Minutes - 2015 - City Council - 01/27/2015 - Regular EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
Minutes
January 27, 2015
PRE-COUNCIL AGENDA: 5:30 p.m. - 6:30 p.m.
1. Audit Report FY 2013-2014: Quest CPA: Kurt Folke provides Council an overview
of the FY 13/14 Audit Report. General discussion.
2. Eagle Fire Department Quarterly Report: Chief Winkle provides the Council an
overview of their Agency Evaluation. Discussion on a master plan, residential sprinkler
systems and a Joint Powers Agreement between the City of Eagle and the Eagle Fire
District. Hopefully next month we will have this document before you. We are finishing
up our annual report and our calls for service are up a little. General discussion.
3. Ada County Sheriff's Office: Chief Calley displays the monthly report for the year
ending 2014 and discusses the same. I brought Terry Derden with me tonight.
Terry Derden, Boise City Prosecuting Attorney's Office, we have completed our
transition. Today was the first jury trial for the City of Eagle and it was actually settled
before we went to trial. On Tuesday afternoons I am actually in the station with your
police officers. We have been reviewing the Eagle City Code to see if there needs to be
changes. General discussion.
Chief Calley introduces Ann Yates their new Clerk.
4. City Engineer Monthly Report: City Engineer Mike Davis provides Council an
overview of the Engineers Monthly Report. Discusses the Dry Creek Pathway, we did
received the Contract from ITD and it will be on a February Council meeting. Provides
Council an overview of the ITD Contract. General discussion.
City Attorney Report: You have the AIC Legislative Day at the Capital this week and
Friday is the Municipal Attorney's meeting. Discusses the EPA and DEQ rules.
5. Mayor and Council Reports: None
6. City Hall Department Supervisor Reports: Moved to the end of the Agenda
INVOCATION:
REGULAR COUNCIL AGENDA: 6:30 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Reynolds calls the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL: MCFARLAND, BUTLER, KUNZ, RIDGEWAY. All present. A
quorum is present.
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Reynolds leads the Pledge of Allegiance.
Page I
K\COUNCIL\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC-01-27-15min.doc
4. SERVICE RECOGNITION:
A.) The City would like to honor Laurel Jobe for her service to Eagle senior citizens
while serving as President at the Center.
The Mayor presents Laurel Jobe with an Eagle Statute Award and recognizes her service
to the Eagle Senior Center.
B.) Eagle Soaring Citizen Award: By recognizing the importance of outstanding
residents, this quarterly award will be given to Eagle citizens who have shown high
achievement and/or give back to their community.
1. Kory Puderbaugh: Nominated by Kory's high school principal Terry Beck. Kory
has shown perseverance throughout his schooling and is graduating early. He always
keeps an exceptional attitude and involves himself in many activities.
Mayor presents Kory Puderbaugh with the Eagle Soaring Citizen Statute and recognizes
his perseverance through school and honoring him for graduating early.
2. Team Lucas House: Accepted by Noah and Lucas Aldrich. Noah, older brother to
Lucas (who has a life-limiting illness), wants his brother to experience life to the fullest.
He shows his support for children with life-limiting illnesses by competing in triathlons
with his brother. Together with their family, they have created the Lucas House an
organization to help children and their families with end-of-life care.
Mayor presents Noah and Lucas Aldrich with the Eagle Soaring Citizen Statute and
recognizes their creation of the Lucas House, an organization to help children and their
families with end-of-life care.
3. The Perks of Life: Accepted by Heather Andrade. Using the business model of
"give what you can, pay what you are able" the Perks of Life has been able to raise funds
to help local families in need.
Mayor presents Heather Andrade with the Eagle Soaring Citizen Statute and recognizes
The Perks of Life which uses a business model of"give what you can, pay what you are
able". The Perks of Life raises funds to help local families in need and they raised $1,000
in November and helped 10 families for Thanksgiving.
5. ADDITIONS, DELETIONS OR MODIFICATIONS TO THE AGENDA: None
6. PUBLIC COMMENT:
This time is reserved for the public to address their elected officials regarding
concerns or comments they would like to provide to the City Council regarding
subjects not on the agenda. At times, the City Council may seek comments/opinions
regarding specific City matters during this allotted time. This is not the time slot to
give formal testimony on a public hearing matter, or comment on a pending
application or proposal. Out of courtesy for all who wish to speak, the City Council
requests each speaker limit their comments to three (3) minutes.
Patricia Minkiewicz, I noticed the Eagle is back at the entrance to the City, it looks great.
Page 2
K:\COUNCIL\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC-01-27-I5min.doc
Teresa Johnson, is a member of the public allowed to make comment during new
business? Mayor responds: only when it is posted as public comment.
7. CONSENT AGENDA:
♦ Consent Agenda items are considered to be routine and are acted on with one
motion. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless the Mayor,
a Councilmember, member of City Staff, or a citizen requests an item to be
removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion. Items removed from the
Consent Agenda will be placed on the Regular Agenda in a sequence
determined by the City Council.
♦ Any item on the Consent Agenda which contains written Conditions of
Approval from the City of Eagle City Staff, Planning & Zoning Commission,
or Design Review Board shall be adopted as part of the City Council's
Consent Agenda approval motion unless specifically stated otherwise.
A. Claims Against the City.
B. Minutes of January 13,2015.
C. FP-20-14 — Final Plat for Reynard Subdivision No. 6 — The M3
Companies: The M3 Companies, represented by Scott Wonders with J-U-
B Engineers, Inc., is requesting final plat approval for Reynard
Subdivision No. 6, a 29-lot (27-buildable, 2-common) residential
subdivision. The 18.4-acre site is generally located on the north side of
West Chinden Boulevard east of Linder Road, at the northwest corner of
South Bergman Way and West Temple Drive. (WEV)
D. Sole Source Award for Playground Equipment: Requesting approval
for a sole source purchase including installation from Lucky Dog
Recreation for the Dynamo Apollo playground equipment for Orville
Krasen Park. (MA)
E. Resolution 15-02: Authorizing the destruction of transitional public
records. (SKB)
F. Resolution 15-03: Authorizing the destruction of temporary public
records. (SKB)
G. Resolution 15-05: Authorizing the destruction of temporary public
records. (SKB)
H. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for FPUD-03-13 & FP-06-13
—Final Development Plan and Final Plat for The Preserve Subdivision
No. 3 (formerly known as Eaglefield Estates Subdivision) — The
Preserve, LLC. The Preserve LLC represented by Becky McKay with
Engineering Solutions, LLP The Preserve, LLC, represented by Becky
McKay with Engineering Solutions, LLP, is requesting final development
plan and final plat approval for The Preserve Subdivision No. 3, a 19.33-
acre, 63-lot (58-buildable, 5-common) residential subdivision. The
Preserve Planned Unit Development is generally located 650-feet west of
Linder Road and north of State Highway 44. (WEV)
Kunz moves to approve the Consent Agenda, Items #A, B, C, D, E, F, G and #H,
noting that there were some minor changes made to the January 13, 2015 minutes.
Page 3
K:\COUNCIL\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC-0I-27-15min.doc
Seconded by Butler. McFarland: AYE; Butler: AYE; Kunz: AYE; Ridgeway:
AYE: ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES
8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
A. Mural Project Location: The Arts Commission is seeking Council approval of the
location of a proposed mural project. The Commission will be distributing a request for
proposal (RFP) for the mural.
Mayor introduces the issue.
Michelle Anderson, Arts Commission, provides the Council an overview of the Mural
Project which would be on the pedestrian underpass at the North Side of the North
Channel. We are seeking your approval for the location. General discussion.
McFarland moves to approve the RFP for the mural. Motion dies for lack of a second.
Further discussion on expanding the choice of locations for the mural.
Michelle displays overheads of a mural example on the underpass and pictures of the
other two locations, 1st and State Street and the back of the City Hall building and
discusses the same. General discussion.
Council requests the Arts Commission to expand their search for different locations for a
mural.
B. AA-01-15 — Appeal of DR-30-05 MOD regarding the Design Review Board
decision to disallow the use of barbed wire fence along the Boise River greenbelt
within Common Lot 35 within the Laguna Pointe Subdivision — Laguna Pointe
Home Owners Association: Laguna Pointe Home Owners Association are appealing the
Design Review Board's decision to disallow the use of barbed wire fence along the Boise
River greenbelt within Common Lot 35 within the Laguna Pointe Subdivision. The site is
generally located on the south side of the south channel of the Boise River and on the east
side of South Eagle Road (subdivision entrance roadway is East River Meadow Drive).
This item was continued from the January 13, 2015 meeting. (WEV)
Mayor introduces the issue.
City Attorney Buxton: This item was continued from your last meeting. We meet with
the HOA President Peel and their attorney Hancock. I would ask that Council hear their
appeal. There is also a Design Review Application for the landscaping and the berm
cannot move forward until the fence issue is resolved. General discussion.
Nicole Hancock, representing the Laguna Pointe HOA, I have been in discussion with
your City Attorney and I have a power point to present unless you want to approve the
possible motion that your City Attorney presented tonight. General discussion.
Butler moves to approve the design Review 30-05 MOD eliminating the condition
with regard to the barb wire fence, making it clear that that application is not
approving the barb wire fence and a separate Design Review application needs to be
submitted for the barb wire fence or hopefully a different fence. Seconded by
Ridgeway. Discussion. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES
Page 4
K.\COUNCIL\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC-01-27-15min.doc
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Public Hearings are legally noticed hearings required by state law. The public
may provide formal testimony regarding the application or issue before the City
Council. This testimony will become part of the hearing record for that
application or matter.
A. CU-01-14 — Conditional Use Permit - Skyway Towers, LLC: Skyway Towers,
LLC, represented by Shawn Nickel with SLN Planning, is requesting conditional use
permit approval for a 95-foot high camouflaged cell tower (defined as "personal wireless
facility height-over 35-feet" in Eagle City Code) with the option to increase the height of
the tower to 115-feet in the future. Note: this is a new public hearing (post mediation) and
new information has been provided and new information will be discussed. The proposed
2,500-square foot lease area is located approximately 835-feet southwest of the
intersection of North Eagle Hills Way and North Wingfoot Place at the southern
boundary of Eagle Hills Golf Course within the area containing hole #2.
Mayor introduces the issue.
Mayor: Does anyone on Council have any exparte contact to declare?
Kunz: I did receive two letters that some neighbors wrote and those were forwarded to
City Staff and included in the packet of materials.
Mayor: Does anyone on Council have any potential or actual conflict of interest?
Ridgeway: I do not have a conflict of interest but I did receive some emails and I
wrote back on those emails and asked people who their carrier was and some of the
people answered but there was no other discussion after that or correspondence and it
is the same correspondence that is in the packet.
City Attorney Buxton discusses the mediation process and states that a settlement
agreement did not come out of this process.
Steve Lord, reads into the record an email communication with Skyway and Susan
Buxton, City Attorney. We did not know that the Trott Study was a public record so we
have not had time to put our written comments together. I would like to suggest that we
go ahead tonight and then continue this to another meeting to allow further testimony and
written comments to be submitted for no more than two weeks from tonight. It is up to
you whether or not you allow the Trott Study to be submitted. General discussion.
Further general discussion.
Dan Behuniak, Skyway Towers, distributes to the Mayor and City Council a copy of the
July 25, 2014 letter to the Mayor and City Council, a Google Earth print out of the area,
and the Conditional Use Permit Site Plans, displays the same on overheads and discusses
the same. General discussion.
Mayor opens the Public Hearing
Steve Lord, representing Protecting the Neighborhoods, displays overheads from the
Conditional Use Permit Site Plans and a Google Earth print out of sites that would be
appropriate for the tower and discusses the same. General discussion.
Page 5
K\COUNCIL\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC-O1-27-15min.doc
George Schnarre, 723 Spyglass Way, discusses the location, coverage that the towers
will provide, towers in foliage, and the appropriate amount of towers needed for
coverage.
General discussion.
David Schwartz, 948 E. Monarch Street, I just wanted to make sure you had my letter in
our packet and I will stand for questions. General discussion on his letter.
Debra Helton, 1203 Cerramar Court, the application has new information and it is not
much different than the first application. I hope you will go back and look at the previous
letters and comments on this application. I hope our neighborhood does not become an
industrial park with these towers.
Gretta Flemming, 681 Spyglass Way, this is redundant. The only new information I have
heard tonight is that they want to put up two towers. Nothing has changed. There are
optional sites that have not been proposed. Why does this keep coming back to this?
They are not following the City Code and I think you deny them again.
Tracy Herman, 457 Beacon Light Road, discusses the photo simulations for Skyway
Tower and I know they are correct.
Bill McCarrel, 1570 N. Snead Ave, I'm a business owner and my business is the
Gathering Place in downtown Eagle. This has been discussed in my place of business the
last couple of weeks and most people say that coverage is not good. To me this meeting
seems to be a meeting saying"not in my back yard".
Doug Foote, 656 Lane, my business is cellular and in order for me to get cell coverage on
Beacon Light or down Eagle Road when I'm in my van I need to have a booster. My
booster is contacting the cell tower in Hidden Springs. In Eagle there are only two cell
sites. Once you get upon the ridge there is no coverage. The only locations that would
work are the school or the location in this application.
Sue Ellen Heardle, 764 Palmetto Drive, if I have a cell tower in back yard would my cell
service be better? Discusses the shed. How many companies are going to be on the
tower? How close is all of this going to be to the homes and the common area? Is the
ground going to support all of this weight?
Dr. Christopher Duker, 741 Spyglass, the pictures were great but they didn't show the
access road. Everything seems to be changing, in the future how many towers will there
have to be? I don't know if the health issues have been addressed. If you give variances
you are going to degrade the area.
Mayor closes the Public Hearing
Shawn Nickels, representing the applicant, we do stand by our original application and it
was submitted in accordance with the City Code. Discusses the different tower locations
that were presented tonight and their short comings. The height needs to be above the
canopy.
Dan Behuniak, Skyway Towers, discusses the different tower locations that were
presented tonight and their short comings. Towers have to be in the area that the users
Page 6
K\COUNCIL\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC-01-27-15min.doc
are. This is our third meeting and we have explained everything and I would like to get to
the point where we get a decision.
Shawn Nickels, representing the applicant, I don't think there is an argument that we have
the worst cell service in the area. If you don't put the tower here and put it someplace
else you will be back here doing the same thing. I would request that you look at the
letters in support of this application.
City Attorney Buxton: all of the information and documents that were provided at other
hearings are part of this hearing. Discusses Federal Law and City Code. General
discussion.
General Council discussion.
Kunz: My motion was going to be that we continue to a future Council meeting at
least two weeks into the future the public hearing on CU-01-14 — Conditional Use
Permit - Skyway Towers. At that future public hearing the public comment would
be limited strictly to and only the Trott Study and the RF content that it contains.
That is the essence of my motion but I don't know if it will get a second at this point.
Mayor, why don't you put it up the flag pole? So moved by Kunz. Discussion.
Motion dies for lack of a second. General discussion. Kunz: I would reinsert my
motion in search of a second. Seconded by Ridgeway. Discussion. ALL AYES:
MOTION CARRIES
Mayor: There will only be public comment on the Trott Study.
General discussion.
Butler moves that the public comment be limited to written comment to be provided
on or before the February 5, 2015 in regard to the Trott Study. Seconded by
McFarland. Discussion. McFarland: AYE; Butler: AYE; Ridgeway: AYE; Kunz:
NAY: MOTION CARRIES
Mayor calls a recess at 10:10 p.m.
Mayor reconvenes at 10:25 p.m.
B. Ordinance 728- Adopting of 2012 Building Codes: An Ordinance Of The City Of
Eagle, Idaho, A Municipal Corporation Of The State Of Idaho, Amending Title 7,
Chapter 1 Of The Eagle City Code By Adopting The 2012 International Building Code
Including Appendix J Grading; Adopting The 2012 Idaho Residential Code (Parts I
Through Iv And Ix); Amending Or Deleting Certain Sections Of The 2012 International
Building Code; Amending Or Deleting Certain Sections Of The 2012 Idaho Residential
Code; Adopting The Current Publication Of The International Fire Code; Adopting The
Current Publication Of The International Mechanical Code; Adopting The Current
Publication Of The International Existing Building Code; Adopting The Current
Publication Of The International Fuel Gas Code; Adopting The Current Publication Of
The National Electrical Code; And Amending Title 7, Chapter 4 Of The Eagle City Code
By Adopting The 2012 Energy Conservation Code And Amending Or Deleting Sections
Of The 2012 Energy Conservation Code; Providing A Severability Clause; Providing A
Codification Clause; And Providing An Effective Date For Adoption. (SN)
Page 7
K.\COUNCIL\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC-01-27-15min.doc
Mayor introduces the issue.
Kunz moves, pursuant to Idaho Code, Section 50-902, that the rule requiring
Ordinances to be read on three different days with one reading to be in full be
dispensed with, and that Ordinance#728 be considered after being read once by
title only. Kunz reads Ordinance # 728 by title only. Seconded by McFarland.
ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES
Kunz moves that Ordinance#728 be adopted. Seconded by Ridgeway.
