Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PC 2020/07/07 2018-2020Committee on Planning 25th Session Hawaii County Building 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawai i July 7, 2020 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Planning was called to order at ORDER: 1:21 p.m., in the Council Chambers, Hilo, by Ms. Ashley Kierkiewicz, Chair. ROLL CALL Present: Ms. Ashley Kierkiewicz, Chair Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Vice Chair Mr. Aaron S. Y. Chung, Member Ms. Maile Medeiros David, Member (via videoconference from Kona) Ms. Karen Eoff, Member (via videoconference from Kona) Mr. Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Member Ms. Valerie T. Poindexter, Member Mr. Herbert M. "Tim" Richards, III, Member Ms. Rebecca Villegas, Member (via videoconference from Kona) STATEMENTS The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, FROM THE Statements from the Public on Agenda Items. PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS: The following individuals registered to speak and came forward when called by the Chair: Jaerick Medeiros-Garcia: Res. 678-20 (Comm. 986), in support. Eugene Elmer: Res. 678-20 (Comm. 986), in support. Ikaika Rodenhurst: Res. 678-20 (Comm. 986), comment. Sherilyn Wells: Res. 678-20 (Comm. 986), in support. Mara Stevens: Res. 678-20 (Comm. 986), in support. Mary Colton: Res. 678-20 (Comm. 986), in support. Donna Herbst: Res. 678-20 (Comm. 986), in support. Michael Silveria: Res. 678-20 (Comm. 986), in support. PC -25 COMMUNI- CATIONS: July 7, 2020 Roger Christie: Res. 678-20 (Comm. 986), in support. (representing the Hawaii Cannabis THC Ministry) Jack Ebner: Res. 678-20 (Comm. 986), in support. Michele Provost: Res. 678-20 (Comm. 986), in support. Manuela Chamberlin: Res. 678-20 (Comm. 986), in support. Sonny Kelly: Res. 678-20 (Comm. 986), in support. Thornton E. Chamberlin: Res. 678-20 (Comm. 986), in support. Gene Tamashiro: Res. 678-20 (Comm. 986), in support. Carolyn Pellett: Res. 678-20 (Comm. 986), in support. Barbara Garcia: Res. 678-20 (Comm. 986), in support. Naomi Melamed: Res. 678-20 (Comm. 986), in support. Jackie Gomes: Res. 678-20 (Comm. 986), in support. Yoav Melamed: Res. 678-20 (Comm. 986), in support. Julie -Mae Stitz: Res. 678-20 (Comm. 986), in support. Marlies Lee: Res. 678-20 (Comm. 986), in support. Jerne Willis: Res. 678-20 (Comm. 986), in support. Laura Acasio: Res. 678-20 (Comm. 986), in support. Rabbi Rachel Short: Res. 678-20 (Comm. 986), in support. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, thank you, closing public testimony at this time. The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, Communications. (There were none.) Page 2 PC -25 July 7, 2020 CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Clerk, when you are ready, if we could move forward with business of today starting with Order of Resolutions. ORDER OF The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, Order RESOLUTIONS: of Resolutions. Res. 678-20: CALLS UPON ALL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANIES AND PUBLIC UTILITIES OPERATING IN HAWAII COUNTY TO CEASE THE BUILDOUT OF 5G WIRELESS INFRASTRUCTURE UNTIL SUCH TECHNOLOGIES HAVE BEEN PROVEN THROUGH INDEPENDENT RESEARCH AND TESTING TO BE SAFE TO HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT Reference: Comm. 986 Intr. by: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder Motion to Approve: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder moved to recommend adoption of Res. 678-20. Seconded by Ms. Poindexter. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, go ahead. MR. KANEALII-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. My name is Matt Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. I'd like to start by saying that Resolution 678-20 has a nice number. I like 6-7-8 and I like numbers. It has nothing to do with existing cellphone infrastructure and only to do with the deployment of 5G (fifth generation) technology. So we don't get confused on our talking points later on. We do not need 5G in order for our cellphones to work, and we have further options that address in connectivity and increases in connectivity in our County. As a side note, I learned that Maui County is having a similar discussion at this very moment, actually today, July 7 1 regarding 5G in the County of Maui. Over the past year I have been bombarded by calls and emails from citizens voicing their concerns over deployment in our County and State of 5G technology. I have also been involved in some of the cellphone towers, and Mike Yee has been very helpful, in the discussions on what rights we do and don't have as a County. In light of other counties, states, and countries limiting the rollout of this technology, residents around the island asked me to put this legislation forward to address the public safety concerns inherent in this new technology. I do appreciate the concerns of the opponents of the resolution, including the telecom lobbyists, Capital Consultants from Oahu. My reply is simple. There has been no study to date that shows the technology is safe. I am concerned for the safety and wellbeing of our citizens. I have concerns for the densely populated Page 3 PC -25 July 7, 2020 areas like schools and neighborhoods where 5G deployment will be as frequent as every 250 feet. That's about every three houses. I look forward to discussion today. I understand that Mike Yee from Planning is here, and I think Corporation Counsel has a member here to answer any of our legal questions as well. Mike could you come up? And I do appreciate you being here. Sue Lee Loy asked that we move this to Planning today instead of Public Works, which I found interesting given that Public Works is going to be at the center of our Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to allow the County to enter into an agreement with different telecom providers for the use of our poles as 5G sites. So, thank you for being here, appreciate it. Are we implementing 5G in our County yet, Sir? (Note: At this time, Planning Director Michael Yee came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. YEE: I should say, I'm Michael Yee, Planning Director. Based on communications from the larger ones like Verizon and say AT&T, they have not implemented 5G on the island yet. To my knowledge, there's no 5G on the island yet. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, I appreciate that. And then it looks like we have other counties that have, yes? MR. YEE: I don't know about other counties. