy efficient community that we all want. Now that you have this information, I look forward to your reasonable enforcement of the law as pertaining to the 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, it does not meet FCC guidelines. I have expressed no matter of mere concern or any other non-substantive matter, but solely matters of substance of fact and law. Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Mayor McClean (00:20:18):

Thank you, Cathy. Any questions for Ms. Cooke? All right, Next step. We will have the Applicant, Melissa Regan. Oh, good. I didn’t see you earlier, so I’m glad you’re here. Oh, but you were muted. Ma’am you’re muted. And will you give us your name and address for the record as you get going? Nope. Now you’re un-muted it might just mean that you have the wrong speaker tied to it right now. Oh, I saw that. Let me ask the clerk if that’s possible. Try now. No, we can’t hear you yet, but you un-muted her phone. So your phone has been, you can hear us. I take it. Maybe not.

City Staff Person (00:22:08):

She has to unmute.

D. 11/17 Applicant Presentation — Melissa Regan, Attorney for Verizon

Video link → https://youtu.be/-wcQ_JqFOBU?t=1h53m32s

Melissa Regan (00:22:10):

All right. Okay. There we go. That’s that can y’all hear me now? Okay. My apologies. Uh, 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, uh, serve as outside counsel 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. Um, I’m going to stop my video and then if I can share my screen. So I will not spend a lot of time rehashing. Um, we agree with the city staff’s report and recommendation that the city council deny the appeal. Um, we also submitted written arguments to the city council, um, both on October 8th as our affirmative arguments, as well as in response to appellant’s written submission on October 15th. So those include, uh, several of our arguments and responses, including the legal, um, legal citations in the leg that we’ll be talking about during our presentation this evening, we are available to answer any questions that the city council may have. Uh, Jason Evans is also, um, on behalf of Verizon wireless assault consultants, site consultants, who is available to answer any questions the city council may have. Um, Cody did an excellent job of kind of re um, presenting the permit application process. So I won’t spend time on that. I wanted to jump in and address, um, some of the issues that the appellant has raised, but first, just want to recap the Boise planning, zoning commissions written decision, uh, that they stated on the record that the grounds for appeal don’t do not demonstrate an error in the planning team’s decision.

Melissa Regan (00:24:25):

And most 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, um, uh, informed of the city council, that is a permitted, um, uh, application that is allowed to happen. Um, the planning and zoning commission can consider new evidence that wasn’t previously in the record and 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. And I think that’s a really important point to consider here is that that’s what we’re looking at here. We’re looking at the code established by the Boise city code, not the FCC or federal requirements. And so I want to frame this are you as to what the legal standard is for the city council’s review of this matter. So the planning 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, um, violation of constitutional state or city law. Uh, the planning and zoning commission did that exceed its statutory authority. And it also did not make any, um, unlawful procedure decisions. And finally its decision was not arbitrary or capricious without a rational basis.

Melissa Regan (00:26:07):

I do want to just a few minutes talking about, um, 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 COVID. Um, we have 80% of all small businesses are using and supporting more small cell deployment. 80% of 911 calls are made from wireless devices. 90% of US households are using wireless services with almost 50%, 57% of households only having wireless service, not having a landline. And in today of the world of COVID-19 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. I mean, I think one of the quotes that I’ve heard that is, um, really, um, exemplified the need for wireless services is that broad brand really is the new necessary school supply. Uh, with COVID-19 we’ve got the work from home for so many businesses, the telemedicine services that we need to, um, support and provide our wireless services for. Um, we talked about capacity and that 5g is more of a capacity, um, site, um, than it is necessarily coverage site coverage meeting the calls that you make from your phone. But this, this site itself is both a 4g and 5g site. 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. Uh, and it only has limited amounts. Smartphones are taking up 50 times the amount of a network capacity as a standard phone. And so in order to meet our services, we’ve got to deploy in these areas, um, just to provide a little bit more of an explanation on the propagation map that the appellant spent some time on green means wireless services good, yellow means wireless service needs to be improved, gray means wireless service needs to be a bad. Now you’ve heard the appellant message mentioned that these propagation studies are not sufficient in order to meet the requirements of the Boise code. Well, first, um, contrary to the representations by the appellant, coverage and capacity are both regulated by the FCC. It is not just a coverage issue. Um, in fact, federal law preempts when dealing with wireless communication facilities that provide both voice and data services. In 2018, the FCC issued an order accelerating broadband and wireless services with the purpose of the order. And it brought data and capacity facilities under the umbrella of the telecommunications act, section 332, um, (c)(7) through the emphasis on co-mingled services is the term they used. And that provides both personal wireless services of coverage, as well as mobile broadband, internet access and capacity.

Melissa Regan (00:29:21):