McFarland: AYE; Butler: AYE; Kunz: AYE; Ridgeway: AYE: ALL AYES:
MOTION CARRIES
10. NEW BUSINESS:
A. Avimor Request for City Consent to Form a Community Infrastructure District
(CID) with Ada County: Dan Richter, Avimor General Manager, is requesting the City
Council give the Avimor Planned Community consent to form a CID district under the
jurisdiction of Ada County pursuant to Idaho Code 50-3101(3). (NBS)
Mayor introduces the issue.
Planner Baird-Spencer: you have the binder on the CID which was given to you last week
and I will stand for questions.
Dan Richter, 8454 N. McLeod Way, I am the managing partner of Avimor; I am probably
one of the more experienced people to do a CID. The last several years we have been
growing. The CID is for the growths that is coming and will serve for the financing of
additional improvements. The CID allows growth to pay for itself. Provides an overview
of the Avimor development. I'm here tonight to request the City's Consent for Avimor to
form a CID in the County.
Planner Baird-Spencer: Discusses the City's Comprehensive Plan for the Foothills.
Avimor made an application to be part of the Comprehensive Plan for the Foothills.
Discusses the Avimor CID's Pros & Cons.
Discussion on Chief Calley's Avimor Subdivision Policing Incidents 2010-2014.
City Attorney Buxton discusses the potential annexation and the consent to annex.
General discussion.
Further discussion on annexation, a CID and providing the Consent to form a CID.
Kent Rock, consultant with Avimor on the CID, discusses the consent, annexation, the
CID Development Agreement. General discussion.
Butler: Dan, what would you think if the City made a motion to not consent to the
size of the Community Infrastructure District No. 1 that you proposed but to
consent to the Community Infrastructure District No. 1 for Avimor with it being
limited to the size of the land that you have been approved for development,
approximately 800 acres. Would you be okay with a motion like that? Dan Richter:
Yeah, I believe that would work. So moved by Butler. Seconded by McFarland.
Kunz: I would ask that you consider amending your Motion to require that the
Page 8
K:\COUNCIL\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC-01-27-15min.doc
Development Agreement name both the County, Avimor and the City of Eagle to
resolve some of the issues that are identified under the cons as well as additional
issues that have surfaced during this meeting with respect to conformance to the
City of Eagle's Comp Plan, the future police services and etc. City Attorney
Buxton: I also think that the consent would also be that any future annexation into
that District would require consent. General discussion. Butler: I would amend the
motion that at any time this Community Infrastructure District is expanded that
you have to come back to us for another consent. Seconded by McFarland. General
discussion. Kunz: to me this is not just a matter of a CID No. 2. I want to make sure
that the consent the City provides for the first CID No. 1 is contingent upon the City
and the County and Avimor being active partners under a Development Agreement
even for the initial 800 units. Butler: I will amend my motion to include what you
just said. General discussion. McFarland withdraws her second. Butler: I am going
to withdraw my third motion which related to what Jeff said.
Kunz makes a motion that the City of Eagle provide conditional consent to the
creation of a CID No 1 for Avimor contingent upon the Development Agreement
naming Avimor, Ada County and the City of Eagle as key partners to resolve some
of the issues presented this evening with respect to some of the City's
Comprehensive Plan performance, the future police services and some of the other
cons that are listed here. General discussion. Butler: this would be a Substitute
Motion. Motion dies for lack of a second.
Butler: the motion that I made originally was that we not consent to this larger
district that we consent to a Community Infrastructure District No. 1 for Avimor
consisting of approximately 800 acres which has already been approved and that got
a second and the amendment to that was that if they annex and make it larger they
have to come back to us for a secondary consent and those both have seconds.
THREE AYES: KUNZ: NAY: MOTION CARRIES
B. Pressurized Irrigation Agreement (PI Agreement) Between the City of Eagle
(Guerber Park),Wycliffe Estates Subdivision, and Gateway Subdivision: The City of
Eagle, in conjunction with the developer of Wycliffe Estates Subdivision and Gateway
Subdivision, is requesting City Council approval of a pressurized irrigation agreement to
establish rules and guidelines for the maintenance and operation of a pressurized
irrigation system to serve Wycliffe Estates Subdivision, Gateway Subdivision, and
Guerber Park. The site is generally located near the northwest corner of State Highway 55
and Hill Road. (WEV)
Mayor introduces the issue.
Butler moves to continue Item #10B to the February 10, 2015 City Council meeting.
Seconded by McFarland. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES.......
D. Discussion and possible action to create a committee to study Mayor and Council
salaries and provide recommendations prior to Council consideration of new
salaries as required by law. (MLB)
Mayor introduces the issue.
Page 9
K:\COUNCIL\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC-01-27-15min.doc
Butler moves to continue Item #10D to the February 10, 2015 City Council meeting.
Seconded by McFarland. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES...
C. Discussion and possible council action to create a task force to review the
comprehensive plan. (MLB)
Mayor introduces the issue.
Planner Baird-Spencer discusses the process for the creation of a task force to review the
comprehensive plan.
Teresa Johnson, she covered everything that we were going to talk about. General
discussion.
City Hall Department Supervisor Reports:
City Clerk/Treasurer Bergmann: No report
PZ Administrator Vaughan discusses street trees in new developments.
PR/Facilities Director Aho provides Council an overview of the City of Eagle Park and
Rec Annual Report. General discussion.
11. EXECUTIVE SESSION:
A. 67-2345 (a) Executive sessions -- When authorized. (1) An executive session at
which members of the public are excluded may be held, but only for the purposes and
only in the manner set forth in this section. The motion to go into executive session shall
identify the specific subsections of this section that authorize the executive session. There
shall be a roll call vote on the motion and the vote shall be recorded in the minutes. An
executive session shall be authorized by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the governing body. An
executive session may be held:
(a) To consider hiring a public officer, employee, staff member or individual
agent, wherein the respective qualities of individuals are to be evaluated in order
to fill a particular vacancy or need. This paragraph does not apply to filling a
vacancy in an elective office or deliberations about staffing needs in general;
Mayor Reynolds introduces the issue.
Kunz: I would move in accordance with I.C. 67-2345(a) that we go into Executive
Session to consider hiring a public officer, employee, staff member or individual
agent, wherein the respective qualities of individuals are to be evaluated in order to
fill a particular vacancy or need. Seconded by McFarland. McFarland: AYE;
Butler: AYE; Kunz: AYE; Ridgeway: AYE: ALL AYES: MOTION
CARRIES
Council goes into Executive Session at 11:20 p.m.
Council discusses personnel.
Council leaves Executive Session at 11:25 p.m.
Page 10
K.\COUNCIL\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC-01-27-15min.doe
Butler moves that Dave be allowed to take more than two weeks off for his needs.
Seconded by McFarland. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES
12. ADJOURNMENT:
Butler moves to adjourn. Seconded by McFarland . ALL AYES: MOTION
CARRIES...
Hearing no further business, the Council meeting adjourned at 11:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted: • ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,
•0.' EAC(.
r -.► -� l 'wt/A.i ••' ORAL'•. L
SHARON K. BERGMANN i Cd b "L
CITY CLERK/TREASURER t Z� ..•i 2 0P7I. RI
'PROVED: ••. .. „.••.......,,,,,.,,,,
a .....„. ...„0„.,,,,,
II .. , J ��
,MES D. RE LDS
AYOR
AN AUDIO RECORDING OF THIS MEETING IS AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL
UPON REQUEST.
Page I I
K\COUNCIL\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC-O1-27-I5min.doc
1.1
P
.
• , •, '
1,11,Vigt Ant,t1.1' •
. r , • k. Irg
107. (1 01 ,17,9
I,
.410 • .
-•
qa
(
WCMA (
'Ac
)‘k al.A04 1YAK CVJ t(23- 1/039`0)43SA-5°J
EXISTING
TREE
PRESENTED TOWER HEIGHT
ACTUAL TOWER HEIGHT
115 feet
EXISTING
TREE
72 feet
39 3 feet
60 feet
393 FT
AS PROPOSED TO CITY OF EAGLE ACTUAL PROPOSED HEIGHT
iot
'
THIS IS WHAT THEY MEANT TO SHOW YOU
Before
, �. J..•
•
•.- , A'.
,/
After
/111•11,,
AMEN
•
%
V
".146..
/Mk
•
.00016.4
fr
mil
City of Eagle's New Trademark?
View of the Cell Tower from City of Eagle's Post Office
As you may have heard. a proposed "Personal Wireless Facility" with a 115' tall cell tower
"camouflaged" u • pine tree has been submitted by Skyway Towers. LLC
represented by Shawn Nickel with SNL Planning) to the City of Eagle
They ere proposing to trx:ate this structure and facility along the southern boundary of
Eagle Hills Goll Course Ina residential area, towering over the City of Eagle
This unfortunately could become Eagle's trademark of our beautifully planned community
Dur elected officials need to hear from you. the residents of Eagle. how you feel about
having an industnal facility in such a prominent spot among our neighborhoods
This Cell Phone Tower WIIl In Fact:
1) Destroy our scenic View Corridors that Eagle has worked so diligently 10 maintain.
2) Reduce our Property Values by 2-20% (on a national average.)
3) Introduce an Industrial Element into our beautiful, well planned neighborhoods.
4) Create Noise Pollution by running industrial air conditioners at all times of the day.
5) Health Risks are still undetermined. with many health experts warning of long term exposure.
Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing Date: March 17th 2014
Time 6 00 pm Location Eagle Cay Hall. 660 E Civic Lane. Eagle. ID 83616
Please contact your elected officials and share with them what you think:
Eagle Mayor Jim Reynolds )reynolds@cttyofeagle org
Eagle City Council President. Mary McFarland rnmc arland@cayofeagle org
Eagle Planner Michael Williams 208.939-0227 ext 205
PEN 'Protecting Eagles Neighborhoods' email us pf9S.Qcleaglenoyokg ioil corn
Contact us today and sign our petition to help Protect Eagle's Neighborhoods)
View of the CeII Tower North of State Street
1
n• y*+�rtt
• FM-
t& C / -aZ 7-5
SKYWAY TOWERS
20525 Ambertield Drive a Suite 102 • Land 0 Lakes, FL 34638
July 25, 2014
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Eagle
660 E. Civic Lane
Eagle, ID 83616
RE: Skyway Towers/Eagle Golf Course Personal Wireless Facility
Skyway Towers, LLC submits the following clarification in support of its application in the above -referenced
matter.
During the course of the City Council's public meeting held on July 8, 2014, the topic of the height of the tower that
Skyway has proposed to erect on the Eagle Hills Golf Course was extensively discussed. At one point, Skyway
expressed some flexibility regarding the height of the proposed tower and requested the Council's views on what
height the Council would accept to balance its concerns with the need to close the service gap, while taking into
account the record evidence demonstrating that the tower had to be sufficiently tall to avoid interference from the
surrounding tree foliage on radio frequency propagation. At that time, the Council members were unable to give
any direction on the subject. In an attempt to find a solution to balancing the Council's desire to limit the height of
the proposed tower with the clear intent of the City's current ordinance, which requires towers to be capanle of
accommodating collocation of additional providers so as to limit the number of towers needed to serve the
community, Skyway clarifies that in light of its discussion at the July 8, 2014 hearing, it offers the following
alternative proposed solutions:
Proposal 1: Skyway will lower the proposed height of its monopine to a height of 90' for the tower (95' when
counting the top branches of the monopine) so that Verizon Wireless and AT&T can close their respective service
gaps, and the City would consent in advance that if and when an additional wireless carrier seeks to collocate on the
tower in the future, the City would allow the addition of 10' for each carrier up to a maximum pole height of 110
feet (1 15 when including monopine branches) ;
Proposal 2: Skyway will lower the proposed height of its monopine to a height of 90' (95' when counting
the top branches of the monopine), and the City will consent to authorize Skyway to build a second, twin 95'
monopine in the same compound in the future should another carrier seek to collocate there; or
Proposal 3: In either Proposal 1 or Proposal 2, Skyway will agree to construct a monopole instead of a
monopine in response to Councilman Butler's concerns.
Respectfully submitted,
Daniel P. Behuniak
CEO
Skyway Towers. LLC
CC
Ridge w/ approx 30' drop in elevation -dropping north
4
h.ase at Resident al
Currently Under Construction
Existing Tower
MOORE SMITH BUXTON & TURCKE, CHARTERED
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
950 W Bannock Street, Suite 520
Boise, ID 83702
TELEPIIONE: (208) 331-1800 FAX: (208) 331-1202
MEMORANDUM
TO: City of Eagle — Mayor and City Council Members
Skyway Towers
FROM: Susan Buxton/Cherese McLain
DATE: January 27, 2015
RE: Skyway Towers Mediation Summary
The following is a summary of the discussions between the participants of the Skyway
Towers Mediation held on October 7, 2014 and January 9, 2015, at the Eagle City Hall. The
purpose of this summary is to capture the substantive issues explored by the participants without
unnecessarily disclosing the internal dynamics of the debate. This summary is also intended to
preserve a sufficient record of the discussion to disclose ex parte communications with the Eagle
City Council members present at the mediation. The summary notes the identity of the mediation
participant and a description of what was discussed in front of the Eagle City Council members
present. This summary is a public record. A copy of the sign -in sheet will also be included as a
part of this Mediation Summary as Exhibit "A."
1St Mediation October 7, 2014
City of Eagle:
Jeff Kunz, City Councilman
Mary McFarland, City Councilwoman
Susan Buxton, City Attorney
Cherese McLain, City Attorney
Bill Vaughan, Planning Administrator
Skyway Towers (Applicant):
Shawn Nickel, SLN Planning
Danial Behuniak, Skyway Towers
Scott Thompson, Davis Wright Tremaine
Protect Eagle Neighborhoods, Inc.
Stephen Lord, attorney
Jason Watt
David Schwartz
Patty Ritchie
Skyway Tower Mediation Summary -1
I. DISCUSSION
a. Introduction
Susan Buxton commenced the meeting and provided the rules for the mediation between
the City, Applicant, and opposition group. She introduced the two City Council members,
Mary McFarland and Jeff Kunz, who will be participating. They are not acting on behalf
of the City Council nor have any authority to negotiate a deal. Any resolution would have
to be done in a public hearing and before the City Council.
b. Siting Issues and Provider Needs
The Skyway Towers representative, Dan Behuniak, explained the previous attempts by the
telecommunication companies to find a site within the City of Eagle, including a previous
application for a tower site next to Eagle Hills Elementary. The application was withdrawn
at the Planning and Zoning level. That application also did not have a stealth monopole.
The Planning and Zoning remanded the application back to staff. In an effort to meet the
Planning and Zoning needs and due to the neighbors being upset, the Applicant moved the
tower to the golf course. There are only 2 locations that work for the network. Height is
necessary because the tower must be above the tree line. There is a gap in coverage on
several fronts: new services, full motion, and wireless cable television. This gap will only
continue to get worse.
After the Planning and Zoning hearing, the school asked the Applicant not to pursue that
location. Shawn Nickel asked whether that CUP application was still active. Behuniak
responded that AT&T had a contract with the school but it had a timeline and at this point,
we believe the time has lapsed and it is no longer valid.
c. Coverage and Capacity Reauirements/Limited Locations
Dan Behuniak continued to explain that the location is limited to 2 places: school and golf
course. There are a few factors causing this limitation. First, the City ordinance requires a
double height setback. The school was dead center in the "search ring". Jason Watt stated
that the issue was data saturation and asked Behuniak why they couldn't put lower height
towers between the 2 existing towers and one to the north. Behuniak explained that the
towers serve both coverage and capacity needs, right now it is comparable to trying to put
a ton of water through a hose. Jeff Kunz asked why not look at the watchtower at the golf
course and consider an antennae. Behuniak explained he did not have the elevation to
determine this. Jason Watt stated it should be put in an agricultural area away from
Brookwood. Stephen Lord characterized that Watt was asking for 2 towers.
d. DAS/Hvbrid systems
Kunz asked whether it was possible to do a hybrid system like DAS. The towers are shorter
and not objectionable. Behuniak explained that the industry is evolving. Users must have
antennas close, macrosites are large, what happens is that shadowing of buildings creates
an artificial canyon and the providers add all of these low -powered, smaller antennas. The
problem is that water and foliage don't mix with RF signals. If you put 45 towers in
neighborhoods, the signal will be going through foliage and trees. AT&T and Verizon will
Skyway Tower Mediation Summary -2
not support DAS and it is cost prohibitive.
Scott Thompson explains that these systems are typically built where there are current
towers that exist. The DAS coverage is small, less than a quarter mile. Since there are no
larger poles in Eagle, that would require a ton of DAS. Further, DAS requires fiber optics.
Kunz states he believes DAS would work. Behuniak states that it is not financially feasible.
e. Alternative Locations
Jason Watt discusses possibly adding a tower at the Chevron on HWY 55 and one over
around Floating Feather and Eagle Road. David Schwartz agrees that there has to be
another solution. Behuniak states that these areas will just be "deloading" all 3 sectors but
the clubhouse might work. Shawn Nickel states that the distance is key. Stephen Lord states
that the athletic fields provide a multi-purpose use. Behuniak states that they could drop
the height from 115' to 90' until another carrier came along. He could possibly do 2 90'
towers. Lord states that the opposition group would be okay with 70-80'. Bill Vaughan
interjects that the City Code does not allow for it if presented as a monopole, but a stealth
might work. Behuniak states that stealth adds 5' for the disguise and Verizon will not allow
a 65' tower.