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, but I guess my concern will be that we're being used as the guinea pigs for other places in the country and that does concern me. MR. YEE: I would confirm, yes you're right in that they have approached DPW (Department of Public Works) about the small cell issue on stuff, but that's not my jurisdiction. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Understood. MR YEE: I would confirm, that's what I certainly know about. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. That's why I was interested to see why it moved to Planning today, but that's okay. You are here, that's the main thing. How does our County interact with providers who want to install 5G networks? MR. YEE: I would say right now, it's not necessarily for 5G, but in terms of infrastructure for cellphone towers, it's certainly been the primary, you know, Page 4 PC -25 July 7, 2020 flashpoint in that many people believe that these towers that are being proposed will be used someday for 5G. It's certainly a potential. Again, if you know the type of technology, it's not necessarily going up on these large cellphone towers, but that certainly becomes the issue. And I think the simplicity of it has been that the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) Telecommunications Act of 1996 restricts us having to not issue permits for health reasons around telecommunication cellphone towers. Okay, and so when we get a cellphone tower application for the Planning Commission, I certainly make a recommendation to the commission. It's up to the commission to make the decision. So I don't want to sit there and say, "I have the power to say aye or nay to a cellphone tower." MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Before we get too far into this part, sorry I cut you off. MR. YEE: No, go ahead. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Alright, we're talking about cellphone towers now. And then, so you're saying 5G can be put on a cellphone tower or because I was under the assumption it came on these smaller poles within, you know, County rights-of-way, that's why we discussed the MOA two weeks ago. MR. YEE: Correct. That's my basic knowledge of it. I think the fear has been that these larger cellphone towers are going to implement 5G on them. I'm not sure, like I said, I can't confirm or deny whether or not that's what the cellphone tower companies plan to do. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. And then I guess something we talked about before was, do they have to come back to the County to ask permission if they upgrade technology on some of the towers if we were going to go down that route. MR. YEE: And generally, no, that wouldn't be our jurisdiction, to determine, you know, whether or not 4G (fourth generation) or 5G is appropriate. It's not our jurisdiction to make that determination. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So a tower's up, anything can go on the tower. MR. YEE: Generally speaking, from Planning aspect, yeah, we don't control that. Page 5 PC -25 July 7, 2020 MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, that's why we're here today. We're going to discuss it, yeah? You know, so we come down to talk about this Federal Telecommunications Act. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Matt, I'm sorry to interrupt you. I don't mean to interrupt. The Clerk just informed me that we might need to do a reset so we can get our captioning back. Is that okay? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yeah. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: That way, all folks have all access to this conversation. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yeah. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, great, so we're in recess. Thank you. Recess: At 2:46 p.m., the Chair called for a recess. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 2:48 p.m. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Matt, you had the floor. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. Because we have the FCC, Federal Telecommunications Act, yeah? Did I say that right? MR. YEE: Correct. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. 1996. It's 2020, so it's 24 -years -old. So 24 years ago the Feds got it together and wrote an act, or the FCC wrote an act to, you know, describe how we go forward as a nation in telecommunications rollout, different technologies. Before we even invented 2G, we wrote an act describing how we go forward. But now we're sitting three generations pass where we were when that bill came about. And that was when, I think just going back through the timeline there wasn't even a flip -phone yet when we wrote that Telecommunications Act. That was like, when the first ones my grandparents had which was that huge bulky cellphone you stuck against your head, or people that may be on this Council right now would have had that technology. No, just kidding. So given the history on that, you know, I have some concerns that it's outdated. And they could not have possibly have seen how far ahead we'd be now with technology. So I'm just putting it out there. But, you know, a lot of people today as well as myself I was under the assumption we had no power to discuss anything regarding the rollout of technology on the Page 6 PC -25 July 7, 2020 wireless telecommunication industry. But upon reading this act, this section does give us the ability as a State to impose requirements that are necessary to protect the public's safety, general welfare of our citizens. That's in Section 253(b) (Federal Communications Commission Act). So that in my eyes, and maybe Corporation Counsel. You have wonderful timing today, Joe. Maybe you could enlighten us as to whether we do have say here, and we're not just at the pull of the companies to tell us where we're going to put these new devices. And that's really where the basis was for this resolution. I try not to do things off the cuff, but I think we do have a say in what we do here. And, you know, speaking on behalf of the citizens who are concerned they're outside and everyone in Kona; and of the 150 testimonies we got in support of the resolution, I just want to make sure that we're listening to our constituency. MR. YEE: So, yeah, I'll reserve comment on 253(b) for Corporation Counsel to address that. I will say, yes, telecommunications after 1996, you don't have to convince me that it's outdated. It's also Federal law, and as Planning Director I have limited ability to move within the confines of how I have to act. And you know, I have to strike the balance between advising the commission to act lawfully within the codes that we have to act within while protecting the County from, you know, litigation, appeals, which we already see just on the cellphone tower, not even for 5G; we see those appeals. And so, you know, it's a tough balance. I would love that the Feds, Congress, you know, revise the Telecommunications Act. There's no doubt that would answer and save us a lot of problem, time. Hopefully, if they were to do that. