99-foot cell tower near Chino Valley

Questioned the applicant's misleading letter, the claimed 'industrial area' screening, health effects, floodplain placement, and property value losses.

Cited studies on health effects of RF radiation and property value losses near towers; her home overlooks the proposed site.

His property borders the site; cited the 2025 federal court ruling, the 70-signature petition, flood zone access issues, and unconsidered alternatives on state land.

Called Pinnacle a middleman acting for Sun State Towers, said there's no documented capacity crisis, and urged the Board to uphold the 7-1 denial.

Said the tower could cut property values 10-30% and the applicant should have found alternative higher ground.

Said the flood zone is an inappropriate site, the neighborhood has good service, and seniors depend on property sales for living costs.

Moved there in 1990 partly for buried utilities and open views; called the tower an eyesore and pointed to state land and Table Mountain alternatives.

Worried about having to look at the tower and the undisclosed taller array panels atop it.

Asked the Board to personalize the decision — would they want this monstrosity next door blocking their view?

Appealed directly to Supervisor Kuknyo's stated commitment to rural lifestyle and asked him to vote no.