The group broke up into separate rooms.
f. Applicant Breakout with City
Behuniak states that the Applicant could add tall trees to break up the tree site. Kunz states
he wants to find a compromise of a lower tower and asks for other ideas. Behuniak explains
that the tower site has to be put on a foundation and requires specific RF friendly materials.
A reference was made to the Albertson's antennae. Behuniak states that only applies to
small cell. Mary McFarland asks if they could do 3 90' monopines. Behuniak states that 2
90' would definitely be needed. There was discussion how 2 of the 3 monopines could be
staggered in height from 95' to 85' etc. and also serve other carriers. Buxton states the City
could approve 2 at this time. Kunz states he doesn't want to piecemeal this if another tower
is going to be needed in the future. Behuniak states that the demand depends on the growth
and they don't know that at this time. Thompson suggests 2 90' monopines and new trees
to surround them. Buxton asks if any of the towers can be lower. Behuniak states Verizon
could do 70' but AT&T needs 90'. McFarland suggests doing an 85' and 95' monopine
and a grove of trees. Buxton asks about the noise. Behuniak states that it is as loud as an
air -conditioner. Buxton asks about the access road. The width of the road is discussed. It
needs to be wide enough for the fire department. Thompson states the road cannot be
limited in a manner that it is okay with any installation. Kunz asks what is least intrusive.
Shawn Nickel states that no matter if a site was added at the Chevron and west side of the
town, there will always be a need at the golf course and maybe the City could adopt a
utilities plan. Bill Vaughan states the City has a map but it is already full.
g.
Neighborhood Breakout with City
Buxton asks for a solution. Lord asks where the radius limits are located. There are 2 issues.
This is not a single tower solution. Could have lower height collocation in industrial zone
like the Idaho Power location or could do a Beacon Light and downtown location. Buxton
Skyway Tower Mediation Summary -3
states that all they are saying is "everywhere but here". The Applicant is willing to go to
federal court and the neighborhood will have to be an amicus to represent their interests.
We cannot go into EMF's. Lord states to his clients that the group is here to represent the
neighborhood and that . the City is not able to include all. of the arguments that the.
neighborhood could bring. He states that the City may want to point out that there are
spaces that have not been searched. He states that the application does not have radio
information and the issues to the North are not resolved with this. Another alternative is
the Eagle Hills parking lot, there are a lot of tall trees and could blend into a large cluster.
McFarland points out there is a possibility to have varied heights of multiple monopines as
a solution. Watt criticizes the City tower ordinance. Buxton assures that the City did not
have an ulterior motive with the ordinance and she understands the group's frustration, but
Idaho Code requires that this mediation must happen. McFarland states that the City must
deal with the application before it. Lord expresses concerns with Ordinance 672 and
whether they can show it violates the FCC, he doubts it.
Entire group take 1 hour break for lunch.
h. Reconvene Breakout Meeting with AnDlicant and City
Buxton relays a question from the Neighborhood group as to whether the tower could be
located on the back nine. Nickel responds that it is too far east from an RF perspective. The
group begins discussing the parking lot location. Behuniak states there are issues with
drilling a foundation of the tower near the water at the Eagle Hills golf course parking lot.
A phone call was made to the owner of the Eagle Hills, Dave Begrow, he explains to the
group that there are underground pipes that exist and you have to get maps to see them all.
The Applicant asked whether Begrow would entertain a site there. Begrow said no.
Behuniak asks what is next, hire an expert? Buxton asks whether could move it to the back
9? Behuniak states it is too far east. Buxton asks for other solutions. Behuniak states that 2
towers is not a graceful solution. Thompson asks whether the City can get this to work. If
the City denies this or if the conditions are too prohibitive, the Applicant will go to federal
court.
CONCLUSION
City determined that the best option was to hire an expert to do a peer review of the
Applicant's findings. All parties agree.
Skyway Tower Mediation Summary -4
2nd Mediation January 9, 2015
City of Eagle:
Jeff Kunz, City Councilman (by phone)
Mary McFarland, City Councilwoman (by phone)
Susan Buxton, City Attorney
Cherese McLain, City Attorney
Bill Vaughan, Planning Administrator
Skyway Towers (Applicant):
Shawn Nickel, SLN Planning
Danial Behuniak, Skyway Towers (by phone)
Scott Thompson, Davis Wright Tremaine (by phone)
Protect Eagle Neighborhoods, Inc. (all present by phone)
Stephen Lord, attorney
Jason Watt
David Schwartz
Patty Ritchie
I. DISCUSSION
a. Tree Transplant
Scott Thompson began by discussing the proposal they received from Franz Witte
regarding transplanting a tree to help with blending the tower. He went on to say a spruce
would be needed in order to grow tall. The spruce would grow an average 1 foot a year.
They could start with a 36' transplant that could grow to 60'. Buxton asks whether they are
still seeking 115' approval. Kunz suggest leaving it at 95' until they show they need an
increase. Buxton expresses concern about binding future city councils and in the
alternative, approve 115' but initially only approve 95' at construction and when they take
on additional carriers, they can increase. The second option would be to approve at 95' but
have 2 monopines alongside the proposed tree and landscaping. Behuniak states they prefer
approval of 1 tower. Ritchie asks about the road and access. Behuniak states they would
maintain the road and would have to so emergency services could be provided. McFarland
inquires when the transplant would occur. Behuniak responds that it is contingent up
approval. He needs to check whether NEPA or other environmental studies would be
required. They would also need to get an FCC permit. The parties discussed the 2 options
provided by Franz Witte and the tree survivability issues. Scott Thompson states that the
visual impact would be immediate at 30'. Schwartz states he is a landscape architect and
that basically it would take 30 years to catch up. Lord states the golf course does not have
a good track record for maintenance and concerned the tree might not survive. Behuniak
states they would have a separate watering system for the landscape. He found the NEPA
documents and it was completed March 2014. Kunz asks about the placement of the trees.
Behuniak states that the tree would be placed on the cliff for big impact because the view
from the southeast is the worst. Kunz points out that it will not be a gradual line. Thompson
responds and states that tree lines aren't really gradual and the point is to work on the angle
that has the biggest impact. They want it visible.
Skyway Tower Mediation Summary -5
b. Trott Study
Buxton states that the study reveals the need for some additional information from the
applicant but that Trott still was able to conclude the same as the applicant. Thompson
states that the Trott study confirmed what they said. Lord states that he didn't think the
Trott study provided answers. He states that the underlying evidence does not provide
enough detail for industry standards. He states it does not provide the required detail for
the City ordinance. The tower needs to move 1 mile north to deal with coverage issues.
This is not a solution to the problem. Thompson responds and states the study clearly shows
a gap in coverage. The neighborhood group seems to sit on this 1 solution of going north
at a location that does not exist. Cell towers are not designed to cover all gaps. He disagrees
that the Trott study fails. Buxton states the City wasn't going to have another model done
but that this was a peer review of the Applicant's documentation. She states that it appears
that the opposition group is not going to agree with any option proposed. Lord states that
per Schwartz it would 5 years for the tree to start growing and then at that time you would
just have 2 items off of the skyline. He states this is just window dressing and not the
substance that is needed for the council and commission. Thompson states that in Lord's
view there is nothing at this site that will make his client happy. Lord states that lowering
the height would. Thompson states they cannot lower the height.
Kunz states that the Trott study says that this will not resolve all gaps. Ritchie inquires that
she thought it was saying that the best location is Beacon and Edgewood. Behuniak states
they tried the school. Ritchie states that a home located on Spyglass will be surrounded by
the access road to the tower. She asks how often maintenance people are out there.
Behuniak states twice a year. Ritchie asks about the generator needing fuel. Behuniak
agrees and states that the maintenance remains the same and the only time fuel is needed
is in the event of a power outage. Ritchie asks about changes to the fairway. Behuniak
states • no changes to the course. McFarland asks whether we are talking about 2 towers?
Kunz states that option 2 is the 2 tower option, option 1 is the 1 115' tower. He states that
the pursuant to the Trott study, the map indicates that where it is yellow, it is good outside
and where it is green, it is good inside. Behuniak agrees with the exception that
performance will change at peak hours or during an emergency. It may be reliable until
more of it is used. As the population grows, the network gets strained and now during peak
hour it gets bad. Since 1997, have been adding antennas and added more technology. Since
the LTE and iPhone, the companies have exhausted their ability to use antennas. The new
traffic has forced the need for a tower to close the gap. Kunz asks what the degradation
difference between 95' and 115'. Thompson responds that they did not do that calculation
nor did he believe it was that simple. RF networks are dynamic. For instance, the area it
covers at midnight would be different than other times of the day. Kunz states he does not
understand why they can't quantify degradation between 95' and 115' and he wants to
know the difference between option 1 and 2. Behuniak states they dropped it to 95' as a
political solution and to mitigate neighborhood impact and got the carriers to agree. This
will further increase a need for a tower to the north. Even 115' is still too short. The City
should expect a future application to the north and to the east. He states nationwide, Eagle
has the worst coverage based on its size and that he is willing to take 95' because of how
bad it is. Lord states that the best solution is closer to Beacon Light. Behuniak says nothing
Skyway Tower Mediation Summary -6
is available but the golf course and school. Buxton asks Lord if there is anything that his
client is willing to buy off on. Lord says there is no viable opportunity, they have provided
other locations and Skyway say they are not available. Thompson states that it is clear that
the only political compromise for the opposition group is to move to a different site.
McFarland states that everyone has gone through the information that is available. Kunz
says he wants more data. Buxton states that she does not believe further breakout sessions
will be helpful. Lord states that is client is not comfortable and believes that the Trott study
has not satisfied the needs of the ordinance. Buxton asks the group if they would want
breakout sessions. Thompson states that they are not going to get any more common
ground. Lord states they want 65'. Behuniak states that will not work because the lowest
carrier would be 40'. Lord inquires if the information acquired would be part of the record.
Buxton states the information was part of the mediation and if the applicant chooses to
proceed then the parties need to agree whether to put the study in the record. Lord states
he wants to think about it.
CONCLUSION:
None. Mediation unsuccessful.
Skyway Tower Mediation Summary -7
EXHIBIT "A"
EAGLE SKYWAY MEDIATION
SIGN-UP SHEET
October! 2014
ADDRESS/
NAME TELEPHONE/E-MAIL
S A Aco,) e
/511 /J. L:5/4 cL`Q)I{
s•AAwN605- ,or, .0
le -4(x t i `qct( l ,/I /u.e
Sad ,OSo,
/
60,3
NAME
174c-' IV Sethw•sxorz
Skiittvacw-4
4RO,.:4: \ c2
EXHIBIT "A"
EAGLE SKYWAY MEDIATION
SIGN-UP SHEET
October 2014
ADDRESS/
TELEPHONE/E-MAIL
q44 auQ"inu-r'1 ST.
d4'h ro akIp+e WS. Gown
`boa c,d q-ci fyrs e,,
fir E 2p F3 702—
X?. 16
Cfl91— Sp7Slw,�y Ee.i1n
EXHIBIT "A"
EAGLE SKYWAY MEDIATION
SIGN-UP SIIEET
October. 2014
NAME
Tusao
_Alta rn400411
ADDRESS/'
TELEPHONE/E-MAIL
f "ht., , eerw
qSD �•
Akitikek
SKo‘t .O0. Ceb.A L., 10 v3C1I•
t(*(10141. 645 g-/,-1e-
Gd' tkus 674- Mg.). ..
Sa . A 5 to
CITY OF EAGLE
PARKS,RECREATION
AND TRAILS ANNUAL
REPORT 2014
City of Eagle Parks,Recreation and Trails Annual Report 2014
Executive Summary
• Eighteen major projects completed with a value of $211,856.
• Facility rentals/events increased by 41% and revenues by 9% from 2013.
• Hired Caitlin Straubinger as Recreation Specialist to create a community recreation program.
• Began live web cast streaming of all City Council and City Commissions meetings.
• Implemented a cloud based work order system.
• Paved or repaired over three miles of Green Belt Trail.
• Opened the Mace Trail on the south side of the north channel of the Boise River.
• The Snow Park at the Sports Complex operated by Gateway Parks opened for snowboarding, skiing
and sledding.
• Five major volunteer projects that provided over 1500 hours of service.
• Started the Master Plan for Parks, Recreation and Trails.
• Opened the Firewise Garden at the Sports Complex.
• Repaired the street tree irrigation system in downtown.
City Council
Jim Reynolds -Mayor
Mary McFarland -Council President
Mark Butler
Stan Ridgeway
Jeff Kunz
Parks, Recreation and Facility Staff
Mike Aho -Director
Jenessa Hansen -Administrative Assistant
Dave Rioux-Maintenance Specialist
Caitlin Straubinger-Recreation Specialist
Wayne Hancock -Maintenance Specialist
Parks and Pathway Development Commission
Randy Zollinger -Chair
Charlie Baun-Vice Chair
Lynn Moser
Marc Grubert
Dan Friend
Don Stockton
Scott Marshall
Page 1
City of Eagle Parks,Recreation and Trails Annual Report 2014
Parks
• Gateway Parks in partnership with the City of Eagle is making snow for snowboarding,
skiing and sledding at the Sports Complex.
r
, 4141111°V. iNtik
Snow making at the Sports Complex
•
l'
Sledding at the Sports Complex
Snowboarding at the Sports Complex
Skiing at the Sports Complex
Page 1
City of Eagle Parks,Recreation and Trails Annual Report 2014
• Created and opened a Firewise Garden at the Sports Complex using volunteers and
Eagle City staff with technical assistance and help from Brett Van Paepeghem.
Firewise Garden Before and After
• Redid all 22 irrigation connections at the Sports Complex to help with maintenance
and to allow volunteers easier access to water to do trail work.
Irrigation connections at Sports Complex before and after
Page 2
City of Eagle Parks,Recreation and Trails Annual Report 2014
• Rejuvenated the turf area by the pump track at the Sports Complex
Turf area at Sports Complex before and after
• Added over 200 yards of new fence at the Sports Complex to help improve safety at
the Bike Park.
New fence -Sports Complex
• Built dumpster enclosure at the Sports Complex.
Dumpster enclosure -Sports Complex
Page 3
City of Eagle Parks,Recreation and Trails Annual Report 2014
• Added signs at the Sports Complex to improve mountain bike safety.
OOMWRt Inutit OMI,
.4l OMR ME MOM•illO
Warning signs at Bike Park
• Fixed water overflow problem at the skate park at the Sports Complex.
Drainage work at skate park
• Berm was removed at Guerber Park and area prepared for redevelopment.
Removal of berm at Guerber Park
Page 4
City of Eagle Parks,Recreation and Trails Annual Report 2014
• Added pavers around drinking fountain at Guerber Park to help with turf management
and improve apperance.
Guerber park Fountain before and after
• Resurfaced the playground pad at Guerber Park to extend the life of the pad.
Guerber Park playground surface issue and after resurfacing
• At Orval Krasen Park added landscaping around the bathroom and sign to improve
appearance.
Orval Krasen Park bathroom and sign
Page 5
City of Eagle Parks,Recreation and Trails Annual Report 2014
• Reroofed the shelter at Orval Krasen Park and painted the fence.
Roof and fence work at Orval Krasen Park
• Replaced the shade structure over the playground at Merrill Park.
New shade structure Merrill Park
• Refurbished the spray pads at Merrill and Guerber Park
Refurbished splash pad at Merrill Park
Page 6
City of Eagle Parks,Recreation and Trails Annual Report 2014
Trails
• Created trail standards for maintenance and construction.
• Added % of a mile of new Green Belt pavement on the north side of the north channel
of the Boise River east of Edgewwod.
New Greenbelt pavement
• Added 1.1 mile of new Green Belt pavement west of Eagle Road on the south side of
the Boise River.
New Mace Trail
Page 7
City of Eagle Parks,Recreation and Trails Annual Report 2014
• Reopened and established maintenance schedule for the Green Belt trail at Laguna.
Laguna Trail before maintenance standard and after
Laguna Trail new bridge
• Rebuilt the retaining wall on the west side of the Ranch Road Trail.
Ranch Road trail before and after
• Trail at Guerber Park was rerouted due to removal of berm using surface material that
is easier to maintain and more durable.
Guerber Park Trail Construction
Pige8
City of Eagle Parks,Recreation and Trails Annual Report 2014
• Repaired and replaced over 2 miles of damage trail surface along the Greenbelt from
Edgewood west to Eagle Road.
Replacing asphalt west of Edgewwod and repaired section near Merrill Park
• Added garbage cans, dog waste bag dispensers and signs on Island Woods Trail,
Mace Trail, and Laguna Trail.
Signs and amenities Island Woods, Mace and Laguna
• Working with the Eagle Art Commission installed art sculptures at %2 mile points along
the Mace Trail.
Mile marker on Mace Trail
Page 9
City of Eagle Parks,Recreation and Trails Annual Report 2014
Facilities
• Replaced the Senior Center HVAC.
Senior Center HVAC
• Painted the Library interior.
• Worked on Senior Center kitchen, main room and bathroom improvements.
• Improved parking lot lighting at the Senior Center.
• Replaced main room lighting in the Senior Center with more energy efficient lights.
• Added cameras for recording meetings and improved the sound recording system in
the City Council Chambers.
• Sealed the sidewalk joints at the Library.
• Painted curbs throughout the city for no parking and repainted the 1st street parking
lot.
Curb painting and l st street Parking Lot painting
• Completed roof repairs at the Museum.