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. MR. YEE: But we know how right now Federal Government seems to be dysfunctional, so I'm not sure that's about to happen real soon in the timeline that we're looking for. So it leaves the question over, which is what you're fishing for, what ability do we have to understand what are the safety, you know, hazards with this? You know, I have the same question. I think people might think that I just haphazardly recommend the cellphone towers, but I have a wife that's born and raised here; I have elderly in-laws here; I have a five-year-old growing up here. So I care just as much as anybody else whether or not this is safe. But until I as Planning Director receives, you know, the authority to be able to weigh in differently than a favorable recommendation, I have to also watch out for County resources. If we want to take an action that goes against Federal Law, that's a big deal, and most people don't have to live with that consequence of having to fight that fight. Page 7 PC -25 July 7, 2020 And if I make that from a planning decision point of view, I'm the one having to pick up that fight. And so, I think we have to be thoughtful, which you're trying to do; understand the options we have to push back. I'm not an expert on it. You know from my previous recommendations that if it's on health reasons, I'm not going to lean that way because of the Telecommunications Act. Planning has certainly pushed back on cellphone towers around safety issues around fall zones; proximity to other residences, and we try to leverage that as much as possible. Try to place it on a site, but we have limited ability in terms of how we can push around too much on the cellphone tower. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I think you also touched on co -location on existing towers versus building new towers. MR. YEE: Correct. We always ask that first, yes. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: But then again, this is more regarding 5G in Hawaii. And the only reason you're saying this is because 5G could be implemented on large cellphone towers without any County jurisdiction at all. MR. YEE: Correct. Right. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, good. Joe, can you come up please? I just have a real basic question about this Federal Telecommunications Act and this Section 253(b). And I don't know if you have had time to review it. You may have already and have a better understanding than I do being that you have the background that I do not. (Note: At this time, Corporation Counsel Joseph Kamelamela, came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. KAMELAMELA: Good afternoon, Joseph Kamelamela, Corp. Counsel. Thank you, Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. You know, it's been so long since I saw your name. So let me address it this way because I know there had been a lot of testimony, and it's just my understanding of the RF (radio frequency) issue that we have now. So, it's an issue that's been with the FCC for a while. Back in 2013, you know, they really started to look at this particular issue. And during that time, you know, there was some information dealing with some of the studies that people are dealing with right now, that they had testified about. And basically the FCC disagreed and then moved forward with their decision. So, actually I think I have to take this off because I'm having a hard time talking and breathing. Page 8 PC -25 July 7, 2020 MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, that's okay. We'll wear ours so you can take off yours. Because that's a kind of interesting point brought up by the community, too, that wearing a mask if you have existing conditions, can be difficult. MR. KAMELAMELA: I brought the wrong mask, that's all. Sorry about that. Anyway so, and that's why we had this controversy today. You know, it's something that was dealt back in 2013. So when I came back as Corp. Counsel back in, around 2017, you know, there was legislation being proposed already dealing with this issue. And it took about a year at least for something to be finalized and passed. So you see the State is basically on board now, you know, as to how much jurisdiction or authority the County has in this area. And basically, when we talk about the RF issue, we have none. Even if you see what you see, as long as the FCC has done its role, although some might say they're being very limited and being auspicious. You know, nonetheless, they did do something back in 2013. So, that's kind of where we are today. You know, there's really—we can't do much with the RF trying to have more studies. But there is something we can do maybe, and that's something that we're looking at is if we allow 5G equipment on the tower, nothing prevents us from perhaps asking the telecommunication company to say, "Well, if you install it, then we want to make sure that you guys do a test on it so we can satisfy the people of this County that it's safe." So that's something I think that we can do, and I think we're moving in that direction. Whether we can do more, I think I have to work with Planning and maybe Public Works a little bit more. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, yeah, just from our last conversation, not the previous Council meeting to this, because that was the Special Finance meeting we held but the one prior to that, we discussed, you know, the MOA that was written by Corporation Counsel, I believe and Sue Lee Loy's office to let, I believe that was AT&T work within County rights-of-way to install equipment. And they had outlined what kind of technology they were going to use, which did list 5G, and their goal was to sign a MOA with us to use our utility poles and whatever else lies within the County rights-of-way. But what I found interesting is that we do have an ability to decide on the location of the equipment, but it sounds like we can also, just by gaging this one section 253(b) that are able to impose requirements that protect the public's safety and the general welfare of the constituency. And that's where I feel like we actually do have a small amount of power as a County to say, "If you don't meet, you know, or at least supply documents to say, this is safe." They have to have credentials behind that. Page 9 PC -25 July 7, 2020 MR. KAMELAMELA: Yeah, and so that's why like I mentioned MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: And it's a very basic ask, you know, right? "Can you please provide documents that protect the people of this nation, and here specifically of Hawaii County and make sure that there will be a safety component with any new technology put in." That's important. I think any other thing you're going to do, you have to do that. And if we do a large project, an EIS (Environmental Impact Study) has to be done. There has to be some kind of body of proof that what you're doing is not going to harm anyone or the environment or anything else. So I don't feel like we're overstepping. We're not preempting any law, but we are definitely doing our part and taking care of the constituents of Hawaii County. MR. KAMELAMELA: Yeah, and that's why I mentioned that I think we'll take the extra step that we're trying to do is to have them test to make sure that whatever's being transmitted, you know, is safe. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yeah, and it's more the frequency that we're talking about. You talk about 1G, 2G, 3G, 4G, 5G; it sounds like we're just taking normal steps up, but we're talking about is an increase in the wave form being emitted from that device. MR. KAMELAMELA: Well, you know, there's different types of 5G's. You get the slow one and get the fast one. So, that's something that we have to kind of look at, because maybe the frequency is not as harmful from what people might think. So that's something that we have to check up and do. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: And we do understand that we have an incredible need for connectivity. I've got it written down, $600 billion in 2018 for federal grants for fiberoptic broadband service upgrades. And then 2019, $563 million from the FCC for broadband fiber again. Mostly for rural upgrades in our communities. My district is in incredible need for, you know, upgrades to our connectivity, but it does not mean that we have to have 5G to make those upgrades. And I do wonder, you know, are we going to see any kind of cost benefit when it comes to our bill if we do input this technology. I would guess, no. We're going to get probably a spike in our bill for the increased service. So in a lot of ways, you know, I have some worries about this of my own. Okay, thank you, I'm going to yield to my other Council Members. I appreciate you both being here and answering questions and for this discussion. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. I want to give the ladies and opportunity in Kona to ask any questions or make comments. Page 10 PC -25 July 7, 2020 MS. EOFF: Not at this time, thank you. Can you check back with us? CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Sure. Anyone here in Hilo? Okay, Ms. Poindexter, go ahead. MS. POINDEXTER: I want to just say, thank you, Matt for, you know, bringing this in for public discussion and allowing the testimony to be heard. One of testifiers, well a couple of them are from my district. And we were concerned about cell towers period, not necessarily just with 5G. 5G of course is more alarming, but what they already have in Pepe`ekeo. And concerned that, you know, that County's land that was leased out in perpetuity, which is scary, because you know, how do we monitor that? Or because it's in perpetuity, so that lease is there and they're just building whatever they want to build. And a lot of times, they try to stay under the 200 feet because as soon as you hit 200 feet or more then FCC gets involved. But when you're below that, they're not involved. It supposed to be our PUC (Public Utilities Commission) here. But then when we checked, the PUC is really not monitoring it. So, you know, nobody's monitoring anything, and they're just doing whatever they want, and the County is saying, "We cannot do anything about it because that is lease land in perpetuity." So we're trying to find out—from the last time I had a meeting with the Mayor's Office, Corp. Counsel is going to look into, you know, things that they may not been in compliance with the lease—is the only way that we could probably look at that lease and maybe kind of pull back on it or whatever. So I understand the public's outcry, because a couple of them who testified, like I said, were from Pepe`ekeo. We had a meeting in Pepe`ekeo and a lot of people came out. And what is, you know, when people say, "Oh it's not going to affect your health and we're just fearmongering and it's like, it's not science, you guys are putting all this ... " However, if there was a health study to be done in Pepe`ekeo and the amount of people with cancer and have died from cancer—even a young girl. The father came to one of the meetings and it threw me back because I know how it feels to lose a child. He threw his daughter's ponytail on the table in front of us all. That's all he has left of her because she died from cancer too. Older people who are struggling with cancer came to that meeting. They said the vibes in their home, the vibrations; the sound. You know, we have all this testimony, but nobody wants to consider that as scientific facts, but it's human facts. We're getting it directly from the people's Page 11 PC -25 July 7, 2020 voices and their experiences, and their families, and people who have died in that community. So I understand where you're coming from when you're talking, and those probably are not 5G I hope. So Matt bringing this up on 5G definitely, we should definitely not allow that on our island or in our State until studies can be made. I agree with that totally, wholeheartedly. And with that said, I would also like to start investigating where already exists. And is the PUC monitoring any of them, because a lot of them are staying under 200 feet, so FCC does not regulate it. So I drive by going to KTA and I look on the side by the service station and I see this huge cell towers. And I'm goingI don't want to say the bad word, but it's crazy, the amount of that. And we talk about the health risks. We're allowing all of this without even studying the health risks. Yet, if you look at people dying and that maybe connected to that, we've got to somehow prioritize it. And so, for the County, and I know you have to follow whatever our rules and the laws and everything it says, but I know for a fact we had leased land that is full of cell towers. I don't know how we can address that or what loopholes or whatever went on. One thing I know for sure is we should never do a lease in perpetuity, period. That is ridiculous and I don't know even how that even passed at that moment. But, so I'm concerned. Thank you for bringing it up on 5G. I don't support it, but I also don't support all these buildings of any cell towers until we start looking at the health risks. Because we haven't and we just keep piling it on. So, sorry, I just kind of went over and beyond. Thank you, Chair, I yield at this time. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: You're fine, Ms. Poindexter. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. Interesting conversation. And Michael as you understand it's under the FCC, isn't it Federal law that mandates? They have jurisdiction over all of the communication? Do I understand that correctly, and maybe that's a question for Joe as well? MR. KAMELAMELA: Yes. MR. RICHARDS: And I don't disagree with the concern for health and wellbeing as we go forward because that's what we're all sitting here for. This has been a circling conversation for quite some time. And also the FCC guidelines, obviously they need to be updated. I think government doesn't move very quickly and we who are sitting up here realize that quite well. But nonetheless, that '96 date is quite outdated. I don't disagree with that. Page 12 PC -25 July 7, 2020 Everything that I have looked into; conversation if we're going to talk about radio frequency concerns it's not for one, it's for all. And trying to figure out what the best way to go forward with this. I don't think there's anybody up here on the Council that doesn't have a cellphone. And so we all accept the risk of having this, because this is emitting it right now. My concern is when we see, you know, like for instance the wireless earbuds and things like that. Those are all emitting radio frequencies that are potentially concerning. And it comes down for me, the risk benefit of what we're talking about here now. Last week we just had a conversation about our cows and I got all excited about that, because any time we talk about cows but in this situation, we're talking about the cellular on wheels. And going back and forth with the balancing, we have communities that do not have connectivity. And we saw the desperate need, especially in this pandemic of having that connectivity. And I like the fact of fiber optics. That's great, except the infrastructure costs and the timeline to get that in is excessive. It takes a long time to actually to get that done. This is something sitting on the National Association of Counties Executive Board. Connectivity for our County as a whole is huge. We're talking about the urban centers and they're connected, but we get out to the Country and that's where we have a lot of problems. It's because the miles of distance that we are going to have to install cable or fiber optic, whatever the case may be. And the relatively low number of people on those, so how do we get that done? Wireless has connected us for a lot of different things. Now, like again, I don't discount the concern for anything that we do going forward. But then we have the risk benefit of what we're looking for. How do we balance that as a whole? Val, you know, you made a comment about seeing all these cell towers. It's interesting, the closer you get to anything emitting this radio frequency emissions, it becomes more concerning. But we have accepted it with the cellphones. How do we go forward? Do we go retroactively? Would people be—this poses a real interesting question for us as a community as a whole, because what is acceptable and what is not acceptable as far as acceptable risks? We all accept the risk of driving a car. And the connectivity that we need as a community as a whole is huge. During the emergencies, being able to communicate to people is critical, and having the infrastructure to do that. That's why we're talking about using this COVID-19 money to install more cell towers and abilities. We were talking about, 40 cows to deploy? So now, how do we pick this as a Legislative body, and how do we evaluate the risk benefit? And I think I'm enjoying this conversation. I like the real quick answer that Joe gives. This is an FCC call, but when we talk about 5G, we talk about 4G. I've looked into it. Can anybody explain the difference between 5G and 4G, both technically and just in the lay terms? I don't think anybody really up here in the Council has Page 13 PC -25 July 7, 2020 the credentials that articulate the differences. And I think, Chair, I'm going to yield right now, because it's a very interesting conversation. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, and I'm going to throw us into another recess. We need to just kick start the system again so that we can bring our closed captioning back. We're in recess. Recess: At 3:13 p.m., the Chair called for a recess. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 3:15 p.m. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thanks for your patience. Alright, at this point, Council Member Richards, you've just yielded the floor. Anybody else with questions or comments on this resolution before us? MS. DAVID: Chair Kierkiewicz? This is Maile. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Yes, hi Ms. David, you have the floor. MS. DAVID: Thank you very much. Oh, great information. Is Corp. Counsel, Mr. Kamelamela, yes, I see you there. Okay, I'm curious about what Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder spoke of with regard to the Federal statute, the Telecommunications Act. And generally, I'm looking at what you referred to, and that in Subsection (b), it basically says that nothing in this section shall affect the ability of a State to impose, on a neutral and consistent basis, requirements necessary to preserve and advance this service and also protect public safety and welfare. And also it goes on to say that nothing in that section would affect the authority of the State or local government. And I think local government brings it down to our County level to manage the public rights-of-way, and it says, or require fair and reasonable compensation from the telecommunicators or communications providers. But Mr. Kamelamela, managing the public rights-of-way, would that be means of us to provide some restrictions or processes in order to preserve and protect the welfare and public safety. I'm not sure but I see that there is a method that we could, on the County level, impose some sort of process to—whether it's a process that will allow instead of just a decision based on the Director's discretion, whether that process could include input and also inquiries into the health issues regarding this type of 5G? Is that something that we could actually implement on the County level from a legal? MR. KAMELAMELA: Okay. This is Joe Kamelamela. I just