And while Verizon does not, did not provide mathematical formulation to use for these, uh, coverage maps, um, and capacity maps. 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 maps that demonstrates there is not, there is sufficient coverage or capacity for this area, nor did they provide an expert or their own analysis. Um, Verizon provided these maps, they complied with the city code and that’s the evidence the city council has before it to consider tonight. Um, The state that we’ve met all of the legal requirements as mr. Riddell 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, um, the Boise planning and zoning department, and the commission said that both of these were sufficient, um, and that they demonstrated the information they needed to in order to comply with the code. Um, the appellate mentioned that federal law does not require a significant gap in coverage, um, or that it requires a significant gap in coverage, not capacity, and that’s actually incorrect. The FC no longer applies the significant gap in coverage determined whether there was an effective prohibition of wireless services under the telecommunications act. Um, again, going back to the 2018 FCC order, which was just upheld by the ninth circuit, um, 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. Riddell mentioned the code, as it exists today, really kind of still focuses on the backroad facilities that we were looking at previously. Um, and hasn’t been brought into play with the updated technologies and, and, um, types of services that wireless providers are deploying these days. Um, there was a lot of information in the appellant’s submissions that the Boise code they should have received NEPA reviews or additional RF information, um, 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 for produce more importantly, is that under federal law, Um, it really is preempted. Um, the Congress has granted the FCC, the authority to regulate RF admissions and the proper procedure. If there’s an issue with respect to the NEPA review or RF powers is for the appellant to file a petition with the FCC, the planning and zoning commission made that, um, 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. Um, just kind of summarize again, we’ve talked about how this applies to voice and data. I won’t rehash that point. Um, but really importantly, kind of to put a bow around this, um, is that the federal telecommunications act of, um, section 332 States that a local government, a jurisdiction can’t have the effect of prohibiting personal wireless services and 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, uh, the services that they so they so need in these times,

Mayor McClean (00:33:11):

Miss Regan, your, your time’s up.

Melissa Regan (00:33:14):

Okay. Thank you.

E. 11/17 City Council — Questions of Staff & Verizon

Video link → https://youtu.be/-wcQ_JqFOBU?t=2h4m38s

Mayor McClean (00:33:16):

Are there any questions for the applicant?

Council Member Bageant (00:33:21):

Madam Mayor.

Mayor McClean (00:33:21):

Yes

Council Member Bageant (00:33:21):

One question for Ms. Regan and this pertains to the difference between Title 1 and Title 2 that came up earlier. I understand 332, two C7, and I understand it’s principle about co-mingled services and its prohibition against us from prohibiting co-mingled services. But my question for you is more about how the technology works. There’s no such thing as analog cell service anymore. It’s all digital, the telephone call, a text, it’s all ones and zeros and it’s all data. Um, 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 2?

Mayor Mclean (00:34:16):

Oh no. Whoops.

City Staff Person (00:34:19):

It looks like she’s not online, anymore.

Mayor Mclean (00:34:20):

Oh, no. She must not have heard me ask everybody if there were questions for the applicant. Because she’s no longer online.

Council Member Bageant (00:34:29):

Perhaps what we can do is if she returns for rebuttal before she begins her rebuttal, I can just ask this question then, and than we can move into the rebuttal.

Mayor McClean (00:34:37):

That makes sense. Will you let us know if okay. Fine. All right. Okay. So since the applicant is, wait, it looks like she’s back on Ms. Regan.

Melissa Regan (00:34:51):

I am back on. Yes. Sorry. I got disconnected after the presentation.

Mayor Mclean (00:34:57):

Council Member Bageant has a question for you.

Council Member Bageant (00:35:00):

Quick question. I hope about how the technology works and how that then fits into the Title I and Title II framework. And I want to preface it by saying that I do understand the 3:32 C7 rule about co-mingled 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 to think about the technology now, because in 2020, all telephone calls are digital. All texts are digital, which means they are all really ones and zeros sent in packets over the airwaves. And from that perspective, I’m trying to understand whether at the technology level, whether there is any difference between voice and text and broadband services or data.

Melissa Regan (00:35:51):

So it’s a great question. 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 texts. It, we have to, the, 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. And also it depends on what type of phone the user has as well. So unless a user, has the 5g phone and that’s the only phone that they’re using, then that maybe all digital in that capacity, but in most instances, most of us still have, you know, the smart phones that are not completely 5g. 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 5g services.

Council Member Bageant (00:36:54):

Would you say that failure to approve this application would materially inhibit your client’s ability to provide 4g services as well?

Melissa Regan (00:37:03):

Yes. I mean, it is a, it’s a dual site.

Council Member Bageant (00:37:07):

Thank you.

Council Member Hallyburton (00:37:10):

Madam Mayor, Council member, Hallyburton.

Mayor Mclean (00:37:13):

Yes.

Council Member Hallyburton (00:37:14):

The appellate brought up,, something about the propagation study being insufficient. And in your presentation, you talked about how it was, and perhaps you went into details here and I just perhaps missed it. And 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.

Melissa Regan (00:37:39):

Um, so let me just make sure I understand your question. Council Member, Hallyburton, when you say regulations, what are you referring to the city? Like the council regulations, what they would say a propagation study is, or,

Council Member Hallyburton (00:37:56):

Yeah. So when you require you to 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?

Melissa Regan (00:38:22):

So our propagation studies are, you know, Verizon has the teams of thousands of RF radio-frequency engineers, and 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. In this case, the RF engineer for this region did their search range, 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. 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. The other point I would make is that in many cases where we have appeals or like, appellant or whoever it may be, you 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. There are certainly the ability to do so here and that the city could have asked, in certain instances we’ve had it where the city could retain an independent expert, if they don’t feel like they have that expertise to make the evaluation. Did that answer your question?

Council Member Hallyburton (00:40:11):

Yeah. And just a quick followup. Was there anything different with the propagation study that you did here versus the ones that you typically do? Or is this the typical propagation study that you’re doing at all of your locations?

Melissa Regan (00:40:24):

Uh, this is the typical one.

Council Member Hallyburton (00:40:26):

Alright? Thank you.

Mayor Mclean (00:40:31):

Other questions? All right. It looks like we will move on now. If there is a neighborhood association yeah. Cause we’ve had the appellant, the applicant, the neighborhood association of record as the West End maybe Jason Duran. 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.