• Did stucco repairs to the exterior wall at the Museum.
Page 10
Events
City of Eagle Parks,Recreation and Trails Annual Report 2014
• Finished and received City Council approval for the Special Event permit application.
• Had 100 runners at the Eagle Fun Days Run on July 10.
Eagle Fun Days Run
• Hundreds of people participated in the 1St ever Family Fun Night for Eagle Fun Days.
Eagle Fun Days Family Night
• Organized and sponsored -he Firework show for Eagle Fun Days.
Fireworks at Eagle Fun Days
Page 11
City of Eagle Parks,Recreation and Trails Annual Report 2014
• For Eagle Country Christmas we added free carriage rides, a children's activity tent
and improved the lighting and decorations of the City's Christmas Tree and Gazebo.
Eagle's Christmas Tree, Carriage rides and activity tent at Country Christmas
• Worked with the Eagle Art Commission on the Sculpture Walk around downtown Eagle
Art in front of the Museum and in McDonald Plaza
Art and installing sculpture in Heritage Park
Page 12
City of Eagle Parks,Recreation and Trails Annual Report 2014
• Baldapaloza was held in Merrill Park on September 5 and had over 900 participants.
Baldapalooza Merrill Park
• Waffle Cross an annual cycle cross event was held at the Sports Complex October,
November and December.
December Waffle Cross at Sports Complex
• Eagle Foothill's Church sponsored the Foothill's Festival and had over 1000 participants.
Climbing Wall at Foothill's Festival
Page 13
City of Eagle Parks,Recreation and Trails Annual Report 2014
• Arbor Day Celebration was on April 26, with a Cup Scout Troop 77 planted a tree and
the City of Eagle was recognized as a Tree City USA for our 22nd year.
Arbor Day at Eagle City Hall with Scouts and Mayor Reynolds
• Increased facility rental revenue by $2,128.36 and facility reservations by 186 over last
year.
G.
FY 11/12 $
FY 12/13 $
FY 13/14 $
12,996.05
15,508.89
17,637.25
2012 248
2013 266
2014
Volunteer Projects
452
• Volunteers from Meridian Charter School painted fence and did trail maintenance at
the Sports Complex. Estimated 150 hours of help.
Meridian Charter School painting fence and repairing trails at the Sports Complex
Page 14
City of Eagle Parks,Recreation and Trails Annual Report 2014
• Eagle Scout Projects, repainting mile markers along the Green Belt and installed park
signs along the Green Belt. Estimated 400 hours of help.
Eagle Scout Projects along the Green Belt
• Fifty volunteers from Mountain West Bank's Day of Caring helped surface the new trail
down to Guerber Park. Estimated 600 hours of help.
Completed Trail at Guerber Park from Day of Caring
• Weekly volunteers at the Bike Park helped maintain and repair trails. Estimated 300
hours of help.
Weekly volunteer trail work at the Bike Park
Page 15
City of Eagle Parks,Recreation and Trails Annual Report 2014
• Had a crew of adult community service workers from Ada County Sheriff work on the
Firewise Garden and the trails at the Bike Park. Estimated 100 hours of help.
Community Service workers at the Firewise Garden and Bike Park
Other
• Hired Jenessa Hansen as the Parks and Recreation Administrative Assistant.
• Hired Caitlin Straubinger as the Recreation Specialist.
• Started a Community Recreation Program with the following accomplishments:
o Entered into a contract with Skyhawks to provide various sports programs to Eagle
youth. Programs to begin in January 2015.
o Created a comprehensive waiver (serving minors and adults) for participation in
Eagle Parks & Recreation programs.
o Established an online activity registration system through the city's existing
recreation software, Rec 1.
o Entered into an agreement with the West Ada school district for facility use. These
facilities will be used to provide a variety of recreation programs, including youth
sports, camps, classes, etc.
o Established a Memorandum of Understanding with Valley Transit for use of their
vehicles for Eagle Parks and Recreation programs. The vehicles will be rented at a
low rate to provide transportation for field trips and excursions around the area.
o Created a working budget for recreation programs based on cost recovery models.
o Established an agreement for facility usage with the Eagle Performing Arts Center.
o Established an instructor contract for programs and activities with contracted
providers/businesses.
Page 16
City of Eagle Parks,Recreation and Trails Annual Report 2014
Soccer skill class Recreation Program
• Started live video recording of all City Council and City Commission meetings so the
public can watch them through the City of Eagle web site.
• In June started utilizing a cloud based work order system that allows better
management and recording of the work the Parks, Recreation, Trails and Facilities
Department does.
Count of Work Order
ID
Status Total
Complete 793
Deferred 5
Duplicate Request 5
New Request 8
On Hold 3
Parts on Order 1
Pending 1
Void 17
Work In Progress 5
Grand Total 838
Number of Work Orders done in 2014
• Had over 60 hanging flower pots around town which included baskets at City Hall and
Heritage Park Gazebo this summer with watering once a day and during hot spells
twice a day.
Flower Baskets Downtown and at Heritage Park
Page 17
City of Eagle Parks,Recreation and Trails Annual Report 2014
• Selected The Land Group to begin work on a Parks, Recreation and Trails Master Plan.
• Removed and replaced three downtown street trees that had lifted sidewalks and
curbs while destroying the irrigation system. Repaired the irrigation system and
replaced curbs and sidewalks.
Tree sidewalk and street work
2014 Goal report
1. Establish and have approved a pricing policy that can be used to establish prices for all parks
and recreation services including classes/programs and rentals. (DONE)
2. Create a year round recreational program for the citizens of Eagle. (STARTED)
3. Create and have approved a trail maintenance plan for Eagle Trails and Pathways. (DONE)
4. Create and have approved an event application for Eagle Parks and Recreation. (DONE)
5. Have available to the Citizens of Eagle a map showing the trails and parks. (CARRY OVER TO
2015 GOALS)
6. Start on the Parks and Recreation Department Master Plan. (STARTED)
Page l8
City of Eagle Parks,Recreation and Trails Annual Report 2014
2015 Goals
1. Have available to the citizens of Eagle a map showing the trails and parks.
Objectives:
• Using the work from the trail maintenance plan, established trails to map data base.
• Add parks to the data base.
• Determine the style of map to be completed for the citizens.
• Create map.
2. Complete pavement of the Green Belt from Garden City to Eagle Road.
Objectives:
• Repair washout just west of Garden City.
• Identify easement for trail from Garden City to Eagle Road.
• Hire contractor to prepare and pave trail.
• Place garbage cans, dog waste bag dispensers and signage along trail.
3. Begin work on a future Dog Park.
Objectives:
• Create a citizen involvement committee to help select location and identify amenities.
• Prepare location presentation for public open house, Parks and Pathways Committee and City
Council.
• Identify source of construction funds.
• Create plans for park.
• Begin construction of park.
4. Publish a Recreation Activity Guide at least three times a year.
Objectives:
• Create a year round schedule of Recreation Activities.
• Select vendor to print the guide.
• Mail the guide.
5. Create a Field Reservation System for Sports Fields.
Objectives:
• Identify fields to include in reservation system.
• Create draft reservation form.
• Coordinate with user groups the form, process and price.
• Have form, process and price approved through City Council.
• Implement system.
6. Complete the Parks, Recreation and Trails Master Plan
Objectives:
• Continue working with The Land Group on the plan.
• Have plan approved by City Council.
Page 19
City of Eagle Parks,Recreation and Trails Annual Report 2014
Acknowledaements
Everything that was accomplished in 2014 would not have been possible without the hard work and
dedication of the Parks, Recreation, Trails and Facility staff of Dave Rioux, Wayne Hancock, Jenessa
Hansen and Caitlin Straubinger. These four people are the heart and soul of our Department and I am
honored to be part of this great team. All of the wonderful things we did this year were because of the
support of the Eagle City Council of Mayor Jim Reynolds, Council President Mary McFarland, Mark
Butler, Jeff Kunz and Stan Ridgeway.
The staff of Planning/Zoning, Building, Water, Clerk's/Treasurers office, Eagle City Library, Eagle
Museum, Eagle Senior Center, Eagle Police and Eagle Fire Department have all been essential support
and team members for the things we have accomplished in 2014. Guiding us through this year has been
the Parks and Pathway Committee of President Randy Zollinger, members Dan Friend, Don Stockton,
Marc Grubert, Scott Marshall, Lynn Moser and Charlie Baun. Countless volunteer hours from the Parks
and Pathway Committee have allowed us to achieve the projects we have throughout this year.
Local businesses, service clubs, non -profits, churches, scout troops, and user groups have donated
materials, time and support to Eagle Parks and Recreation throughout the year and have been important
partners in our achievements. Some of these include Eagle Chamber of Commerce: Gretchen Gilbert,
BAMBA: Garrett Kerr and Mark Piper, Mountain West Bank: Debbie Carpenter, Wright Brothers: Robert
Grubb and Bob Wright, Firewise Garden: Brett Van Paepeghem, Nevil Humphreys and Mike Pellant,
Summer Lawns: Matt Johnson and Juan Morales, Eagle Nazarene Church: Pastor Ed Weaver, SWIMBA:
Mike Edwards, Scott Perryman and Margie Rosenberg, Eagle Art Commission: Meg Glasgow, Fire Fusion
Art: Delia Dente, Skyhawks, Eagle Elementary: Principal Chris Housel, Franz Witte, Gateway Parks: Ryan
Neptune and The Land Group: Bob Schafer and Doug Russell.
Eagle City Hall
Page 20
City of Eagle •
Report Criteria:
Report type: GL detail
Bank.Bank account = "82007705"
Check Check
ue Date Number
15378
01/16/20 15378
01/16/2015 15378
01/18/2015 15378
01/16/2015 15378
01/16/2015 15378
Total 15378:
Payee
Horne Depot Credit Services
Home Depot Credit Services
Home Depot Credit Services
Home Depot Credit Services
Home Depot Credit Services
15379
01/16/2015 15379 Idaho Child Support Receipting
01/16/2015 15379 Idaho Child Support Receipting
Total 15379:
15380
01/16/2015
01/16/2015
01/16/2015
01/16/2015
15380 Key Bank - HSA
15380 Key Bank - HSA
15380 Key Bank - HSA
15380 Key Bank - HSA
Total 15380:
15381
01/16/2015 15381 Trademark Sign Company
Total 15381:
15382
01/22/2015 15382 Molly Maring
Total 15382:
15383
01/22/2015 15383 Perks of Life
Total 15383:
15384
01/22/2015 15384 Steve Nash
Total 15384:
15385
01/23/2015 15385 Printworks Company
Total 15385:
15386
01/26/2015 15388 AASLH
Total 15386:
Check Register - Transparency Version
Check Issue Dates: 1/14/2015 - 1/26/2015
Invoice Invoice
Sequence GL Account
1 ch 15-0437-24-00
2 ch 80-0434-58-00
3 ch 60-0434-58-00
4 ch 15-0437-25-00
5 ch 60-0434-28-00
AAR5r
Invoice GL
Account Title
HOLIDAY LIGHTING
RPRIMTNC-LINES-METERS-ETC
RPRJMTNC-LINES-METERS-ETC
MATERIALS & SUPPLIES
Tools & Equipment
1 ch 60-0217-08-00 GARNISHMENTS
2 ch 16-0217-08-00 GARNISHMENTS
1 ch 13-0217-10-00 HSA CONTRIBUTION
2 ch 01-0217-10-00 HSA CONTRIBUTION
3 ch 06-0217-10-00 HSA CONTRIBUTION
4 ch 16-0217-10-00 HSA CONTRIBUTION
1 ch 15-0456-02-00 SIGN REPAIR -EAGLE RD OVERHEAD
1 ch 13-0413-13-00 TRAVEL & PER DIEM
1 ch 01-0422-01-00 PUBLIC RELATIONS
1 ch 13-0413-13-00 TRAVEL & PER DIEM
1 ch 01-0416-35-00 OPERATIONAL RESERVE
1 ch 07-0461-02-00 ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP
Page: 1
Jan 26, 2015 02:36PM
Invoice Check
Amount Amount
44.41
2.89
24.35
21.17
13.73
44.41
2.69
24.35
21.17
13.73
106.35
278.00 278.00
150.00
100.00
50.00
835.00
375.00
150.00
428.00
100.00
50.00
835.00
375.00
1,360.00
9,474.00 9,474.00
9,474.00
235.50 235.50
235.50
207.00 207.00
207.00
235.50 235.50
235.50
598.39 598.39
596.39
115.00 115.00
115.00
Cityof Eagle
Check Check
Issue Date Number
Payee
15422
01/26/2015 15422 Robert J. Koellisch
Total 15422:
15423
01/26/2015 15423 Robert R. Schafer
Total 15423:
15424
01/26/2015 15424 Talena Baer
Total 15424:
15425
01/26/2015 15425 Terry L. Sayer
Total 15425:
15426
01/26/2015 15426 The Cleaning Center
01/26/2015 15426 The Cleaning Center
Total 15426:
15427
01/26/2015 15427 The Land Group, Inc.
Total 15427:
15428
01/26/2015 15428 Trent Wright
Total 15428:
15429
01/26/2015 15429
01/26/2015 15429
01/26/2015 15429
01/26/2015 15429
01/28/2015 15429
01/26/2015 15429
Total 15429:
U.S. Bancorp Equipment Finance
U.S. Bancorp Equipment Finance
U.S. Bancorp Equipment Finance
U.S. Bancorp Equipment Finance
U.S. Bancorp Equipment Finance
U.S. Bancorp Equipment Finance
15430
01/26/2015 15430 US Bank
Total 15430:
15431
01/26/2015
01/26/2015
01/26/2015
01/26/2015
15431
15431
15431
15431
Valley Times
Valley Times
Valley Times
Valley Times
Check Register - Transparency Version
Check Issue Dates: 1/14/2015 -1/26/2015
Invoice Invoice
Sequence GL Account
Invoice GL
Account Title
1 ch 01-0413-01-00 P82 COMMISSIONERS COMPENSATI
1 ch 01-0413-02-00 DESIGN REVIEW BRD COMPENSATIO
1 ch 01-0413-02-00 DESIGN REVIEW BRD COMPENSATIO
1 ch 01-0413-02-00 DESIGN REVIEW BRD COMPENSATIO
1 ch 15-0437-26-00 PAPER PRODUCTS
1 ch 15-0437-26-00 PAPER PRODUCTS
1 ch 08-0439-01-00 MASTER PLAN
1 ch 01-0413-01-00 P8Z COMMISSIONERS COMPENSATI
1 ch 13-0416-24-00
2 ch 13-0416-24-00
3 ch 11-0416-24-00
4 ch 14-0416-24-00
5 ch 12-0416-24-00
6 ch 14-0416-24-00
OFFICE EQUIPMENT LEASING
OFFICE EQUIPMENT LEASING
EQUIPMENT LEASING
OFFICE EQUIPMENT LEASING
EQUIPMENT LEASING
OFFICE EQUIPMENT LEASING
1 ch 01-0416-35-01 AWARDS - RECOGNITION
1 ch 15-0413-08-00 LEGAL ADS & PUBLICATIONS
2 ch 14-0413-08-00 LEGAL ADS & PUBLICATIONS
1 ch 13-0413-08-00 LEGAL ADS & PUBLICATIONS
2 ch 01-0413-08-00 LEGAL ADVERTISING/PUBLICATION
Page: 6
Jan 28, 2015 02:38PM
Invoice Check
Amount Amount
70.00
50.00
50.00
70.00
70.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
100.00 100.00
100.00
784.16
11703
764.16
117.03
881.19
8,000.00 8,000.00
8,000.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
39.81 39.81
39 81 39.81
39.81 39.81
39.78 39.78
39.81 39.81
39.81 39.81
238.83
211.85 211.85
211.85
44.92 44.92
154.56 154.56
82.80 82.80
51.84 51.84
•
City of Eagle Check Register - Transparency Version Page: 7
Check Issue Dates: 1/14/2015 - 1/26/2015 Jan 26, 2015 02:36PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice Invoice GL Invoice Check
Issue Date Number Payee Sequence GL Account Account Title Amount Amount
Total 15431: 334.12
15432
01/26/2015 15432 Victor Viltegas 1 ch 01-0413-01-00 P&Z COMMISSIONERS COMPENSATI 50.00 50.00
Total 15432: 50.00
Grand Totals. 89,726.87
Dated:
Mayor:
City Council:
Report Criteria:
Report type: GL detail
Bank.Bank account = "82007705"
EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP
CU -01-14 — Conditional Use Permit - Skyway Towers, LLC
January 27, 2015
NAME (print legibly) ADDRESS PRO/CON/ EXPERT TESTIFY
NEUTRAL YES/NO YES/NO
h 1 r, M v Z6 /)),61 eeizianto, Cf co rJ til /4
66- e S6//iv41/ 7 L S 5/'r4/4 -ST /,/st y L D N )7(53--
(.--
c`f `" `i r <'. 1`1 e- 1 6-V 1 2-''4. -1 %U i l . r t c\ r' l`. f \, , i‘, 1\1 c. N C
1---,, LC. '( lin, (I,, L1.� c' i nt,a 17, (l. i� i� /I/
It COG 2)-0i ij Cac>` rPc
�1(, Col( �� I
Cc `c10 S+�l\ v U
'17 S C 4.4- kr-- 7 2 11-g Z N iC / S-1 , Gv iJ Y
v\V ..r: v, 149 �) .61X , t�
172/r 1/ L --C' 1
(h.. 41 r M ti .� `1 CO
6 -mi I LI t1S0-.t00410 6:7 Li ritlY et7
�� 11 j
gate, (674ed.4
TrnR L, 1-e gi rr,
i) JO) -ii),d/Q_Ax
OV.,k
cc
�Slc s(1P4-7 w a j CAY--1
3'1d0 Nc) R?*M I
P:vi
EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP
CU -01-14 — Conditional Use Permit - Skyway Towers, LLC
January 27, 2015
ADDRESS PRO/CON/ EXPERT
NEUTRAL YES/NO
t‘Juk4-2-,\
NAME (print legibly)
Thr
ti n
!ut
203
�,t.� (�c-V✓1 .�. r�
r},r
C ri L i� Ci
uc-/ .qtrt, ,124-e( e -i2- (4.0
LiLL ! 1) y / yod_ ( c 0
l —
TESTIFY
YES/NO
EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP
CU-01-14 — Conditional Use Permit - Skyway Towers, LLC
January 27, 2015
NAME (print legibly) ADDRESS PRO/CON/ EXPERT TESTIFY
NEUTRAL YES/NO YES/NO
cc i -o2 7-- /
10 A
Avimor CID Pros & Cons
Pros:
• Allows Avimor to move forward
with existing entitlements/approvals
within Ada County (approx. 800
units);
• Formalize, in general terms,
Avimor's intent to annex to the City
of Eagle "in the future" without any
time frames;
• Current approvals for the 840 units
are consistent the City's adopted
Foothills Plan;
• Ad County deals with the CID
formation;
• Ada County is required to
implement and enforce the existing
Avimor entitlements (840 acres)
granted by the Avimor Planned
Community;
• Allows Ada County to interface with
the public about the approvals they
have granted.