want to say that when we talk about the RF exposure limits, you know, it's pretty set. So that's Page 14 PC -25 July 7, 2020 something that we cannot change, because that's part of the law that we're faced with. So one of the mechanisms that we're using when we go to try and make an agreement or when we do make an agreement, is the idea of what we can do to insure safety. And so the thought that came out, because I talked to one of our deputies, Danny Patel, was when they install, you know, have them test and based on the test, it'll give us some idea as to whether there's an undo health concern at that moment. So that's something that we're pushing, you know, right now with one of the companies that we're dealing with right now. Does that help at all? MS. DAVID: Well I was thinking more along the lines of, you just mentioned that after installation then some kind of process could be generated. But I'm thinking more along the lines before. I know you said it can't be this is a Federal issue and they have the right, but in managing our rights-of-way, I'm looking more for something prior to installation. MR. KAMELAMELA: Yeah, so I know that we have, you know, certain zoning requirements and certain laws that we look at. Because, you know, certain kinds of things, we look at issues, like, you know, is there environmental concerns, is that something that we can look at? So we look at those kinds of things plus whatever laws we have in our Zoning Code or in our Zoning Rules that allows us to set certain kinds of conditions, you know. And so each site may be different. And in some of the County sites we do have towers. So there are other issues that come into play when we deal with towers. Because on our towers we have Civil Defense Telecommunication there and then, you know, we want to make sure that it doesn't get interfered with. MS. DAVID: Okay, but all those things on those towers, if it falls within a County right-of-way, is there a process before we even decide to allow that to be placed in a public right-of-way? Similar to how DPW has to have a declaration of clearance before they even do a roadway repaving project that they have to certify or declare that there is no environmental issues or like an EA (Environmental Assessment) is not necessary. That's what I'm asking. MR. KAMELAMELA: Yeah, so there is a process, but I forgot what the timing mechanism is because there's a shot clock. Usually that's involved. Once they make an application, you know, we haveI don't know, is it 30, 60 days? I kind of forgot it, you know right now, for us to respond— MS. DAVID: Wait, there is a timeline to respond, and what I'm asking is, if this telecommunication application that came forward at our prior meeting, were they already at that point? Did they already accept it as something to move forward with? Has DPW actually gone through their process of determining whether placement would be adequate? Page 15 PC -25 July 7, 2020 MR. KAMELAMELA: Yeah, so the department that we work with, you know, we would get comments from them. You know, to make sure that because they're trying to follow laws that exist now because the FCC has an order. You know, there's certain things that we cannot do. MS. DAVID: I think that's what we're trying to find out. You say there are things that we cannot do by law. And I'm just trying to figure out if there's something in the management of the public rights-of-way where they want to put this proposed 5G tower or whatever it's called in our right-of-way, is that allowed according to this Act? Allow us to actually have some sort of say or some sort of screening process before that happens. MR. KAMELAMELA: Yeah, so there is a process and I think Planning is involved. Is Planning involved in that process? MR. YEE: On the small cell? Not really. MR. KAMELAMELA: Okay, it's just the bigger towers that we're talking about, is when Planning laws—so then a lot then falls with Public Works. MS. DAVID: Okay, you know what, I'm going to yield for now and I'll try to see if I can look further into this. Thank you, I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Ms. David. Anybody else in Kona? Go ahead, Ms. Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you, Matt, for bringing this to the next level. You know, it's something that we kind of touched inadvertently in something else that came before us in Council. But it's something that since being elected and being in this position has been constantly been on the hearts and minds and lips of the people on this Island. I constantly received emails, phone calls, Facebook messages from people very concerned. Some are already convinced that we have 5G technology on the island, to which with my research, I'm happy to report from what I know and from what has been reported, we do not. We probably have the infrastructure capabilities to transition to 5G. However, that's kind of what we're looking at right now in my understanding. Essentially this resolution, Matt, if my understanding is correct, is to say to the County of Hawai` i Administration, going forward we do not want to be putting in infrastructure in that capacity, which turns our communications infrastructure into potential 5G. We have 4G right now, and as a number of our testifiers presented, even those that live in very rural off -the -grid places are able to use a hot spot to utilize. Page 16 PC -25 July 7, 2020 We also have, you know, in the CARES Act presentation, I know Riley (Saito) presented some really exciting information about mobile units that would bring the access to internet technology to more rural communities and kind of create a hub of services. I was just, you know, looking at some of the information I have here, and as we talk about the legality of approving or denying this, I found that New York, Boston, Seattle, and Portland are currently filing lawsuits against the FCC. This is four other major cities, metropolitan areas, that have gathered the courage, found the insight, and are following through with protecting their people. The potential for serious harm is massive with 5G technology. Actually, I'm reading here from the Environmental Health Trust, that the radiation from small cell towers is not small. Sometimes we think that 5G would just replace 4G and 3G, but it doesn't, it adds on. We're adding that much larger and higher frequencies, and submillimeter and millimeter waves in order to transmit data superfast. One of the other things I found really interesting is that the purpose -5G is not really about moving faster. It refers to fifth generation wireless technology intended to provide higher capacity transmissions to carry the massive data load