Council Member Hallyburton (00:41:07):

Madam mayor, council member, Hallyburton, if I can just ask maybe the same question to Cody about the propagation study. How do you determine whether this propagation study is sufficient or insufficient?

Cody Riddle (00:41:25):

Madam Mayor, Council Member, Hallyburton. You know, in this case initially with the administrative review, 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. Um, these 5g antennas cast such a small radius that iit’s pretty apparent that there is, there is no coverage. That being said, the applicant did supplement the application at the planning and zoning commission. And that was, that was clearly depicted graphically with that, with that color illustration. And honestly, we’re, we’re not, uh, experts 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.

Council Member Hallyburton (00:42:21):

And that’s the typical propagation study that you would expect to receive on a project like this?

Cody Riddle (00:42:27):

Madam Mayor, Council Member, Hallyburton. Yes. Thank you.

F. 11/17 Public Comment — Idahoans for Safe Technology

Video link → https://youtu.be/-wcQ_JqFOBU?t=2h13m55s

Mayor McClean (00:42:36):

All right. We will move into the public hearing. So I’m going to start with the names on the list and then see who else is here. And then we’ll go into those waiting online. First up we have Hank Allen.

Hank Allen (00:42:55):

Hello.

Mayor Mclean (00:42:55):

Hi,

Hank Allen (00:42:55):

Madam Mayor, City Council, Hank Allen, 687 West Rush Court. So the propagation study, can I take this off?

Mayor McClean (00:43:05):

No, with the new guidelines they’re staying on.

Hank Allen (00:43:08):

You guys are kind of close, I guess your name’s Jimmy and Patrick, and I want to connect the dots for you. That propagation study is a 5g propagation study, right? 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 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? What part of it is telecommunications?" The Verizon representative, she kind of is trying to split it there, but we do have 4G and there’s plenty of service in that area for 4g to make basic texts and telecommunications. 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, uh, what is it, Century Link and old Cable One, right? So we have plenty of hardwired, safe, broadband coverage. We don’t need 5g. Ok? Which is a wireless broadband coverage. So the Verizon representative is kind of trying to split hairs on what Patrick is bringing up. That, we need a different propagation study. It’s incorrect. Okay. So now let’s get a propagation study for 4g basic Title II coverage, and you’ll see, there’s plenty of service here. We don’t need any more cell towers. OK? Now for myself, the reason I’m so passionate about this is, electromagnetic. radiation makes me sick, right? Being here in the office or in this facility with wifi 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. So I avoid personally, I avoid having wifi routers on in my house. We don’t have a microwave oven and I moved out into the country so I can avoid being around cell towers. So I’m not irradiated 24/7. OK? And by allowing 5g and cell towers to be close, coming in, close to my house and radiated, me and my family 24/7 is not acceptable because we already have hard wired 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.

Mayor Mclean (00:46:12):

Thank you, sir. Vivian Lockary.

Vivian Lockary (00:46:26):

Thank you. Mayor and City Council Members. Vivian Lockery 2211 North 19th street, 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

Mayor Mclean (00:46:56):

Great, that way we can make sure that everybody online hears you.

Vivian Lockary (00:46:56):

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 WTF’s or WCF’s wireless communication facilities, the FCC refers to them as WTF’s, aka, small cells, constructed in the public rights of way as close to 30 inches per our city development code, did not provide even the most basic public safety. Now, Ms. Regan spoke to you, she brought up numerous points about this 2018 FCC order. What she didn’t tell you was it in 2019, August of 2019, significant portions of that order were vacated by the DC circuit court. So I’m going to tell you about that. It was decided the FCC’s characterization of the deregulation of WTF as consistent with its longstanding policy was not logical and rational. Why? Because the FCC emits mis-characterized the scale, size, and footprint of the anticipated nationwide deployment of the 800,000 unit network of WTFs. Also decided, such WTF’s are crucially different from the consumer signal boosters and wifi routers to which the FCC compares them. Also decided, it’s impossible on this record to credit the claim that WTF deregulation will leave little or no environmental impact. Also decided, the FCC fails to justify its conclusion that WTFs as a class or by nature, their nature are inherently unlikely to trigger potential significant environmental impacts. So what I want you to know about the DC circuit court is, it is esteemed as superseding and not part of the 11 other district courts. This is just something I learned, so I thought maybe it’s not common knowledge. A court subsidiary solely to the U S Supreme court and of equivalent weight, which was interesting for me to find out, in the absence of an appeal. And in this case, there is no appeal. 15 States have taken measures to protect their citizens from wireless radiation. Several municipalities have passed ordinances that restrict the build-out of WTFs. Time does not allow me to provide examples, but none of these protective measures would be achievable if these municipalities were deluded, as the city of Boise. And I don’t mean to be demeaning in thinking that to take additional action would be to circumvent federal law.

Mayor Mclean (00:50:02):

Ma’am, um, I gave you, I try to give one or two sentences after the time is up, so, your times up.

Vivian Lockary (00:50:02):

Thank you.

Mayor Mclean (00:50:08):

And then Carla Kyle.