Cons:
• CID facilitates the continued subdivision of the
Avimor property creating:
o Fractured ownership that will create hardships
when annexing in the future (larger areas that
we cannot annex);
o State law limits the city's enforcement of
consent of annexation. Land owners can still
protest annexation in the future;
• There is no set timeline or threshold for annexation
and no formalized agreement between the City and
Avimor;
• Avimor has development approval (from Ada County)
for 840 of its 23,000 acres. Phase one, currently under
construction, includes 661 units. Avimor holds the
potential for up to 11,000 more units within the City's
Comprehensive Plan (1 unit per 2 acres). A Planned
Community application to Ada County would not be
bound by the City's Comprehensive Plan.
• The City must accept the terms of the CID
development agreement between Avimor and the
County, including, all funding and value assumptions
and operational structures;
• Transfer of the CID Board in the future requires joint
City and County action(neutral consideration);
• The Foothills Sub -area plan was adopted with the
intent that all development in accordance with the plan
would be done under the City of Eagle not the County;
• Increases the distance between government (Ada
County vs. City) and land owners/residents who wish
to participate and monitor the CID approval process
and administration.
• The process is unproven. This would be the first CID
to be formed by a County that would have the
potential of transfer to a City. The two previous
CID's established in the State were established by the
City who will have long term/permanent control of the
development entitlements.
• State law requires the City to consent to a CID in the
County. Without the City's consent, the County
cannot form a CID.
Nichoel Baird
From: Patrick CaIley <pcalley@adaweb.net>
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 1:19 PM
To: Nichoel Baird
Cc: Pat Calley
Subject: RE: Avimor CID Consent request
Attachments: Avimor Incidents Projection 2015.pdf
Nichoel,
A brief summary of Avimor - If the city were to annex the Avimor area as it exits:
Avimor would add another 60+ citizen calls for service a year to EPD based on current growth trends.
Current level of service would also add 160+ officer -initiated tasks like security checks and traffic stops
to the EPD workload.
With growth or a construction ramp up, there is certainly a need to look at how to strategically staff this
with Police Officers. With your help, we can manage the NE (Avimor) and the NW (M3) and how best to
increase EPD Staffing and Support Resources.
Thanks
pc
From: Nichoel Baird [mailto:nbaird@cityofeagle.org]
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2015 8:41 AM
To: P&Z Agency Transmittal
Subject: Avimor CID Consent request
Please see the attached CID consent request from Avimor. All documents are available on the Cities
website at the Zink below.
htto://www.citvofeaele.ore/index.asp?SEC=63150740-60E1-419C-94DC-B3EFD8E89A68&DE=7E7B3547-
36C5-4831-B01C-1D33E0BE61BF&Tvoe=B PR
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
1
Avimor Subdivision Policing Incidents 2010-2014
Total Police Incidents
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
2015
Projected
Citizen Calls for Service (CFS)
Officer -Initiated
Response to a residence
Response to a street, highway
or general subdivision area
Response by Eagle Police
% of total incidents
26
118
Total = 144
14
14
85
99
5
26
90
116
30
105
135
14 9
130 94 102 126
9
8
10 12
6% 8% 9% 9%
Avimor is currently in ACSO's North Division jurisdiction for patrol and criminal
investigations. Eagle Police respond to 8-9% of Avimor's police incidents annually,
usually citizen calls for service although deputies may conduct a traffic stop or
security check if they are in the area. If Avimor were to move under Eagle Police
jurisdiction, Eagle deputies would have an additional
200 incidents each year: 60 citizen CFS and 160 officer -initiated
to maintain current level of service
under projected growth in calls based on the past 4 years.
50
152
202
28
174
17
8%
60
160
220
Avimor Police Incidents Trend
0 Officer -Initiated
Citizen Calls for ServiceigS1
Z
144
220
135
99
MOW
Citizen Calls for Service
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
2015
Projected
High priority code 3 (# calls)
Average Response Time (min:sec)
Average Time on Call (hr:min)
Medium priority (# calls)
1
07:56
1:10
24
Average Time on Call (hr:min) 0:27
Low priority (# calls)
1
Average Time on Call (hr:min) 0:28
3
12:20
1:08
7
0:49
4
0:46
1
16:20
5:16
1
08:01
2:51
18 24
0:39 0:30
7
1:44
5
1:03
0 1-3
11-12 min
2 hours
43
0:23
7
0:35
50
30 min
10
1 hour
Top CaII Types in 2014
Citizen Calls for Service
Attempt to locate reckless driver
Suspicious vehicle
Disabled vehicle
Vehicle crash (non injury)
Attempt to locate drunk driver
Loose/dead/injured animal
Average Time on Call = 40 min
Provided by ACSO/PRU/aa
# (% of total)
9 (18%)
8 (16%)
6 (12%)
4 (8%)
3 (6%)
3 (6%)
Officer -Initiated
Construction site security check
Security/property check
Traffic stop
Directed or extra patrol
Suspicious vehicle
Disabled vehicle
Average Time on Call = 20 min
# (% of total)
67 (44%)
50 (33%)
14 (9%)
7 (5%)
5 (3%)
4 (3%)
Based on CADMIS Database Queried 1/12/2015
Skyway Tower Proposal Review
605 North Edgewood Lane
Eagle, ID 83616
Presented to:
v
' Slit MIT rT
(00°1 ri IT
660 E. Civic Lane
Eagle, Idaho 83616
Trott Communications Group, Inc.
1303 West Walnut Hill Lane, Suite 300
Irving, Texas 75038
Office: (972) 518-1811
\\ \1 \\ .trotturoun.coln
City of Eagle, ID 12/29/14 Trott Communications Group, Inc.
Skyway Tower Proposal
The City of Eagle, Idaho (City) has requested an independent peer review of the RF propagation
results and methods performed as part of a proposed cell tower application by Skyway Towers, LLC
(Skyway) at 605 N. Edgewood Lane, Eagle, ID 83616.
Skyway is proposing to construct a 115 foot monopole along the rd hole fairway of the Eagle Hills
Golf Course. The impetus for the monopole is to provide a new wireless communication site for
AT&T Wireless and for Verizon Wireless. In 2013, Skyway Towers and AT&T attempted to
implement a communication site at 650 E. Ranch Drive, the North Eagle Hills Elementary School. The
distance between the school and golf course sites is 0.5 miles at an angle of 145°.
Wireless communication providers, whether they are commercial enterprises or public safety systems,
produce various levels of reliable service. Public safety agencies implementing communication
systems for their first responders generally require three levels of reliable communications to their
target area. These levels of coverage are service to mobile radios (in vehicles), hand-held portable
radios operating outdoors and portable radios operating indoors. Mobile and portable radios are treated
separately due to their differing electronic characteristics which affect their ability to receive and
transmit to a fixed site. Portables operating outdoors versus indoors are also treated differently due to
the additional signal level margin required to penetrate a structure. Since the penetration factor for
structures can vary, structures are placed in categories with a corresponding penetration factor.
Category examples would be residential structures, light -industrial structures, downtown -urban
structures, etc.
Commercial wireless communication providers deal only with portable radios (i.e. cellphones and
smartphones) and although these devices are manufactured by various companies with different
operating systems and features, the required electronic specifications to wirelessly operate with the
commercial wireless providers are similar and therefore for the purposes of coverage planning can be
considered the same.
In order to determine the necessary signal level threshold necessary for the levels of service described
above, the wireless provider starts with the 12 dB SINAD or Bit Error Rate receiver sensitivity
provided by the manufacturer of the wireless device. The wireless provider must then apply additional
City of Eagle, ID
12/29/14 Trott Communications Group, Inc.
factors to this sensitivity figure to account for modulation type, desired audio quality, and desired
signal level reliability. After all relevant factors are applied, the wireless provider will then have a
minimum signal level threshold for cellphone coverage with the most likely baseline target being
outdoor cellphone coverage. Another loss factor would be applied to develop a minimum threshold for
cellphone coverage within a building category described previously. The free space losses are
calculated by the propagation software and depicted on a coverage prediction map. The threshold level
calculations outlining these steps and associated loss factors could be provided in tabular form.
(Example shown in Figure 1). The threshold levels and their corresponding grade of service should be
provided as a legend and represented as colored areas on the coverage predication maps (Example
shown in Appendix A).
Item
12 dB SINAD Sensitivity
CII for 12 dB SINAD
Thermal Noise
DAQ 3.4 CII
DAQ 3.4 Threshold
DAQ 3.4 - Non-NPSPAC Analog (± 5kHz deviation)
Value Units Comment
Receiver Sensitivity per manufacturer specs. Use the
-119 dBm "Conversions" tab to convert from µV to dBm if receiver sensitivity
is provided in uV by manufacturer.
4 Per TSB -88-B Table A-1
-123 Calculated thermal noise of receiver based on above figures
20 Per TSB -88-B Table A-1
-103 Signal level required at Mobile Radio receiver input
14 dB Estimated value (varies with frequency, antenna type, and body
type)
-89 dBm Estimated threshold DAQ 3.4 outdoors. Add margin as required for
inbuilding thresholds.
Portable Threshold -80 dBm Portable Radios In -Building (9dB Toss)
Figure 1
Body Blockage + Ant Efficiency
Portable Threshold
dB
dBm
dB I
dBm
The two coverage maps for AT&T and the one coverage map for Verizon do not provide their signal
level thresholds, their calculations nor provide a legend corresponding to the various colors other than
the vague description of good, fair or poor coverage. Nevertheless, Trott has reviewed the two sets of
AT&T coverage predictions for Eagle, ID. The first set of coverage predictions are associated with
AT&T's proposed tower at the North Eagle Hills Elementary School and represents AT&T's existing
and proposed coverage to cellphones operating indoors. The existing coverage map shows a lack of
indoor coverage within Eagle, ID for —2.5 square mile area bordered by Beacon Lights Rd to the north,
SR 55 to the east, SR 44 to the south and Eagle Rd to the west. AT&T has existing communication
sites to the SW (Mace Road), to the SE (Horse Shoe Bend) and to the east (Seamans Gulch). The
center of this deficient coverage area is roughly centered at the intersection of Floating Feather Rd and
Edgewood Lane.
City of Eagle, ID
12/29/14 Trott Communications Group, Inc.
Trott searched the FCC's database of existing registered structures (ASR — antenna structure
registration) using a five mile radius centered on the North Eagle Hills Elementary School. There were
six existing structures listed with a minimum structure height of 80 feet located within this search and
plotted on Figure 2 below. The red circle in Figure 1 represents the approximate area of poor indoor
coverage within Eagle, ID for AT&T. The green flags represent the existing 100+ft ASRs located
within five miles of the elementary school. The closest ASR to this area is ASR 1269320 which is
located 1.85 miles to the south of this area.
The second set of AT&T coverage predictions maps and the only set of Verizon coverage predictions
were submitted with the Skyway proposal for the Eagle Hills Golf Course monopole. This set of
AT&T coverage maps show three levels of coverage; grey — poor, yellow — fair, and green — good.
However it is unclear what level of service to the cellphones can be associated with these levels.
Verizon's coverage maps also show before and after coverage displayed via the same three color levels
but also do not associate levels of service with these colors. Comparing the AT&T 2013 coverage
maps to the AT&T 2014 coverage maps, it appears that fair "yellow" coverage represents reliable
coverage to cellphones operating outdoors and that good "green" coverage represents reliable coverage
to cellphones operating indoors.
City of Eagle, ID
12/29/14 Trott Communications Group, Inc.
Vbitxon Liget Rd/
Eagle
0
City of Eagle, ID
S E4gnrised Le
0
1262226
0
Figure 2
12/29/14 Trott Communications Group, Inc.
CONCLUSION
The coverage predication maps provided do not provide the necessary level of detail per industry
standards. ASSUMING the coverage maps provided by AT&T and Verizon are factual and being
interpreted properly by Trott Communications Group, Inc. then both carriers lack indoor cellphone
coverage within the area of Eagle, ID bounded by Beacon Lights Rd, SR 55, SR 44 and Eagle Rd. It
should be noted that Trott has no reason to assume that any of the maps are intentionally
misrepresented.
Both Verizon and AT&T could utilize a collocated structure situated within the target area to improve
reported coverage deficiencies. A search of existing tower structures registered with the FCC and
having heights 80 feet or greater revealed that there is not an existing tower within this target area that
could be used by AT&T or Verizon. Geographically speaking, the ideal proposed tower for both
AT&T and Verizon would be located near the intersection of Floating Feather Road and Edgewood
Lane. The proposed Skyway Tower is situated towards the south edge of the target area (see green
Skyway flag in Figure 1). The reasons for the placement of the proposed Skyway Tower could be due
to the following reasons:
• Lack of available land at the center of the target area,
• AT&T and/or Verizon's existing customer base may reside to the southern portions of this
target area and thus may skew coverage priorities to the southem section of this area.
A perusal of the target area via Google Earth imagery shows heavier residential development towards
the middle and south portions of this target area. Nonetheless, the proposed Skyway Tower monopole
at the Eagle Hills golf course should improve predicted indoor cellphone coverage for both AT&T and
Verizon users in this target area but will not fully alleviate the fair / poor coverage within this target
area and a future site located to the north and closer to Beacon Lights Road may be required in the
future.
Per the coverage maps, the proposed 115 foot height of the Skyway Towers monopole and the
resulting maximum mounting height of 115 feet for AT&T or Verizon show that indoor cellphone
coverage for either carrier would not fully satisfy the lack of indoor coverage within the target area.
City of Eagle, ID
12/29/14 Trott Communications Group, Inc.
Trott was not tasked to determine what minimum theoretical mounting height at the proposed location
would provide full indoor cellphone coverage within the target area. However, it can be stated that a
proposed height of 115 feet does not fully cover the target area and therefore represents a compromise
of the ideal mounting height for AT&T and Verizon. Furthermore any proposed height less than 115
feet will only reduce the proposed coverage from the Skyway Tower monopole.
Thomas Murphy
Senior Project Engineer
City of Eagle, ID
12/29/14 Trott Communications Group, Inc.
APPENDIX A
Sites
Site: Alltel_McGregor
N31°26'41.00" W97°23'42 00" 709 5 ft
McGrTX Tx Ht.AGL: 200.0 ft Total ERPd 113 88 W
Model 1 Use file-vertica1/0.0° 160.0000 MHz
Site: McLennan_Fair
N31032'20.00" W97°10'58.00" 584.0 ft
MVFair Tx Ht.AGL: 400.0 ft Total ERPd 92.03 W
Model. 1 Use file-vertical/0.0° 160.0000 MHz
Site: West
N31044'51.00" W97006'24.00" 580.7 ft
WestTX Tx.Ht.AGL: 300.0 ft Total ERPd: 102.10 W
Model: 1 Use file-vertical/0 0° 160 0000 MHz
1 Roads
1 County Boudaries
Received Power at remote
> -80 0 dBmW 9 dB Building
-89.0 to -80.0 dBmW Portable Outdoor
-103.0 to -89.0 dBmW Mobile Only
< -103 0 dBmW
Display threshold level -120.0 dBmW
RX Antenna - Type: ISOTROPIC
Height. 3.0 ft AGL Gain: 0.00 dBd
MILES
-5 0
10
Jim Reynolds
From: Susan E. Buxton <SEB@msbtlaw.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 5:02 PM
To: Jim Reynolds; Jeff Kunz; Mark Butler; Stan Ridgeway; Mary Mcfarland; Bill Vaughan;
Cherese D. McLain
Cc: Steve Lord; Scott Thompson; Dan Behuniak
Subject: Fwd: Skyway Application
The parties have asked to include the Trott Study as presented below. If you do that you can here the presentations
and testimony and keep the record open for testimony only on the Trott Study to the next regular meeting.
