2020-10-01 Exh B New Cingular Wireless USE 19-000082

Home

AU: Okay, thank you for those answers you know I do share the same concerns as my fellow Commissioner Clarkson has about your organization just not even trying to get a new lease and moving it 50 feet away within the same property. It kind of raises questions like, it raises questions for me that our organization rather go through litigation and just to try and get a new lease and take that route. But you know we are here today, you know and we did get the remand from the U.S. District Court so, again we are here where we at today and we cannot use health reasons as a concern. But I do share the same comments and the same sentiments as Commissioner Clarkson. So, thank you for that— TOMLINSON: That's understood. I would also like to clarify if we did make a 50-foot move hypothetically within that area we would also have issues with proximity to the HOA office as well as the property line and the Maku`u Drive behind us. So, the location would have other factors being involved that would constrain it. Thank you. RAFFIPIY: Thank you very much, Mr. Replogle you are on. Mr. Replogle? REPLOGLE: Okay, I had it on mute. Thank you and thank you Mr. Tomlinson. So, I'm hearing about public safety and how much this tower will help protect our citizens and in this time of online education for students having good access is important. Things are as they are at this moment but, people have brought up in new testimony today with regards to having the towers checked, I've heard quarterly but I don't see why it could be bi-annually or annually for emissions or anything that the public right now is supremely concerned about and other people with science backgrounds claim there is no problem. My question or proposal to you Mr. Tomlinson and the rest of you is that you don't come before us again with a tower without having that available for the public. So, in essence you were saying hey, if you were physically hurt by this tower you can sue us, and we are going to test it at a certain time in each year to see if there is emissions or not. With that in place you would in essence be pacifying everyone I believe and if there were problems you would want to address them and if there are no problems then you are giving the public peace of mind. So, public safety would be the main goal all the way around for the tower. Hey, that's my input to the cell tower people rather than have us have to go through this every single time you guys come and we're going to approve it but, you know, come on give us something. Anyway, thank you. TOMLINSON: Can I respond Chairman? Just to clarify. RAFFIPIY: Go ahead. TOMLINSON: As part of our application AT&T provides an analysis of the maximum permissible emissions report which it basically shows in layman's terms shows what the emissions would be as proposed for the tower and it is less than the basically the worst case scenario and that's less than one percent of the FCC's standard at ground level. The FCC regulates AT&T as well as other vendors that's part of the FCC jurisdiction for telecommunications towers. So, as part of our application we do provide that information on a worst-case scenario. EXHIBIT B 17