Carla Kyle (00:50:15):

My name is Carla Kyle, 3508 West Kootenai 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. LeChance, this was 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 FCCs general population limits at ground level. Mr. LeChance reports that the emissions extending six feet out to two feet below the antennas will exceed the general population limits for radiation exposure." Mr LeChance states that "because the RFE analysis assumes maximum ERP, effected radiated power, the complainants concern about exceeding expectations is unfounded." Our response: assumption is but conjecture and holds no substance or fact. Your city attorney should know this. A manufacturer specification of the proposed Comscope antenna with electrical watt and gain rates for each antenna port will confirm substance and facts. Only at that time will compliance with FCC 4 6 CFR 11307, be verified. Proposed mitigation to include a warning sign placed on the pole. and a notice letter sent to the pole owner are inadequate safeguards for protection of human exposure to levels of radio-frequency in excess of the limits. 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. Then these small wireless towers continue to be deployed without knowledge of the effected radiated power or microwave radiation saturating our front yards and streets. You simply do not know what’s 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 antennas 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, I’m asking the Boise city council and Mayor McClean 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. So I had a question for Cory Riddle, Cody Riddle, can I ask?.

Cody Riddle (00:53:00):

Um, you can put it into the record and he might be able to, you’ve got just a tiny bit of time left…

Carla Kyle (00:53:06):

Yeah, and I’m wondering how many pages of city code referring to as far as I noticed on your website, there were only two pages of city codes surrounding the parameters on these 4g/5g structures. 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 a law to you. Thank you for your time and attention.

Mayor Mclean (00:53:29):

Thank you. We’re all going to have to not clap. We 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 please. I was about to say, I’m going to go through the list to see if anybody and I forgot, sir. Yes. I marked him as not being here. Um, 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. Mr. Misner for Brandon? Come on up.

David Misner (00:54:34):

Can you hear me okay?

Mayor Mclean (00:54:34):

Yeah.

David Misner (00:54:35):

Yeah. Nice to see you all mayor and Councilman, uh, I’m here for Brandon Thompson, uh, and uh, he has a letter that he’s written and I’m going to read that letter to you.

Mayor Mclean (00:54:47):

Do you have his address by chance?

David Misner (00:54:49):

Uh, no I don’t.

Mayor Mclean (00:54:54):

That’s all right.

David Misner (00:54:54):

He’s he’s lives in Boise. Yeah. He works for power engineers.

Mayor McClean (00:54:59):

Alright. And that’s fine if you had it. I was just going to have you read it with his name, but we’ve got it somewhere.

David Misner (00:55:03):

Unless it’s in this text here somewhere.

Mayor Mclean (00:55:04):

Don’t worry about it.

David Misner (00:55:06):

Okay. Anyway, here’s the 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. I’ve been a resident of Boise for over 12 years and my family has held property in homes in Idaho for over 70 years. For fast internet, local governments can choose everything from the best engineering to the worst because you have not sought out experts. You’ve been tricked into succumbing to the worst engineering. The worst really shouldn’t be called a service as in many ways, it’s a disservice. For the fastest, most reliable, secure, and non hackable, safe energy efficient internet. You would choose fiber optics to the premises. FFTP. This directs the D the signal to glass fiber, where the data literally propagate at the speed of light. You cannot get faster than that. For data security, you need fiber rather than releasing data into the atmosphere where the signal can be picked up by just about anyone. No one can tap the data in a fiber optic cable where they, where they to try the glass would break and the signal would be lost. It’s essentially impossible to hack and useless to try. Fiber is impervious to terrorism and absolutely necessary for national state and local security. All broadband requires starting the signal with fiber optic cable. This cable requires almost zero electrical energy. So it is super-conservative, non-wasteful and efficient. By contrast, if you take the fiber optic signal and transform it into a wireless, you’ve got to use, you got use and waste, and you waste more electricity, which you have to transform into pulse modulator, microwave radiation. It’s a huge burden with enormous data to carry, but slower speed with an atmosphere whose water and OH molecules. In addition to living tissues and trees and any human and animals’ bodies in between optimally absorbed and impede the radiation. That means you’ve got to do 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’ve got to have 5g beamforming 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. I still got like two more paragraphs here.

Mayor McClean (00:58:04):

Um, you, you can know what I’m going to suggest is that you, if he wants to have it all on the record,

David Misner (00:58:10):

Can I just leave it with you.

Mayor Mclean (00:58:10):

Yeah. You can leave it with us. Yeah. Thank you.

David Misner (00:58:14):

Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Should I just leave it here?

Mayor McClean (00:58:17):

Yeah why don’t you just leave it there. That’s good.

David Misner (00:58:21):

Thank you.

Mayor McClean (00:58:21):

Thank you very much. So one person signed up in advance. Ann Huycke, Is that you ma’am. Yes. Come on up. And then I’ll just kind of start over here and move this way for people to make sure that people will 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 hoped 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.

Ann Hycke (00:59:01):

I attest and affirm that the following statements are true, accurate, and within my personal knowledge. My name is Dr. Ann Huycke. I’m a medical doctor with almost 40 years of emergency room and family practice experience. 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 harm in all species tested, including pets, farm animals, insects, bees, plants and humans. It only took 10,000 research papers to eliminate asbestos and lead from our environment. So what type of medical problems are there? There’s premature neurodegenerative diseases, including dementia and Alzheimer’s, attention deficit, autism, insomnia, anxiety, and depression, also heart arrhythmias and infertility and cancer and biochemical disturbances. I’ve been evaluating petitions for the new wireless telecommunication facilities for the city of Boise. And I would like to donate my services to locate the next seven facilities. I recommend them that we put them all in your front yards. Um, and you’re thinking, do we really need another facility? 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 may be more effective radiated power coming from the 4g towers on the hills. And yet it could be 30 inches from your home. 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 bankrupC?. So as to your city motto: "Boise for everyone"’: It’s not for the electromagnetically sensitive like Hank back there or disabled people who use assistive devices that can be interfered with with the 5g. 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 5G will cause an exodus of people with health issues, real estate values will plummet, there will be a loss of the tax base and a bankrupted city from the legal actions of health harms. 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 and our community. Stand up and protect us like you promised! I’ve expressed no matter of concern, but solely substance, fact and law. Thank you.