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Susan E. Buxton" <SEB@msbtlaw.com>
Date: January 27, 2015, 4:57:58 PM MST
To: "Slattv@aol.com" <Slattv@aol.com>
Cc: "Susan E. Buxton" <SEB@ msbtlaw.com>, "ScottThomosonPdwt.com"
<ScottThompson@dwt.com>, "da n@skvwavtowers.com" <danftskvwavtowers.com>,
"sil.attv.idc gmail.com" <sil.attv.idPgrnail.com>, "bvauehanPcitvofeaele.ore"
<bvauehanc citvofeaele.org>
Subject: Re: Skyway Application
The city council will have to decide whether they will accept this option.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 27, 2015, at 4:55 PM, "Slattv@aol.com" <SlattvPaol.com> wrote:
Yes -- sorry for the delay in my email -- I couldn't find Dan's email address.
Stephen J. Lord
Attorney at Law
409 West Jefferson Street
Boise, Idaho 83702
office (208) 342-3953
Fax (208) 387-2728
Cell (208) 602-9398
Email: slatty@aol.com
or
sil.attv.id@email.com
email.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message, including any and all attachments,
contains confidential and privileged information intended only for the use of the
recipient named above. When sent to counsel or parties, it contains information subject
to Rule 408, Idaho Rules of Evidence and Rule 408, FRE. It may also contain confidential
information protected by state or federal laws and rules (or both) regarding financial,
1
medical or health conditions. Review, dissemination or copying by anyone else is
strictly prohibited. If misdelivered to you, please notify us at the telephone number
under the signature block, and kindly remove this message from your computer and
any other systems under your control. Thank you.
In a message dated 1/27/2015 4:54:05 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
SEB@msbtlaw.com writes:
Steve- this is what you and I spoke about over the phone when you called
around 4:15. Will you request the Council do this?
Susan
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 27, 2015, at 4:42 PM, "Thompson, Scott" <ScottThomDson(cr�.dwt.com>
wrote:
Susan
Pursuant to our discussion, Skyway will agree to allow the
Trott report to be submitted onto the record and understands
that parties will be given 2 weeks to comment on it.
T. Scott Thompson 1 Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
1919 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 8001 Washington, DC 20006
Tel: (202) 973-4208 1 Fax: (202) 973-4408
Email: scottthompsonftr�dwt.com 1 Website: www.dwt.com
Anchorage 1 Bellevue 1 Los Angeles 1 New York 1 Portland 1 San Francisco 1 Seattle 1 Shanghai 1
Washington. D.C.
2
jizto-cui
4/17131-1)
Mayor closes the Public Hearing
General Council discussion.
McFarland moves to disapprove the wireless tower facility CU -01-14
from Skyway Towers, LLC. Seconded by Ridgeway. McFarland:
AYE; Butler: AYE; Kunz: AYE; Ridgeway: AYE: ALL AYES:
MOTION CARRIES
City Attorney Buxton: what I would like to hear from the Council is under
State Code, we need to tell the applicant what they would need to do to meet
some requirements for approval. I would like you to have that discussion so
that we can bring those back to you in your Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law. General Council discussion.
Mayor calls a recess at 8:35 p.m.
Mayor reconvenes the meeting at 8:45 p.m.
9. NEW BUSINESS:
A. Rick Thule with Walk and Ride Eagle would like to present
information regarding pedestrian pathway connectivity to the Council.
(JDR)
Mayor introduces the issue.
Rick Thule, I have formed a non-profit Walk and Ride Eagle. Presents a
power point on bridges to cross the river and discusses the same.
ParklRec Director Aho displays a map of the trail system that shows where
the bridges would be placed and how they would connect the current trails
and future trails.
Rick Thule, we have been working with Mike for sometime and we have
also set up at the Eagle Saturday Market at three different times and have
asked people which option that they would prefer. Most people choose the
stand alone truss bridge. We have met with the property owners and they
are in support of the foot bridge. General discussion.
B. Discuss sending a letter to ACHD requesting that project #38 within
their Capital Improvement Plan to widen Eagle road to five lanes from
Albertsons to Old State Street in 2017/2018 be removed and that the
preferred alternative in the eagle road old state street intersection
study, of a round -about for that intersection, be removed also. (MLB)
Mayor introduces the issue.
Page 12
K \COLI NC11.1NI INIITINTempurary Mmme, W nrk Are:ACC -ri7. W1 1 Jmm.Sr .
LLC, represented by Shawn Nickel with SLN Planning, is requesting conditional
use permit approval for a camouflaged cell tower (defined as "personal wireless
facility height -over 35 -feet" in Eagle City Code). The proposed 2,500 -square
foot lease area is located approximately 835 -feet southwest of the intersection of
North Eagle Hills Way and North Wingfoot Place at the southern boundary of
Eagle Hills Golf Course within the area containing hole #2. (WEV)
E. FP -05-14 — Final Plat for Renovare Subdivision Phase 1 — MDG, LLC.:
MDG, LLC represented by Kevin McCarthy, P.E., with KM Engineering. MDG,
LLC, represented by Kevin McCarthy, P.E., with KM Engineering, is requesting
final plat approval for Renovare Subdivision Phase 1, a 36 -lot (29 -buildable, 6 -
common, 1 -private road) residential subdivision. The 13.33 -acre subdivision is
located on the east side of South Edgewood Road approximately 7I0 -feet south
of State Highway 44. (WEV)
F. Re -appointment to the Design Review Board: Mayor Reynolds is requesting
Council confirmation of Bryan Hash to the Board. Mr. Hash's term will expire
in 2017. (JDR)
G. Approval of Purchase and Sale Agreement Between the City of Eagle and
Larry and Kathleen Hansen for the Citv's purchase of 12 shares of the
capital stock of Boise Valley Irrigation Ditch Company represented by
Certificate No. 02991. (WEV)
McFarland moves to approve the Amended Consent Agenda, Items #a, #B, #C, #E and #G.
Seconded by Kunz. McFarland: AYE; Butler: AYE; Kunz: AYE; Ridgeway: AYE: ALL
AYES: MOTION CARRIES
City Attorney: the City Clerk's Office has requested an amendment to Ordinance No. 698A be
added to the Agenda under New Business. General discussion.
McFarland moves to add as New Business Item #8F Amendment to Ordinance No. 698A.
Seconded by Kunz. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES
6D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for CU -01-14 Personal Wireless Facility
(Height -Over 35 Feet) Skyway Towers, LLC.: Skyway Towers, LLC, represented by Shawn
Nickel with SLN Planning, is requesting conditional use permit approval for a camouflaged cell
tower (defined as "personal wireless facility height -over 35 -feet" in Eagle City Code). The
proposed 2,500 -square foot lease area is located approximately 835 -feet southwest of the
intersection of North Eagle Hills Way and North Wingfoot Place at the southern boundary of
Eagle Hills Golf Course within the area containing hole #2. (WEV)
Mayor introduces the issue.
Butler: the issue I had with regard to my recollection of our denial of the cell tower, we didn't
go into the issues we had with fencing that was proposed around the cell tower, noise from the
cell tower, the roadway issue and many other issues. My recollection of the Council concern was
totally in relationship to Item #C with regard to conditional use permits. So I feel the Findings
need to be modified to reflect our Findings not the Commissions which would result in the
elimination of B which talked about fencing and etc., leaving in Item C but taking out 2 and 3
which talked about fencing and the roadway which we didn't talk about, go to Item D and solely
changing D so it didn't include the word hazardous because we didn't talk about the potential for
the tower to be a hazardous, we talked about it be disturbing to existing and future neighborhood
uses because of the incompatibility with surrounding tree canopy and again on D we didn't talk
about noise generated. Unless the Council has differences of opinions from what 1 had with
Page ,
K 1COUNCl1.1MINIITI:S\Temporary Minute, Wurk Arca1CC-07 22.14min doe
regard to our deliberations, I think as Bill has amended these, these are the Findings that should
be approved. General discussion.
Council asks Zoning Administrator Vaughan to review Council's previous deliberations and the
Council's motion.
Butler moves to remand this back to staff and bring this back at our next meeting.
Seconded by Kunz. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES
6F. Re-anvointment to the Design Review Board: Mayor Reynolds is requesting Council
confirmation of Bryan Hash to the Board. Mr. Hash's term will expire in 2017. (JDR)
Ridgeway: I asked this be removed not because of the applicant, but we have a working group
working on these issues. I thought when we assigned that group that we would put these on hold
until we came back to the Council with some guidelines for appointments. I do know that this
person does not live in Eagle and one of my concerns is that we keep putting people who don't
live in Eagle and don't own businesses in Eagle on Committees that are making decisions for our
residents. This is my only concern, I have no objection to the individual, I think he has done a
great job. General discussion.
Butler moves to approve a temporary appointment for 3 months for this gentleman so that
we have a chance to review the policy regarding commissions. Seconded by McFarland.
ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES
Further general Council discussion.
6. PUBLIC COMMENT:
This time is reserved for the public to address their elected officials regarding concerns or comments
they would like to provide to the City Council regarding subjects not on the agenda. At times, the City
Council may seek comments/opinions regarding specific City matters during this allotted time. This is
not the time slot to give formal testimony on a public hearing matter, or comment on a pending
application or proposal. Out of courtesy for all who wish to speak, the City Council requests each
speaker limit their comments to three (3) minutes.
Patricia Minkiewicz: I'm wondering what the status is of the Eagle on the sign over Eagle Road
and also entering Eagle from the West the sign is obliterated by a big mound of dirt. General
discussion.
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Public Hearings arc legally noticed hearings required by state law. The public may provide
formal testimony regarding the application or issue before the City Council. This testimony will
become part of the hearing record for that application or matter.
A. Public Hearing for Budget Fiscal Year 2015 (Oct. 1. 2014 — Sent. 30. 2015): Notice is
hereby given that the City Council of the City of Eagle, Idaho, will hold a public hearing for
consideration of the proposed budget including general revenue sharing for the fiscal period
October 1, 2014, to September 30, 2015, pursuant to the provisions of Section 50-1002, Idaho
Code. Said hearing to be held at Eagle City Hall, 660 E. Civic Lane, Eagle, Idaho, at 6:30 p.m.
on July 22, 2014. At said hearing, all interested persons may appear and show cause, if any they
have why said proposed budget should not be adopted.
Mayor introduces the issue.
Mayor opens the Public Hearing
Page 4
K 1COUNCIIAMINU ES1Temparary Mmulcc Work Arca1CC•07.22.14mm doc
Butler moves to approve Item #60. Seconded by McFarland. ALL AYES:
MOTION CARRIES
Butler moves to table Item #6P until after the presentation. Seconded by Ridgeway.
ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
A. Discussion on crafting public participation lanauage to be utilized on agendas
(SEB)
Mayor introduces the issue.
General discussion on an example of Public Comment Language submitted to the Council
for review By City Attorney Buxton. City Attorney Buxton will make the revisions
discussed tonight and bring this back on a future agenda.
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for CU -01-14 Personal Wireless
Facility (Height -Over 35 Feet) Skyway Towers, LLC.: Skyway Towers. LLC,
represented by Shawn Nickel with SLN Planning, is requesting conditional use permit
approval for a camouflaged cell tower (defined as "personal wireless facility height -over
35 -feet" in Eagle City Code). The proposed 2,500 -square foot lease area is located
approximately 835 -feet southwest of the intersection of North Eagle Hills Way and North
Wingfoot Place at the southern boundary of Eagle Hills Golf Course within the area
containing hole #2. This item was continued from the August 26, 2014 meeting.
Shawn Nickel as the representative for Skyway Towers we are requesting that we enter
mediation with the Council regarding this application. I did submitted a letter today to
Mr. Vaughan to request that request
City Attorney Buxton discusses the mediation proccss.
McFarland my motion would be that we agree to go into mediation and we agree
amongst ourselves which two of the Council Members would be involved in that
mediation. General discussion. Ridgeway, would you consider making the notion
to enter into mediation as required by 67-6510? McFarland concurs. Seconded by
Butler. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES
General discussion on which Council Members will attend the mediation. Council
concurs that Council Member McFarland and Kunz will be attending.
Publication on the notice of the mediation will be a press release, putting the notification
on the website, notify everyone who provided input and notice to the HOA's that are
involved. McFarland and Kunz will work with the Clerk's Office on notification.
Further discussion on the mediation.
Butler moves to table Item #7B back to staff until after mediation. Seconded by
Kunz. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES
Mayor calls a recess at 8:10 p.m.
Mayor reconvenes at 8:25 p.m.
Page 6
K \COUNClI,\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work ArealCC-09-09- 14mrn doc
are. This is our third meeting and we have explained everything and I would like to get to
the point where we get a decision.
Shawn Nickels, representing the applicant, I don't think there is an argument that we have
the worst cell service in the area. If you don't put the tower here and put it someplace
else you will be back here doing the same thing. I would request that you look at the
letters in support of this application.
City Attorney Buxton: all of the information and documents that were provided at other
hearings are part of this hearing. Discusses Federal Law and City Code. General
discussion.
General Council discussion.
Kunz: My motion was going to be that we continue to a future Council meeting at
least two weeks into the future the public hearing on CU -01-14 — Conditional Use
Permit - Skyway Towers. At that future public hearing the public comment would
be limited strictly to and only the Trott Study and the RF content that it contains.
That is the essence of my motion but I don't know if it will get a second at this point.
Mayor, why don't you put it up the flag pole? So moved by Kunz. Discussion.
Motion dies for lack of a second. General discussion. Kunz: I would reinsert my
motion in search of a second. Seconded by Ridgeway. Discussion. ALL AYES:
MOTION CARRIES
Mayor: There will only be public comment on the Trott Study.
General discussion.
Butler moves that the public comment be limited to written comment to be provided
on or before the February 5, 2015 in regard to the Trott Study. Seconded by
McFarland. Discussion. McFarland: AYE; Butler: AYE; Ridgeway: AYE; Kunz:
NAY: MOTION CARRIES
Mayor calls a recess at 10:10 p.m.
Mayor reconvenes at 10:25 p.m.
B. Ordinance 728- Adopting of 2012 Building Codes: An Ordinance Of The City Of
Eagle, Idaho, A Municipal Corporation Of The State Of Idaho, Amending Title 7.
Chapter 1 Of The Eagle City Code By Adopting The 2012 International Building Code
Including Appendix .1 Grading; Adopting The 2012 Idaho Residential Code (Parts I
Through Iv And Ix); Amending Or Deleting Certain Sections Of The 2012 International
Building Code; Amending Or Deleting Certain Sections Of The 2012 Idaho Residential
Code; Adopting The Current Publication Of The International Fire Code; Adopting The
Current Publication Of The International Mechanical Code; Adopting The Current
Publication Of The International Existing Building Code; Adopting The Current
Publication Of The International Fuel Gas Code; Adopting The Current Publication Of
The National Electrical Code; And Amending Title 7, Chapter 4 Of The Eagle City Code
By Adopting The 2012 Energy Conservation Code And Amending Or Deleting Sections
Of The 2012 Energy Conservation Code; Providing A Severability Clause; Providing A
Codification Clause; And Providing An Effective Date For Adoption. (SN)
Paste 7
K COUNCIL,MINU77S•7emporary Minutes Work Area.CC-01-27-I5mm doc
MSBT
MOORE SMITH BUXTON & TURCKE, CHTD.
Attorneys and Counselors at Law
BANNER BANK BUILDING
950 W. BANNOCK STREET, SUITE 520, BOISE, ID 83702
TELEPHONE: (208) 331-1800 FACSIMILE: (208) 331-1202
WW1I.MSBTLAW.COM
THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN EXPRESSLY PREPARED FOR THE USE
OF OUR CLIENT, IS CONFIDENTIAL AND DEEMED TO BE SUBJECT TO THE
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND THE ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
PRIVILEGE
MEMORANDUM
TO: EAGLE CITY COUNCIL �1
FROM: CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, SEB/CDM \
DATE: FEBRUARY 4, 2015
RE: CU -01-14
1. INTRODUCTION
The City of Eagle is currently reviewing a CUP application to erect a 1 10' tower' on Hole 2
of Eagle Hills Golf Course. Unlike the majority of land use applications before the City Council, an
application for a cell tower is governed by both federal and local laws through the Federal
Telecommunications Act, (the "TCA"). 47 U.S.C. 332 and ECC 8-3-5(S). Both federal and local
laws must be applied harmoniously.
The TCA is generally designed to promote the continued growth and competition of
telecommunications but still allows for local regulation. For instance. if the City Council applies the
local and state requirements and finds that the application satisfies those requirements and approves
the application, the analysis ends there. It appears that only when the City applies its' local and state
requirements and concludes that a denial is proper does the TCA require a further analysis under
federal law to determine whether the Council must change its mind and approve the application.
The TCA requires the governing body to make a 2 part analysis. First, it must apply its own
local governing law. ECC 8-3-5(S) and state law, the Local Land Use Planning Act, chapter 65, title
67. Idaho Code. Then it must apply the Ninth Circuit's two -prong test: Is there a "gap" in coverage?
And, is this the least intrusive means? If the Council determines that the Ninth Circuit test is
satisfied then it must approve the application as required by the TCA. If it finds that the application
does not satisfy its ordinance or the Ninth Circuit test. then the City may deny the application but
the denial must he supported by substantial evidence.