Mayor Mclean (01:02:27):

Okay. Did anybody else sign up? That’s here tonight. Sign up in advance. So to sign up for online, cause I’ll take you first. Okay. Nope. You’ve testified. You said? Yes. Okay.

City Staff Person (01:02:47):

Madam Mayor, Barbara is online.
Mayor Mclean (01:02:49):
Oh, but we’ve got Barbara online.

Barb Parshley (01:02:52):

There’s a Barb here.
Mayor Mclean (01:02:55):
Yeah. She’s here. We’re going to go for, through folks in the room and then we’ll call you back.

Barb Parshley (01:03:02):

All right. Thank you.

Mayor Mclean (01:03:06):

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? Um, yeah, I’m just, I want to go through the room so people can leave if they want to leave. Are you, that’s what I have to ask? Are you, were you a party of record? Okay. And you ma’am? Nope. Nope. Okay. We’ve got everybody in the room. 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 of 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 DeHaas. If you’ll just be ready.

Barb Parshley (01:04:18):

Thank you very much. Barb Parshley, at 10900 West Wasdale. 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 at a local orchard. I’ve done research on insects and have gone to many conferences and discussed research. Um, 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 that it also affects insects. Um. the frequencies, for instance, we know that honeybees are really necessary for our existence. It adversely affects the bees behavior, the physiology, it drives colony collapse. 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 the decrease in honeybee population already, adding this frequency will only serve to increase this problem. There’s also affects on trees. You know, you’re the city of trees. Well, the Colorado, excuse my phone in the background, uh, the Colorado research study has shown adverse effects on aspen and pine trees. They show that the trees that are tall are affected by towers because they’re tall enough, uh have lesions on them. And the trees that are smaller do not until they grow up taller. The telecommunications act of 1996, states that local and governmental entities may make use of the public right away, subject to regulatory objectives, such as those relating to public safety and welfare. The above issues would disrupt our food chain, our plants, our trees, and certainly affect our public safety and welfare. So I’m submitting to you that these frequencies have been shown and researched to effect animals and insects and trees. I’ll leave the medical stuff to my, the previous speaker there. I think that that the Boise city council is, or whoever is advising them to do this, is being short-sighted in having this radiation on the people. I that’s just my opinion there. I think it’s very dangerous. And I agree with the person that said fiber optics is the way to go. ThAere’s no problem with that. There’s no reason why not to do fiber optics instead of doing something that’s radiating through the year. And that is, any questions on that?

Mayor McClean (01:07:29):

Thank you Barbara. Very much. Okay. Do we have Paul Gee or G?

Paul Gee (01:07:43):

That would be Paul G can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Okay. Perfect. I’m at 688 North 29th street, Boise, Idaho, 83702. Now listen, I am an expert in measuring and mitigating pulse data, modulated, radio frequency, electromagnetic microwave, radiation, RF-EMR, just like Cathy Cooke, the appellant. We are the only two experts before you. We were also there for the appeal. The applicant didn’t bring any experts. The city staff admitted they don’t have any expertise. 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 he’s seen the courtroom. Unlike Ms. Regan, who is a slick sales woman who passed the bar. I doubt she’s ever seen a courtroom. 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. The propagation map is a typical effort from Verizon and none of it is called probative evidence. No judge would accept it. There is no data to back up the funny colors or the numbers. It’s all mumbo jumbo and made up, okay, this is what, uh, your code says, quote, "a propagation studies showing the location of existing fillers within the coverage area and radio-frequency modeling of which there was none because there is no math modeling impplies math, providing evidence as to why the WTF is needed at the chosen location". Key word: needed, needed, needed. It is not needed whatsoever because we have absolute evidence, if you looked at the appeal, what do 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 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 map is worth the paper it is printed on. The truth is that no federal court would take a propagation map without verification. In short comma, these maps are not probative evidence."

You could have gotten bought verification by hiring an expert. You’re a city staff did not your city staff, all readmitted. 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.

Mayor McClean (01:11:04):

Thank you, sir.

Council Member Bageant (01:11:06):

Madam Mayor?

Mayor Mclean (01:11:07):

Yes.

Council Member Bageant (01:11:08):

A point of privilege or observation, Mr. Campanella, the attorney is obviously not a part of, of record and he didn’t make statements, but I think all of us are going to be listening to the person who testified here and not to somebody who testified somewhere else.

Paul Gee

Are you kidding me?

Mayor McClean (01:11:23):

Next up we have David Dehass.

Mayor Mclean (01:11:34):

Hi there.

David DeHass (01:11:35):

Hello.

Mayor Mclean (01:11:35):

Yes, we hear you. Welcome.

David DeHass (01:11:37):

Welcome. My name is David DeHass. 116 South Vista, Boise, Idaho. If the city of Boise has to follow the written ordinance, this towel application must be denied. The application did not provide a legitimate propagation study. There are no specifications, no drive test sited and only a colored map that any first-grader could have drawn. This is not a valid propagation study, a real propagation. They must be done independently with a cell phone and meters. 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’m shocked your legal department has been very sloppy in processing these applications. Many are not signed. None have a propagation study. We pointed this out earlier when we did the applicant bought in a shaded map, the legal team and city has failed you the council and the citizen. The city has a duty and a right to protect the private agenda of our property. There is no reason at all to have towers that radiate 25 million times more radiated power that it takes to make a cell phone call. We can get our data from our cable. Cable is faster than 5g and safer. This is bigger than COVID. Why can I say that? Well, at least with COVID I can boost my immune system, mitigate my risk. 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 falsehoods that Verizon has provided are numerous, I have sent you all data on the law, the real law, even the most recent ruling: you can and must properly regulate this technology. 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 it’s where the towers are located. Those homeowners will experience a 20% decrease in property value. We should not be here at all tonight. Quite frankly. I’m very disappointed in the city’s response to our request for a meeting that we asked for back in June. I have spoken to two of you. I’m thankful for that. We’ve not had a dialogue. Back in the day of my 45 years in business, whenever I’ve had a problem with either a planning and zoning department, or somethings came up, we sat down, we had a cup of tea, we met. In this case, I felt completely disenfranchised and shut out of the process. While Verizon gets to meet with the citizens and continue to bring data, thats not sufficient at all, other cities are keeping this technology out of the neighborhoods and creating setbacks at 2,500 feet from residences. They have put a cap on power, some cities and 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 where they’ve allowed us a one-hour presentation. Harrison has asked us to get a whole day of a meeting to provide them with the information they need to make the decisions to properly regulate this. Further, who’s providing the liability to protect the city for the health of damages and lawsuits thats sure to come? There is no insurance that provides any city or entity with insurance against health effects and EMF. Why do you think Verizon uses independent contractors to apply for these applications and own these towers? It’s called a shell game, Verizon mitigates liability by putting independent contractors in place of them. And this is outlined in their perspectives. There’s not a one insurance company in the entire world who will give you insurance to get the health effects of E M F 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 over the years.
Mayor Mclean (01:14:59):
Your time’s up.

David DeHass (01:15:00):

Thank you.

Mayor Mclean (01:15:02):

Thank you, sir. So that was the last name I had on here. Are there other folks that are, Oh, did you…

Council Member Woodings (01:15:08):

Madam Mayor before we move on?

Mayor Mclean (01:15:09):

Sure go ahead.
Council Member Woodings (01:15:10):
I would, similarly to council President Clegg, I’d like to, um, 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, um, citizens who were concerned about 5g. Um, so I just wanted to kind of put that to bed.

Mayor Mclean (01:15:35):

All right. Thank you. Um, I have nobody else signed up in advance. Are there people whose hands are raised on zoom that I can call on?
City Staff Person (01:15:42):
Madam Mayor I do have someone that just raised their hand, but I do you need to check if she is a party of record.

Mayor Mclean (01:15:48):

And who is that?
City Staff Person (01:15:49):
It is Heidi Haiselmaier.

Mayor Mclean (01:15:53):

Okay. Um Heidi Haiselmaier we’re just checking, um you might be able to answer. We’re just checking to see if you’re a party of record in which case, um, we’ll open up the line for you.
City Staff Person (01:16:06):
Madam Mayor, I do not see her as a party of record.

Mayor Mclean (01:16:08):

Okay.
City Staff Person (01:16:09):
I do have a Jason Evans who is on a party record and he does have his hand raised.

Jason Evans (01:16:13):

Okay. Jason Evans and Jason, before you speak, I just want to explain to Heidi, um, that this is an appeal. And so I’m not sure if you were on, when I explained to the folks in the room, um, 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, um, that you were not a party of record and our records indicate that you did not testify at that one. Um, if you need to send a note to the clerk, I think you can do that through the chat. Um, and we’ll go ahead with the person who is a party of record, whose name I’ve already forgotten. I’m sorry.
City Staff Person (01:16:49):
Jason Evans,

Mayor Mclean (01:16:50):

Jason Evans,

Jason Evans (01:16:52):

Madam mayor, council members, my name is Jason Evans and I am here representing Verizon as well tonight as the real estate specialist. Just more of, uh, being available to answer any questions that might’ve come up, that Melissa didn’t answer, or just any items that needed to be discussed.

Mayor Mclean (01:17:09):

Um, then that’s we’ll have you, you and Melissa will have to work out who does rebuttal at the end of this. That’s more, um, more appropriately had there.

Jason Evans (01:17:17):

Thank you.

City Staff Person (01:17:23):

Madam Mayor, I don’t see anyone else.

Mayor Mclean (01:17:24):

Okay. We don’t have anybody else. So I’m going to 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 is online. All right. And then can you remind me James of the order?

Okay. So we will now move into, if there’s nobody else. That’s right, I went through the room and we’ll now move into rebuttals. And first in the rebuttal order is the applicant. So someone from Verizon, did you all decide who was speaking and rebuttals are five minutes long? Yes, we can unmute, uh, Melissa Regan on her phone. Again. Ms. Regan. We’re not seeing your phone number, your phone. You’re typing, so we might be able to hear you, I think.

Applicant Rebuttal — Melissa Regan, Attorney for Verizon

Video link → https://youtu.be/-wcQ_JqFOBU?t=2h50m16s

Melissa Regan (01:18:57):

Okay, great. There we go. Can you hear me?

Mayor Mclean (01:19:01):

Yes, we can. You’ve got 5 minutes for rebuttal.