The tower is 110' and an additional 5' for the camouflage tree top.
Skyway Towers Analysis -1
T1ST:
1. Does the application satisfy the City's ordinance and LLUPA requirements? If yes, then it
should be approved. If no, then the Council must continue its analysis.
2. Does application of City's ordinance or LLUPA act as an effective prohibition?
a. Is there a "gap" in the applicant's network coverage?
b. If yes, is this the least intrusive means?
Factors: feasible alternative sites within search ring area; did applicant apply
alternative technology or design options or rule out collocation?
3. If yes, then application should be approved.
4. If no, the City's denial must supported by substantial evidence.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Interaction between City Code and the TCA
The TCA embodies two sometimes contradictory purposes. First, "to promote competition
and reduce regulation in order to secure lower prices and higher quality services for American
telecommunications consumers and encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications
technologies," New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC v. Bd. Of Supervisors, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
1430 (D.Ariz 2011); T -Mobile USA Inc., v. City of Anacortes, 572 F.3d 987, 991 (9th Cir. 2009)
(quoting Pub. L. No 104-104, 110 Stat. at 56), Congress chose to "end the States' longstanding
practice of granting and maintaining local exchange monopolies,"id. (quoting Sprint Telephony
PCS, L.P. v. County of San Diego, Sprint II, 543 F.3d 571, 576 (9th Cir. 2008)). Second, it did so by
enacting 47 U.S.C. § 253, id., which reads, in relevant part: "No State or local statute or regulation,
or other State or local legal requirement, may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the
ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service." 47 U.S.C.
§ 253(a).
The TCA limits state and local regulation "of the placement, construction, and modification
of personal wireless service facilities." 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7). Such regulation "(I) shall not
unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; and (II) shall not
prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services." 47 U.S.C. §§
332(c)(7)(B) (i). Further, state and local governments must act on applications "within a reasonable
period of time" and may not deny such an application except in a written decision "supported by
substantial evidence contained in a written record." Id. § 332(c)(7)(B) (emphasis added).
The TCA thus strikes a balance between "two competing aims — to facilitate nationally the
growth of wireless telephone service and to maintain substantial local control over siting of towers."
Town of Amherst, N.H. v. Omnipoint Commc'ns, 173 F.3d 9, 13 (1st Cir.1999). Under the TCA,
"[a]ny decision by a State or local government or instrumentality thereof to deny a request to place,
construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities shall be . . . supported by substantial
evidence contained in a written record." Am. Tower Corp. v. City of San Diego, at 38. §
332(c)(7)(B)(iii).
Skyway Towers Analysis -2
In reviewing a denial and whether the governing body provided substantial evidence in the
written record to support its decision to deny, the Ninth Circuit Court has adopted a two-pronged
analysis, "requiring (1) the showing of a 'significant gap' in service coverage and (2) some inquiry
into the feasibility of alternative facilities or site locations." Id. at 46-47; City of Anacortes, 572 F.3d
at 995 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Through the significant -gap analysis courts
"determine whether a coverage problem exists at all." Omnipoint v. Cranston, at 49; Second
Generation Props., 313 F.3d at 631. The second prong is whether the applicant took a hard look at
alternative sites, alternative technologies, or other options to have less of an impact.
B. Eagle City Code 8-3-5(S) and LLUPA
The application must comply with the requirements set forth in the Eagle City Code and
LLUPA. Notable provisions within the ECC specific to cell towers are:
ECC 8-3-5(S)(1) (a) Purpose: "To accommodate the communication needs of residents and
businesses while protecting the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community... in
order to: (1) facilitate the provision of wireless telecommunications services to the residents and
businesses of the city; (2) minimize adverse visual effects of ...antennas... and other such structures
through careful design and siting[sic] standards..."
ECC 8-3-5(S)(3)(a) Collocation Requirements: Any commercial wireless communication tower in
excess of 35' the Council must find that the "proposed tower cannot be accommodated on an
existing or approved tower or building" within a two (2) mile radius for towers over 110' or a one
(1) mile radius for towers over 80' but less than 110'.
ECC 8-3-5(S)(3)(b) Collocation Requirements: It is the burden of the applicant to show it cannot
collocate within the required search radius for one or more of the following reasons: (1)
unwillingness of another tower or facility owner to entertain shared use; (6) Other unforeseen
reasons that make it unfeasible to locate the planned telecommunications equipment upon an
existing or approved tower or building as documented by a qualified or licensed professional
engineer, or other professional qualified to provide necessary documentation.
ECC 8-3-5(S)(4)(b) Tower and Antenna Design Requirements: "Towers and antennas shall be
required to blend into the surrounding environment through the use of color and camouflaging
architectural treatment..."
ECC 8-3-5(S)(10)(6) Additional Application Submittal Requirements: "Propogation charts showing
existing and proposed transmission coverage at the subject site and within an area large enough to
provide an understanding why the facility needs to be in the chosen location."
ECC 8-3-5(S)(10)(7) Additional Application Submittal Requirements: "A written analysis
demonstrating that the proposed site is the most appropriate site within the immediate area. For the
purposes of this subsection, the analysis shall include the properties within the search radii stated
above. The analysis shall include, but is not limited to, the following: (A) Description of the
surrounding area, including topography; (B) Natural and manmade impediments that would obstruct
adequate cellular telephone transmissions; (C) Physical constraints that would preclude construction
of a cellular telephone facility on any other site; (D) Technical limitations of the system that limit
siting options."
Skyway Towers Analysis -3
General provisions of the City's conditional use process that are notable are the following:
ECC 8-7-3-1 Purpose and Interpretation of Conditional Use: "A. Purpose. It is recognized that an
increasing number of new kinds of uses appearing daily, and that many of these and some other
more conventional uses possess characteristics of such unique and special nature relative to location,
design, size, method of operation, circulation and public facilities that each specific use must be
considered individually.
ECC 8-7-3-2 General Standards for Conditional Uses: "A. Will, in fact, constitute a conditional use
as established in section 8-2-3 of this title for the zoning district involved ...C. Will be designed,
constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the
existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not change the essential
character of the same area; D. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring
uses;"
General provisions of LLUPA conditional use requirements that are notable are the
following:
I.C. 67-6512(d): Upon the granting of a special use permit, conditions may be attached to a special
use permit including, but not limited to, those:
(1) Minimizing adverse impact on other development;
(2) Controlling the sequence and timing of development;
(3) Controlling the duration of development;
(4) Assuring that development is maintained properly;
(5) Designating the exact location and nature of development;
(6) Requiring the provision for on-site or off-site public facilities or services;
(7) Requiring more restrictive standards than those generally required in an ordinance;
(8) Requiring mitigation of effects of the proposed development upon service delivery by any
political subdivision, including school districts, providing services within the planning jurisdiction.
I.C. 67-6512(0: In addition to other processes permitted by this chapter, exceptions or waivers of
standards, other than use, inclusive of the subject matter addressed by section 67-6516, Idaho Code,
in a zoning ordinance may be permitted through issuance of a special use permit or by
administrative process specified by ordinance, subject to such conditions as may be imposed
pursuant to a local ordinance drafted to implement subsection (d) of this section.
C. "Effective Prohibition"
The TCA mandates that "[t]he regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of
personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof .. .
shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services." 47
U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(i)(11). A locality violates this provision "if it prevent[s] a wireless provider
from closing a 'significant gap' in service coverage." City of Anacortes, 572 F.3d at 995 (citation
omitted). The Ninth Circuit has adopted a two-pronged analysis, "requiring (1) the showing of a
'significant gap' in service coverage and (2) some inquiry into the feasibility of alternative facilities
or site locations." Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The significant gap prong is
satisfied "whenever a provider is prevented from filling a significant gap in its own service
Skyway Towers Analysis -4
coverage." MetroPCS, Inc., 400 F.3d at 733. The court's evaluate the feasibility prong under a
"least intrusive means" standard, which "requires that the provider show that the manner in which it
proposes to fill the significant gap in services is the least intrusive on the values that the denial
sought to serve." City of Anacortes, 572 F.3d at 995 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
If the City denies the Skyway application, the applicant may argue that the City's decision
and application of its ordinance effectively prohibited the applicant's ability to have a cell tower
violating the TCA. 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II). The applicant must show that its facilities were
the "least intrusive means" in light of the factors that motivated the City's decision to deny the CUP
application. See Am. Tower, supra. The underlying question is whether, under the facts of a case, a
zoning decision effectively prohibited providing wireless service. See 47 U.S.C. §
332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II); Second Generation Props., 313 F.3d at 630. But whether, under the
circumstances, an effective prohibition has occurred is a factual issue; we review how the district
court resolved it for clear error. Omnipoint v. Cranston, at 47-48; accord Omnipoint Commc'ns
Enters., L.P. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Easton Twp., 331 F.3d 386, 392 (3d Cir. 2003).
The Ninth Circuit Court explained in MetroPCS, Inc., the "least intrusive means" standard
"allows for a meaningful comparison of alternative sites ... [and] gives providers an incentive to
choose the least intrusive [means] in their first [ ] application[]." 400 F.3d at 734-35. To achieve
these objectives, the applicant must make a prima facie showing of effective prohibition, which the
locality may then rebut by demonstrating the existence of a potentially available and technically
feasible alternative. Am. Tower, at 449; City of Anacortes, 572 F.3d at 996-99.
The burden is on the carrier to prove it "investigated thoroughly the possibility of other
viable alternatives" before concluding no other feasible plan was available. Omnipoint v. Cranston,
at 35; citing St. Croix County, 342 F.3d at 834-35. If the Council finds that the Applicant has met
this burden, the City should identify what provisions of local or state law that constitutes "effective
prohibition" and may waive such requirements in order to accommodate the application because it
has satisfied its burden under the TCA. See also I.C. 67-6512(0, supra, (exceptions or waivers of
standards, other than use, are permitted through a conditional use permit).
Any feasibility analysis balances these competing interests. Nat'l Tower, 297 F.3d at 20. A
carrier cannot win an effective -prohibition claim merely because local authorities have rejected the
carrier's preferred solution. Second Generation Props., 313 F.3d at 635; Town of Amherst, 173 F.3d
at 14-15; accord St. Croix County, 342 F.3d at 834-35. On the other hand, if local authorities reject
a proposal that is "the only feasible plan," that denial could "amount to prohibiting personal wireless
service." Town of Amherst, 173 F.3d at 14. The burden is on the carrier to prove it "investigated
thoroughly the possibility of other viable alternatives" before concluding no other feasible plan was
available. St. Croix County, 342 F.3d at 834-35. When courts have held the carrier has not met its
burden, the evidence has been essentially undisputed that the carrier had other alternatives.2 As with
most such questions, the district court may consider a number of facts relevant to the conclusion it
must reach. What facts are relevant may vary with the case. It is clear that the technical feasibility of
the proposed solution or alternative solutions is important. See Town of Amherst, 173 F.3d at 15.
2 An alternative must be feasible i.e. there must be a willing landowner to lease the site in order for it to be an alternative
site.
Skyway Towers Analysis -5
D. "Substantial Evidence"
Under the TCA, "[a]ny decision by a State or local government or instrumentality thereof to
deny a request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities shall be ... supported
by substantial evidence contained in a written record." Id. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii). This most recently
affirmed by the United States Supreme Court in T -Mobile South, LLC v. City of Roswell, Slip Op.
13-975, decided January 14, 2015 (Court held that City violated TCA for failing to put denial in
writing and supported by substantial evidence in written record). Courts have held that "this language
is meant to trigger the traditional standard used for judicial review of agency decisions." MetroPCS,
Inc. v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 400 F.3d 715, 723 (9th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted). However, the substantial evidence inquiry does not incorporate the substantive
federal standards imposed by the TCA. Id. Instead, this inquiry requires the court to determine
"whether the zoning decision at issue is supported by substantial evidence in the context of
applicable state and local law." Id. at 723-24. "In other words, we must take applicable state and
local regulations as we find them and evaluate the City decision's evidentiary support (or lack
thereof) relative to those regulations." Id. at 724. The substantial evidence inquiry is deferential: "[we]
may not overturn the [City's] decision on 'substantial evidence' grounds if that decision is authorized
by applicable local regulations and [is] supported by a reasonable amount of evidence (i.e., more
than a 'scintilla' but not necessarily a preponderance)." Id. at 725.
The City should be weary to only rely on lay testimony if the Applicant has provided expert
testimony to the contrary. See T -Mobile Cent., LLC v. Charter Twp. of W. Bloomfield, 691 F.3d 794,
804-05 (6th Cir. 2012). For instance, in T -Mobile Cent., the Township of Bloomfield relied on a lay
person's factual assertions to deny the application and the Sixth Circuit held that its denial was not
supported by sufficient evidence:
The only evidence in the record that the Township cites to support the assertion that
there was not a sufficient need for the tower was testimony from Mr. Dave Crook at
the February 24, 2009, Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Crook stated that the
proposed facility would only address 15% of T—Mobile's coverage problem. Mr.
Crook provided no explanation of how he reached this number, nor did he dispute
any of the facts in the RF engineer's report. Nothing in the record suggests what
qualifications Mr. Crook possessed or whether he had any expertise to opine on the
coverage gap in the area. His ostensibly lay opinion is not substantial evidence.
MIOP, Inc. v. City of Grand Rapids, 175 F.Supp.2d 952, 956-57 (W.D.Mich.2001)
(citing Telespectrum, 227 F.3d at 424) ("Instead, the cases cited by the Sixth Circuit
remark that opinion is not sufficient to meet the substantial evidence requirement.
Consistent with Sixth Circuit precedent, this Court does not find lay opinion evidence
sufficient to satisfy the substantial evidence requirement.")."
Id. at 804-05.
This means that the substantial evidence assessment is made based on applicable state and
local regulations. Anacortes, 572 F.3d at 993 (citing MetroPCS 400 F.3d at 724). "'If the decision
fails that test it, of course, is invalid even before the application of the TCA's federal standards.' Id.
By this approach, we "avoid unnecessarily reaching the federal questions of whether a zoning
decision violates the substantive provisions of the TCA."' Id. "'[I]n most cases, only when a locality
applies the regulation to a particular permit application and reaches a decision -which it supports
Skyway Towers Analysis -6
with substantial evidence -can a court determine whether the TCA has been violated.' Id. To
establish a substantive violation of the TCA, "a plaintiff must establish either an outright prohibition
or an effective prohibition on the provision of telecommunications services; a plaintiffs showing
that a locality could potentially prohibit the provision of telecommunications services is
insufficient." Anacortes, 572 F.3d at 993 (citing Sprint II, 543 F.3d at 579).
The City Council must support its decision to approve or deny with substantial evidence.
The Local Land Use Planning Act, requires that the Council provide its approval or denial:
[In] writing and accompanied by a reasoned statement that explains the criteria and
standards considered relevant, states the relevant contested facts relied upon. and
explains the rationale for the decision based on the applicable provisions of the
comprehensive plan, relevant ordinance and statutory provisions, pertinent
constitutional principles and factual information contained in the record.
I.C. 67-6535(2).
The City must comply with the requirements of LLUPA and ECC 8-3-5(S) and apply the
facts of the application and record to support its decision.
E. Case Studies
Omnipoint Communications, Inc. v. City of White Plains, 430 F.3d 529 (2nd Cir. 2005).
Background: Board denies Omnipoint's application to erect a 150' cell tower (disguised as a large
tree) on a local golf course. Omnipoint conducted its own visual impact study by placing a 150'
crane at the location. Neighbors testified that the tower was not going to be disguised because tree
canopy was 51' at tallest height. Council held public hearings for 6 months. Board denied based on
3 factors: (1) adverse visual impact; (2) diminution of property values; and (3) lack of "public
necessity."
Holding: District Court found in favor of Omnipoint that the City's decision was unsupported by
substantial evidence and awarded them $1.3M in damages and $231K in attorneys fees. City
appealed. Circuit Court overturned in favor of the City. Court held that City complied with its local
land use standards in denying the application and that under NY state law, "aesthetics" and "public
necessity" are a factor for denial in land use applications. Applied state law analysis to determine
whether city correctly denied under local law requirements.
Omnipoint Holdings, Inc. v. City of Cranston, 586 F.3d 38 (lst Cir. 2009).
Background: Omnipoint determined that its signal coverage was below its policy standard for signal
levels. A consulting engineer drove around and mapped signals to determine signal strength was
below company coverage standard. Omnipoint determined a "search ring" and looked for suitable
sites as well as looked at current tower structures for collocation. Omnipoint did not find any
suitable 'raw' sites or collocation. Omnipoint identified 4 potential sites within search ring:
museum, 2 different sites at a country club, and a church. The museum site was ruled out due to
redundant coverage with another tower covering that gap. Omnipoint tried to negotiate with the
country club but the country club refused to compromise. Omnipoint works a deal with the church
Skyway Towers Analysis -7
site. City denies application. City relies on a purported expert testimony challenging Omnipoint's
employee and engineer's method for determining gap and available sites.
Holding: District Court held in favor of Omnipoint and Circuit Court affirmed. Court found that the
carrier had adequately shown a gap in coverage and had provided sufficient information and
evidence to show that church site was only feasible site and ` further reasonable efforts to find an
alternative solution would be fruitless." Court discounted city's assertion that DAS could be
available or multi -site solutions because had not shown whether it was actually feasible and would
cover the gap.