Melissa Regan (01:19:03):

Okay. Thank you. Um, it just, we heard a lot of testimony from, uh, people on record and the applicant, or sorry, and, um, the public about RF admissions and the city’s, um, 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, um, formation from the applicant, but for the propagation map. And then second, I want to, um, reference the federal telecommunication section or, um, federal telecommunications act, section 332, C7 B subsection 4, 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 preempt state and local regulation here. Verizon wireless facilities have to comply with the FCC regulations on RF admissions if they don’t do so, they don’t get the license for the facility and they cannot maintain their licenses for the facilities. Um, and so while we’ve heard a lot of information that really is not within the scope of what the city council can consider in deciding it’s making its decision. And as we stated, complaints related to whether or not the facility has the appropriate NEPA review, or it complies with the RF regulations are appropriately made to the FCC by petitioning complaint, which we’ve heard that the applicant and others have done so, and they referenced the response that has been provided by the Verizon attorney handling that matter. And I just, again, wanted to circle back to the propagation map, um, that was discussed extensively through the public comment and reiterate that these are the types of propagation maps that are provided to jurisdictions across the country. They’re prepared by technically trained, um, RF engineers in the company. Um, and they use their mathematical formulas and datas 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. Um, there are costs 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. I’m happy to answer any further questions from city council, but again, we would recommend that the city council follow the staff recommendation that the appeal be denied.

Mayor McClean (01:22:00):

Thank you. All right. We will hear from the appellant, Cathy, are you doing the rebuttal as well?

Cathy Cooke (01:22:11):

Paul G is going to do the rebuttal.

Mayor Mclean (01:22:15):

All right. Paul, are you there? Paul? We can see, we can see your forehead, but not, not the rest of you. Okay. You’re almost there. We can’t hear you. You’re Oh, there you go. Yep. And you’re still muted.

G. Appellant Rebuttal — Paul Gee, Scientists for Wired Technology

Video link → https://youtu.be/-wcQ_JqFOBU?t=2h54m5s

Paul Gee (01:22:46):

No worries. So I’d like to share my screen. If I can. Can I do that? Can you make me presenter?

Mayor Mclean (01:22:55):

And the things you’d like to share related to your rebuttal?

Paul Gee (01:23:00):

They absolutely are.

Mayor Mclean (01:23:01):

Great.

City Staff Person (01:23:01):

He is a presenter.

Mayor Mclean (01:23:02):

Oh, you’re already presenter. So I think that if you hit share, it might work.

Paul Gee (01:23:06):

Hold on. I will do that. Share screen. Give me, don’t start my time until I get my screen up. Okay.

Mayor Mclean (01:23:13):

Right.

Paul Gee (01:23:14):

All right. There is a share right there. All right. So the best that I can do for you now is try to teach us 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 professor, Trevor Marshall made this comment to the FCC, June 17th of 2020. 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. If you have a macro tower, 2,500 feet away by the time, and 200 feet in the air, that 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. 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. So what happens then is when you put one of those on, we have an example in Sacramento, and I could take you directly to the page if there’s time. But essentially what it says is that, uh, when you put it in a second story bedroom, it’s 50,000 radiation units. 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 it 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 Lloyd’s 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. You can’t even get the insurance yourself. Neither can Verizon. That’s because they understand how dangerous this is. They’re in a little scam here, and you guys are the patsies. They’re handing you the liability. 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, uh, Telecommunications Act, let me tell you what goes on right here shall not unreasonably discriminating 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. 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. What you want to do is really look at the law. Here it is 47, US code 342: 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 that’s Verizon’s phone calls against T-Mobile’s phone calls versus AT&T’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 FCC order 18-133. They talked about that and they said, Oh, well 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. How do we know FCC attorney Scott Novick admitted it right there in front of the judges on February 10th 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 are 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 yourselves…

City Council Vote — Deliberations

Video link → https://youtu.be/-wcQ_JqFOBU?t=2h59m57s

Mayor Mclean (01:28:38):

Your time’s up. All right. Um, are there questions, we did the questions before rebuttals. Just want to make sure that Council has anything else. Otherwise, I’m going to go ahead and close the public hearing. All right, we’ll go ahead and close the public hearing in the matters properly before you.

Council Member Bageant (01:29:00):

Madam Mayor.

Mayor Mclean (01:29:01):

Yes.

Council Member Bageant (01:29:02):

I move that we deny appeal CAA20-127. And when I get a second. I’ll explain my reasoning.
unkown (01:29:09):
Second

Council Member Bageant (01:29:15):

We have a motion and a second.

Council Member Bageant (01:29:15):

Madam Mayor.

Madam Mayor (01:29:15):

Yes

Council Member Bageant (01:29:21):

Couple of things. Uh, kind of as administrative matters first, nobody, nobody has advised us to make a certain decision here. Um, 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. 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. Um, first because the propagation study was not attached with the application. And second, because in view of the appellant, the propagation study was inadequate, but we have an open record procedure and a property 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 here. The second issue of the propagation study pertains to its adequacy. Um, the argument was a fact-based argument, um, in the view of the appellants, the fact is that this propagation study is, is not sufficient. Um, in the view of the respondent in this appeal, they argued. The fact is that it is, um, based on their policy and practice in 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. The second argument is that there’s a NEPA review problem here. Um, but NEPA is a federal standard. The national environmental policy act is not something that we enforce in the first instance, uh, 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. Um, the third argument pertained to the written analysis, and that goes again to the propagation study issue. Um, there was analysis attached. The argument is that it’s inadequate. Um, 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. 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, ie our approval process can prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting an entity from providing telecom services. We heard from Verizon today that denial of this application would have the effect of prohibiting by materially inhibiting, that’s the language of the statute provision of both 4g and 5g cellular telecom services. Our hands are tied and it’s not, uh, it really, the analysis doesn’t 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 final set of issues and arguments dealt with Title I and Title II and the distinctions between, uh, voice type communications and data type communications. And it’s challenging it sounds like from a technical perspective, but what we know under 332 C7, is that when those services are commingled, 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, no city, 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, um, I would, you know, I acknowledged that there are challenges that the appellant can bring in federal court or through the federal administrative procedures. Um, but that’s the place for them. We, we, we can’t do it here. So for those reasons that that’s, those are the basis of my motion. Final thing I wanted to address, uh, is concerned that I heard by email from a lot of constituents, including some people who testified here today, 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. Um, 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 it’s it’s improper and due process requires that we not communicate about the substance of an appeal, particularly with the applicant. Um, 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.

Council Member Woodings (01:34:54):

Madam Mayor.

Mayor Mclean (01:34:54):

Yes, go ahead.

Council Member Woodings (01:34:55):

Thank you. Um, I want, thank everyone who has reached out to us. Um, I have had conversations with folks, I mean, from like last year about 5g and the various health concerns, um, that everyone has. And, um, when it comes to health concerns, you know, like everyone’s concerns are real to you. Um, and I completely get that. Um, I think that because this is an appeal, our options are really limited. Um, but I think that what this appeal has also shown us is that we may have some, um, insufficient city code around not only the deployment of 5g networks, but you know, maybe certain types of infrastructure throughout our city. And so I would like to work with our planning and zoning staff to ensure that we are deploying infrastructure throughout our city that is safe and appropriate and, um, gives our citizens the level of service that we want, um, when it comes to technology. Um, but that also ensures safety and is legal from a federal perspective. So thank you very much for coming out tonight and though this may not, and definitely is not the result that you’re seeking tonight. Um, we’ll continue to work on it.
Council Member Clegg (01:36:20):

Madam Mayor.

Mayor Mclean (01:36:20):
Yep

Council Member Clegg (01:36:26):

Thank you. Um, Council Member Bageant and, um, talked about almost everything on my list. You certainly covered the legal issues. And I agree with his analysis of, um, what the federal law says versus what our ability to regulate is, um, in light of that federal law, which is pretty limited. We are allowed to regulate for aesthetics. We don’t do that. I think, um, although that is not something anyone brought up today, it’s certainly something that we should at least consider. Typically, uh, we are allowed to regulate for public health. However, the federal rulings have tied our hands in that respect. I found it interesting that the main appellant, uh, made the case that she was not here to talk about public health, but nearly everyone else who testified, testified around health. I would not argue with the comments that we heard today. It’s not really for me to make that judgment, uh, given where we are in the regulatory landscape. It may well be that fiber optics is a better way to provide this kind of then 5g. Uh, that is a case that will have to be made federally. Um, if it’s to get anywhere, because that’s the level that which has been regulated today, it may well be that in the end, uh, it will be, um, 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, uh, we, the administrative, uh, decision and the planning and zoning decision on the appeal was ruled correctly. And as I said, I agree with council member Bageant’s analysis, that it was ruled correctly. And, um, therefore we’ll support this motion. I also agree with Council Member Woodings that, um, this is an issue that’s going to be with us for awhile, and there’s certainly a few things we can do with our own ordinance to make sure that it’s more clear, uh, 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. Uh, in the meantime, I think that this is the correct decision, uh, given the, um, legal framework that we’re working within.

Council Member Hallyburton (01:39:47):

Madam Mayor, Council Member Hallyburton. 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, um, it’s probably feeling like my concerns are not heard, uh, or validated. Um, and I’ve been there before as well. So I understand that, um, I do want it to be on the record, um, as other council members have done in saying that I’ve never met with Verizon, um, not only for this reason, but for any reason, ever. Um, and I certainly haven’t met with anybody to talk about 5g in the last few months. Um, but I have talked with people about 5g, um, for the last couple of years, uh, and earlier this year as well. Um, before we heard any of this, I want to make sure that that’s on record. Um, I also want to make sure that people know that like, yeah, we’re reading your messages, um, every single one, um, 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. Um, that’s not the case. Um, and I think there are other council members already spoke to that. Thank you.

City Council — Vote, Denied Appeal 7-0

Video link → https://youtu.be/-wcQ_JqFOBU?t=3h12m25s

Mayor McClean (01:41:05):

Alright. If there’s nobody else, I will ask the clerk to call the role.
City Clerk (01:41:16):

Thompson.

Council Member Thompson (01:41:19):
Yes

City Clerk (01:41:20):

Woodings.
Council Member Woodings (01:41:20):
Yes.

City Clerk (01:41:20):

Bageant.
Council Member Bageant (01:41:20):
Yes.

City Clerk (01:41:20):

Clegg.

Council Member Clegg (01:41:20):

Yes.

City Clerk (01:41:20):

Hallyburton.

Council Member Hallyburton (01:41:20):

Yes.

City Clerk (01:41:20):

Sanchez.

Council Member Sanchez (01:41:20):

Yes.

City Clerk (01:41:28):

All in favor motion carries.

Mayor Mclean (01:41:32):

All right. That is the last item on the agenda. And thank you everybody for coming out today. Um, if there’s nothing else, we’ll take a motion to adjourn.
Council Member Woodings (01:41:41):
Madam Mayor I move we adjourn.
Council Member Clegg (01:41:43):
Second.

Mayor Mclean (01:41:44):

All in favor.

unkown (01:41:46):

Aye. Aye. Aye.

Mayor Mclean (01:41:48):

All right. We’re adjourned. See you all. Wait, I don’t think we have a council meeting next week for Thanksgiving.

Council Member Clegg (01:41:53):

We don’t.

Mayor Mclean (01:41:56):

See you in December. Bye-bye.