Am. Tower Corp. v. City of San Diego, 763 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2014).
Background: Am. Tower Corp. ("ATC") challenges city's denial based on 3 claims under the TCA:
(1) not supported by "substantial evidence" because city misapplied its own law; (2) denial would
be unreasonable discrimination among other providers, and (3) denial was an "effective
prohibition."
Holding: Court held that city had supported its denial with substantial evidence because its local
ordinance required concealment or integration within its environment within '/i mile of another
telecommunication facility and its finding that the tower "be designed to be nominally visible
through use of architecture, landscape architecture, and siting solutions" had not been satisfied. On
second claim, the Court held that ATC did not prove it was discriminated to similarly situated
providers. On third claim, Circuit Court followed District Court's finding that a gap occurred and
only analyzed whether ATC showed this was the least intrusive means. Court held that ATC had not
shown any modifications, including a reduction in height or a redesign of the towers. The mere
insistence that this was the least intrusive does not satisfy. They must have provided some
alternative designs or sites and allow the city to reach the conclusion.
III. CONCLUSION
This is a very fact -specific analysis and determination. The record should be closely
reviewed to determine whether the application and record satisfies ECC 8-3-5(S) and LLUPA. If the
answer, is yes, then the application should be granted. If the answer is no, then does the application
of the City ordinance requirements act as an effective denial? If so, then the Council may waive
certain requirements of the City ordinance in order to accommodate the application. If not, then the
City must make sure the denial is supported by substantial evidence from the record.
Skyway Towers Analysis -8
ENGINEERING
2012 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE
2012 INTERNATIONAL ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE
2014 NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE
TIA/EIA-222—G OR LATEST EDITION
GENERAL NOTES
THE FACILITY IS UNMANNED AND NOT FOR HUMAN
HABITATION. A TECHNICIAN WILL VISIT THE SITE AS REQUIRED
FOR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE. THE PROJECT WILL NOT RESULT
IN ANY SIGNIFICANT DISTURBANCE OR EFFECT ON DRAINAGE;
NO SANITARY SEWER SERVICE, POTABLE WATER, OR TRASH
DISPOSAL IS REQUIRED AND NO COMMERCIAL SIGNAGE IS
PROPOSED.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
THE PROJECT CONSISTS OF THE INSTALLATION OF A 50'x75'
FENCE COMPOUND, ACCESS ROAD, H—FRAME, 95'
MONO—PINE WITH FUTURE 95' MONO—PINE FOR FUTURE
CARRIERS.
SITE INFORMATION
PROPERTY OWNER: EAGLE HILLS GOLF COURSE
ADDRESS: 605 N. EDGEWOOD LN
EAGLE, ID. 83616
TOWER OWNER: SKYWAY TOWERS
SITE NAME:
SITE CONTACT:
SITE ADDRESS:
COUNTY:
LATITUDE (NAD 83):
LONGITUDE (NAD 83):
ZONING JURISDICTION:
PARCEL NUMBER:
OCCUPANCY GROUP:
CONSTRUCTION TYPE:
POWER COMPANY:
FIBER COMPANY:
SITE ACQUISITION
CONTACT:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE
CONTACT:
CONTACT:
PHONE:
E—MAIL:
NORTH EAGLE
LESLEY CORDILEONE
(813) 960-6211
611 N. EAGLE HILLS WAY
EAGLE, ID. 83616
ADA
43.69790' N
—116.34011' W
CITY OF EAGLE
R2024150300
U
V—B
IDAHO POWER
(800) 488-6151
CENTURY UNK
(800) 603-6000
LESELY CORDILEONE
(813) 960-6211
Iesley®skywaytowers.com
SKYWAY TOWERS
SLN PLANNING
SHAWN L. NICKEL
(208) 794-3013
shawnOslnplanning.com
CONTACT INFORMATION
T—STAR WIRELESS SERVICES LLC.
TRACY HERMANN
(541) 610-3445
tracyOtstarwi reless.com
R0
SITE NAME: NORTH EAGLE
SITE ID: ID -01052
VICINITY MAP
ky�M
EFba1ng Feadw Ra
e ,..a a
-'ti„w
SITE LOCATI
EaN
44
es
mir$ avatar
r.1
ET ra9aA
SKYWAY TOWERS
RAW LAND
MONO -PINE TOWER
i; }
644
W/ ROW Pk
W u,da
LOCAL MAP
cs p1 e6%
M
N Spyglass
SITE LOCATION
NOT TC SCALE
DRIVING DIRECTIONS DO
DIRECTIONS FROM: BOISE AIRPORT, ID DEPART W AIRPORT WAY
TOWARD S VISTA AVE 0.3 MI BEAR RIGHT ONTO S VISTA AVE TAKE
RAMP LEFT FOR 1-84 W / US -30 W 7.2 MI AT EXIT 46, TAKE RAMP
RIGHT FOR ID -55 NORTH TOWARD McCALL 0.4 MI TURN RIGHT ONTO
10-55 N / S EAGLE RD 6.5 MI KEEP STRAIGHT NAME CHANGES TO
N EAGLE RD 0.5 MI TURN RIGHT ONTO E RANCH DR 0.6 1,11 TURN
RIGHT ONTO N EAGLE HILLS WAY 0.6 MI
ARRIVE AT 43.69773, —116.33977 ON THE RIGHT
NOT SCALE DRAWINGS
SUBCONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL PLANS & EXISTING
DIMENSIONS & CONDITIONS ON THE JOB SITE & SHALL
IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE ENGINEER IN WRITING OF ANT
DISCREPANCIES BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK OR
BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SAME.
Calls•
Before You
Digi
DIG LINE, INC.
IDAHO 811
(800) 342-1585 OR 811
www.digline.com
3 WORKING DAYS UTILITY
NOTIFICATION PRIOR TO
CONSTRUCTION
Lc/
CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT
SITE PLAN
DRAWING INDEX
SHEET SHEET TITLE
T-1 TITLE SHEET
C-1 OVERALL SITE PLAN
C-2 ENLARGED SITE PLAN
C-3 PROPOSED PHASE -1 ELEVATION
C-4 PROPOSED PAHSE-2 ELEVATION
SKYWAY TOWERS
2025 AMBERFIELD DRIVE
SUR 102
LAND O'LAKES, FL. 34638
T -STAR WIRELESS
SERVICES LLC.
457 E BEACON UGHT RD
EAGLE, ID. 83616
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
REVISIONS
TLH
TLH
12/03/14 ISSUED FOR REVIEW TLH
REV DATE DESCRIPTION INT
SITE INFORMATION
NORTH EAGLE
611 N EAGLE HILLS
WAY,
EAGLE, ID. 83616
RAW LAND
SHEET TITLE:
TITLE SHEET
SHEET NUMBER:
T-1 J
•—'�
L
OVERALL SITE PLAN
m1w 1 •
•293'-11'
D
�PROPOSED
95" MONOPINE
IJ +
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
v
FAIRWAY #2 EAGLE HILLS GOLF
COURSE
PROPOSED 50'x75' COMPOUND
ORY
EEK
CANAL.
FUTURE 95' MONOPINE
PROPOSED
TURN AROUND
e0UN0'
' OM��' 011 ,,,�
•
4,0
az
(o
03
w
11x17 SCALE: 1 "= 60'-O" I 0 30'
22x34 SCALE: 1"= 30'-0"
(17)
SKYWAY TOWERS
2025 AMBERFIELD DRIVE
SUIT 102
LAND O'LAKES, FL. 34638
T -STAR WIRELESS
SERVICES LLC.
457 E BEACON UGHT RD
EAGLE. ID. 83616
UCENSE NO.:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
REVISIONS
TLH
TLH
01/24/15 ISSUED FOR REVIEW TUI
REV DATE DESCRIPTION INT
SITE INFORMATION
NORTH EAGLE
611 N EAGLE HILLS
WAY,
EAGLE, ID. 83616
RAW LAND
SHEET TinE:
OVERALL SITE
PLAN
SHEET NUMBER:
60' 120' J ` C — 1
PROPOSED CONCEALMENT
LANDSCAPING
PROPOSED 5394sqft AREA
INCLUDING CONCEALMENT
LANDSCAPING
PROPOSED 95'-0" MONO—PINE
PROPOSED 11'-6"x28'
EQUIPMENT SHELTER
•
FUTURE CARRIER
LOCATION
0000+0 Opp..i!NXP PCI0000000061ProPOPfOPPpp• .?
11 11 11 , 1
IRRIGATION FOR NEW
LANDSCAPING TO
TAP INTO EXISTING
IRRIGATION UNES
•
PROPOSED 11'-6"x28'
EQUIPMENT SHELTER
PROPOSED 8' HIGH
CEDAR FENCE
SITE NOTES:
1. TOWER FOUNDATION WILL BE ENGINEERED BY
OTHERS.
2. TOTAL SOFT OF AREA TO BE USED INCLUDING
LANDSCAPING 4461sgft.
3. FENCE TO BE CONSTRUCTED OF CEDAR PLANKS.
ENLARGED SITE PLAN
•
12'-0" ACCESS
GATE
i
le•W 4
...r 4-:4- 4- r 4- ,.r 4- 4 .�• 3• - s .4 4 4 4 .r ,.Ya,3-; •s ,.s :.3•:.3:x: y:-s_y._y, .>
SITE TO BE FILLED
WITH CRUSHED
ROCK OVER WEED
BARRIER
7E.
FUTURE CARRIER
LOCATION
. •ri •
�.�r.'!•r • •• .
FUTURE 95'-0" MONO—PINE
PROPOSED 8' HIGH NORTHERN
PRIVET HEDGE PLANTED ON 6'
CENTERS IN 5 GALLON POTS
4
PROPOSED TURN
AROUND
11x17 SCALE: 1/16"= 1'-0" 0 8'
22x34 SCALE: 1 /8"= 1'-0" momM_s
f
SKYWAY TOWERS
2025 AMBERFIELD DRIVE
SUR 102
LAND O'LAKES, FL. 34838
T -STAR WIRELESS
SERVICES LLC.
457 E BEACON LIGHT RD
EAGLE. ID. 83816
UCENSE NO.:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
REVISIONS
TLH
TLH
/24/l5ISSUED FOR REVIEW TIN
REV DATE DESCRIPTION INT
SITE INFORMATION
NORTH EAGLE
611 N EAGLE HILLS
WAY,
EAGLE, ID. 83616
RAW LAND
SHEET TITLE:
ENLARGED SITE
PLAN
SHEET NUMBER:
16'
100' TOP OF MONO-PINE BRANCHES
••
PROPOSED 95'-0"
MONOPINE
7 PROPOSED
11' -6 -x28 -
EQUIPMENT
SHELTER
7 PROPOSED 11'-6"x28'
EQUIPMENT SHELTER
- -'> ---� --�-ti--t o.v.--� 1.�'_"'; ,{ , .. • ; �T., , f. 't ti�.' ' ' ---it-it:fid- �'t 't-�'r r 't 't �'.. A--.)
. {.. t.� s. t.� t.) :. t.i t.' t t t.? {: tt s .) t. -r�
I. .irt w Sfi\'s«t{'Ff t J._ J, 7 r ��J t J 1 J .1. r .1 t_ 1 1_,1 1
"� ,,y1 ),. .,..1. ;-,,--••.1- <1...,i Zi.�i�Jftj. . j{. -. t-j-G�trt'Ajfatr}fY.jt1 . %• _t'fv t�� t t�• i'•t f• f t C.�t f, lf' Cf.}t,�t;.lf%}t 2t f.3r 2t. J,f•:
;s:���?; ?�.�tt � J,t f�1t'�� � z: i-. �?- _ _ . �_ f.�_ %_ .?; _ %;.1. J � 1 .1, } } l _
t t . ls.i' L t "l c i c� �t t �rl}'{ cI� t {�iit+ i i.t•�jtF'i {'1'i:i i�i.�Y?iY{ rvf��iW �'t✓ i� `c ,�• ii'�t' i{' L�SL - t�Ji : t�3 _ t�Jt, . Lt;.. `� {t't;..,L�
,?.r r r [ ,.?. F ,.?t;rt tc'ti�Z�-Idt: t r tt' L tgti� c- t�"fi"trt t . rt�t ttjttpi-,t3t tL3t• f'3t" f'�; t'�t: 'j '� 'j 'J '3 '3
t t'Tit�L"Rt�t1t_ e., �f fir,' r.?; {J'- 3 1 1 > tic t,Jt t;>c cit - eJ_
-r` ` a i `a s 't. h ;, _. 1?'L� r `r— F ' '. 1, C �s ' �1 !F s ' :ff r�'' ff J, _ _ Sf sf''R••,::z -::J ,
,'tL't�t 1-7-_,..,,;14-,�,c.:,.ir-:.-r-fr;: f., z `: la :`[.- tt :.�� r r =
��` '�1�� 1.1..=4.-2��, { � `�'`1�`�` `�`1 f'``�```�``�` N �``1*/N7/ • `�`", N'`� `� `�`�N.�`' ` f`/`#���1��`� `f�`� ��`���``� %V41
41.
N.`��l���.*��' �,!~i•"!,.f./ /,1•�iit,i'*' �,, ./ 1�1�111j, ti.
11x17 S Olt : 3 32"= 1'-0" I 0
22x34 SCALE: 3/16"= 1'-0" ■
PROPOSED 8' CEDAR FENCE
CONCEALED BEHIND NORTHERN
PRIVET SHRUB
`I PROPOSED PHASE -1 SOUTH ELEVATION
8'
16'
SKYWAY TOWERS
2025 AMBERF1ELD DRIVE
SUIT 102
LAND MAKES. FL 34638
T -STAR WIRELESS
SERVICES LLC.
457 E BEACON UGI -1T RD
EAGLE. ID. 83616
UCENSE NO.:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
REVISIONS
TLH
TLH
31/24/15 ISSUED FOR REVIEW TUt
REV DATE DESCRIPTION INT
SITE INFORMATION
NORTH EAGLE
611 N EAGLE HILLS
WAY,
EAGLE, ID. 83616
RAW LAND
SHEET T1TLE:
PHASE -1
ELEVATION
SHEET NUMBER:
/ \ C-3
J
PROPOSED
MONOPINE
PROPOSED
11'-6"x28"
EQUIPMENT
SHELTER
95'-0"
PROPOSED 11'-6"x28'
EQUIPMENT SHELTER
Me iflZol�'Id:I•II;i1;13E==C13!'
FUTURE 95'-0"-N,
MONOPINE
1I PROPOSED PHASE -2 SOUTH ELEVATION
t '•tSS S -Jr r-+, .�-+ S -i S-- f -I {', i'f'• {','iT'{_•'{•P_:, FT'r. 'F. T-_
.1.. ./ � J'. �n t•3f�f.�r}f.�. }f.� �f•�f:1 ,1f r;Fr
tti L_ `_r�,- S iL� L C t� S S •
S S� t t3 T �S3 t tj S L S S L
t�z�trt�-L�t tt'y'�rjt'�t�'s� jc'� t r•r t'�rir''rzt
rr t t\ t L rr rC rJ►" t r r i r�r� t�4t t, t•:. r r: c �•. • i`. t= J.. Y.. {:. �{ rT� .
Derr ��r�O�D�rr�rii�Wi�rr�" -fl ayr1O�i 0`rr�O�rrrr�G�rr�G�rr�Orr 41*..
j�j�l �jr���jr��j! 4 ��r l�� e43(., �j��j `�j�j� ��jNr��rf��jr�r�jl�rl��r��Ii�r�.
r!r�!r•r��!r��*--?•/,•:-/.. ir�rr�S �r >
11x17 SCALE: 3/32"= 1'-0"
22x34 SCALE: 3/16"= 1'-0"
PROPOSED 8' CEDAR FENCE
CONCEALED BEHIND NORTHERN
PRIVET SHRUB
0 8'
mi—wwimms
(10
SKYWAY TOWERS
2025 AMBERFIELD DRIVE
SUIT 102
LAND MAKES, FL. 34638
T -STAR WIRELESS
SERVICES LLC.
457 E BEACON LIGHT RD
EAGLE. ID. 83616
LICENSE NO.:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
REVISIONS
31/24/15 ISSUED FOR REVIEW
REV DATE DESCRIPTION
SITE INFORMATION
NORTH EAGLE
TLH
TLH
TW
INT
611 N EAGLE HILLS
WAY,
EAGLE, ID. 83616
RAW LAND
SHEET TITLE:
PHASE -2
ELEVATION
SHEET NUMBER:
,6' �� C-4
T -STAR WIRELESS
ID -01052 North Eagle - Looking South, (2) 95' monopines. 01/24/15
Before
SKYWAY TOWERS
(PHOTO IS FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY)
After
T -STAR WIRELESS
ID -01052 North Eagle - Looking North, (2) 95' monopines. 01/24/15
Before
(10
SKYWAY TOWERS
(PHOTO IS FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY)
After
T -STAR WIRELESS
ID -01052 North Eagle looking East (2) 95ft monopines 01/24/15
Before
SKYWAY TOWERS
(PHOTO IS FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY)
After
T -STAR WIRELESS
ID -01052 North Eagle - Looking West, (2) 95' monopines. 01/24/15
Before
SKYWAY TOWERS
(PHOTO IS FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY)
After