generated by the internet of things, acronym IOT; known as robotics and smart cities, and artificial intelligence, and driverless cars; and other machine -to -machine connections. Reading through all of this information which is very easy to get access to, I'm seriously concerned. I'm very grateful for Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder bringing this forward. I would encourage our Corp. Counsel to be courageous with the potential of a lawsuit by us saying, "No" to the FCC and standing alongside some of these other large metropolitan areas who are challenging the status quo. The cumulative radiation exposure really poses serious public health risks. There are peer reviewed published science that indicates that exposure to wireless radiation can increase cancer risks, altered brain development, and damaged sperm. Wireless technology was never tested for long-term safety, and children are more vulnerable, and cumulative exposure shows harm. You know, yeah, I have a cellphone right here, but I make that decision if I'm going to be exposed to the radiation from this cellphone. Essentially, 5G is created to eventually place small cell towers, like was spoken about before, to essentially lay a whole gridwork over ideally the planet, right? I mean that's what many different ideas are, but then you have no choice about what you're being exposed to. And I don't know about you guys, but I don't feel that we're ready, especially in this day and age and the circumstances, to be putting in technology Page 17 PC -25 July 7, 2020 for driverless cars. We're still, you know, working on getting ourselves energy self-sufficient and transitioning to green energy. Which brings me to another fact about 5G, is the amount of energy that it consumes. One of the statistics here is that 5G will vastly increase energy consumption and is incompatible with Hawai`i's energy goals. Wireless energy consumption is growing at an unsustainable rate approaching five to ten percent of the world's electricity supply with the biggest culprits being data centers, and most significantly, wireless access networks. I think that the evidence speaks for itself. There are—and I could go on and on. guess I'll just finish with this, 5G frequencies are also used as weapons. Millimeter frequencies have the capacity to cause a severe burning sensation to the skin and are used by the U.S. Department of Defense in crowd control guns called Active Denial Systems. Just the fact that that is so closely tied to weapons technology concerns me. And it behooves us to take pause and to really consider, as we are already being paused by external forces and circumstances to take a pause, to reevaluate, to recalibrate and reconsider how we want Hawaii County to communicate with one another, and our technologies, what kind of resources we're going to rely on, and how we're going to come together to solve the challenges we're facing. And I don't think that 5G is a solution for any of those challenges right now. And with that, I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Ms. Villegas. Anyone else? MS. POINDEXTER: I just want to quickly say. Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, Council Member Richards said that we don't know the difference between 4G and 5G, so I went to Google it. And you know, what scared me, it says, "4G networks use frequencies below 6 gigahertz, but 5G uses extremely high frequencies in the 30 gigahertz to 300 gigahertz range." So if we're using this technology now and we chose toI would be afraid if this was a 5G. Because of the type of frequency, would I have a phone? And then, you know, I've said this over and over before that when is enough, enough? You know, we keep building things and trying to get better reception. What happened to the days when it was just the telephone? Life was so simple then. We weren't as busy because now this rings off the hook. You know, and 24/7 sometimes we're working because of it. But with the phone before and when we never had this, life was so much simpler. And we did things; we could talk to each other. You know, right now a lot of times we're texting. I mean we're just destroying society. When you look at the young kids now always on the phone, I mean it's Page 18 PC -25 July 7, 2020 crazy. So when is enough, enough? You know, I think we've reached that limit, and we're saying in Hawaii, "We don't need more." What we need to do more is concentrate on food sustainability, building our economy, all of that kind of stuff, and going back to how we use to live and talk to each other and be a family. So anyway, so yeah, thanks Matt. And I'll yield. Thank you, Chair. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Ms. Poindexter. Mr. Richards is your light on? MR. RICHARDS: Yeah it is. Val, I've got to respond to that. So explain the difference. MS. POINDEXTER: The difference is MR. RICHARDS: No, no, what does it mean? MS. POINDEXTER: The frequency, okay. If this sometimes, when I used to wear that earpiece, it gave me major headaches. MR. RICHARDS: No, but explain the difference in the science? Why does it matter? Point of Order: MR. CHUNG: Okay, wait. Madam Chairman, just point of order CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Sure, go ahead. MR. CHUNG: I think it's kind of getting off MR. RICHARDS: Yeah, I agree. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Yeah, let's stick to the subject matter at hand. And it has to do with 5G and ceasing deployment in Hawaii County. Joe? MR. KAMELAMELA: Yeah, I just wanted to finish answering Council Member Maile's question because she was asking if we could do something prior. So I just found what I need to know, but under Federal Law, for co -locations and modifications that do not result in substantial change, it requires that jurisdictions must approve the applications within 60 days, or the application is deemed granted. So there's that shot clock we do work with do work with. So I just wanted to clarify that part. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Ms. David, does that answer your question? MS. DAVID: Well, yeah, that raises another question then. Mr. Kamelamela, then where are we with respect to the deadline then on this issue? Page 19 PC -25 July 7, 2020 MR. KAMELAMELA: Yeah, so I'm familiar only with one. So you know, certain things got passed so that's why we're trying to get the agreement going so that it's clear. Well, it's not really passed, that's why we had asked for a certain provision that if they install they should test to make sure that there's no undo safety risk that's involved. MS. DAVID: Okay, maybe I think Public Works would answer this because then now you're advising us that there is an established timeline by which if the County doesn't act or do what they're supposed to do, approve the installation or review the plans for installation, if they do not do it in 60 days, then the application for this tower is approved automatically. Is that what you're saying? MR. KAMELAMELA: Yes. MS. DAVID: Okay, well I can find out where we're at, at this point in time, because I think when DPW came forward with this ledger—I'll get my answer from the department then. Yeah, I yield at this time, thanks. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, thank you, Ms. David. Any other questions, comments? Go ahead, Ms. Eoff. MS. EOFF: Okay, thank you. I'm not sure if this question would be—who this would be for, maybe Director Yee? My question is, in this reso you're asking something of the telecommunication company to cease until we can determine if this technology would be safe. But would this also need to be directed, or would it help if it was directed to our Planning Director or Public Works as well, because maybe that would give them some power to not go forward for a while? Just wondering, because of course, the telecommunication company isn't going to cease if they have the right to do something and they want to do it. But do we have any right to hold it back by giving—or when our Administration the directive through a strong reso? I'm not sure who that question's for. It just came to mind when I reread the title of the resolution. Where we're at given what information's been given by Mr. Kamelamela and Mike Yee. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Karen, if I could, that is something we struggled with in this resolution. I mean we went back and forth with LRB (Legislative Research Branch) on, which was, you know, the purpose of this. Whether we should be relaying that information to the telecommunication companies or whether that should be relayed to our Administration, and who the burden of proof should be on. And ultimately, what I found to be the heart of this matter, was the citizens of our County are worried about the health concerns. The telecommunication companies Page 20 PC -25 July 7, 2020 are obviously watching because I'm getting emails and letters from the different lobbying groups for the telecommunication companies saying this is going to hurt the industry. So they're watching. So I didn't feel the need to send it to them because they are very aware of what we're doing, and we are in line with many other counties, countries, and states; and across the world that are feeling the same way. And so this is more directed to our County Administration, different departments who are involved to urge them, like it says, that there must be some recourse for citizens when it comes to the public health concerns involved in ruling out a technology that is new. And I've had different discussions with Mike, and David Yamamoto, and Corporation Counsel as of our last meeting. So, yes we could send it, but I think right now what I'm getting is that Joe is saying that yes, we do have a small amount of say. And Mike is saying that DPW be more suited to get this. This was originally slated for the Public Works discussion earlier today, but was moved to this committee at the request of the Chairperson, and so here we are in Planning. So, I agree with you, Yes to DPW and maybe we could make a floor amendment, but I don't know if that's necessary going forward. I think everyone gets the gist of what I'm doing. MS. EOFF: Right, and I kind of agree with that too. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: But if you did feel that it needed to go to David Yamamoto of Public Works— MS. EOFF: It wasn't so much about who it's being transmitted to at the end of the reso. It was more about the directive in the title of the reso. Just wondering about—because it's calling upon the company itself to cease operations until we can be more sure or until they can prove that there isn't harm. But do we have any little say-so through the recommendations from the Planning Director or directives of the Public Works Department to cease? Or can the County Council send them a message through a reso that is asking them specifically not to approve or recommend things of 5G? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I would defer to the different departments, but I would say that our job—or not our job—our responsibility is to speak for the citizens who come before us. And I was again, bombarded by phone calls, emails, in-person meetings regarding 5G technology. MS. EOFF: Excuse me, Matt, I'm not challenging that at all. I completely understand why you wanted to bring this forward and I support it. I'm just wondering—but you're right, I mean the message goes out so whoever is in charge or decision making, recommending or even deciding to come here. We would be sending this message out. I don't know, there was just something I Page 21 PC -25 July 7, 2020 but I understand why you're doing it and that you want this message to be heard, not only by the telecommunication company but by our own Administration as well. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, mahalo Karen. Sorry, I don't know if I understood your question. MS. EOFF: That's okay, yeah, I probably didn't state it exactly clear. But anyways, great discussion, and thank you for bringing this out. I mean I feel one of the things the testifiers said that I really related to was, we are an island. We want to be a safe place for people to live, recreate, to visit. We want to be known as a very safe place. That's why in the past, I've supported legislation that banned the use of GMO's (Genetically Modified Organisms) on our island; the use of heavy pesticides and that kind of farming. I mean I feel like we can err on the side of caution every chance we get. We are a small island, but we are a very fragile place. We're not like a city and we're not like the mainland. We shouldn't try to be like that. I think we are in a position through not only this body, but you know, just through the general sense of our County government to keep this island a safe, healthy place. And make decisions that are going in that direction even though it's easy to follow suit with, you know, new stuff and new technology and mainland mentality, but I think that my inclination is to agree that you'd want to make decisions that err on the side of caution. And so this is one chance and I will support this reso. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, thank you, Ms. Eof£ Any other questions or comments? Director, I have a question for you. You know, this reso's directed to you, the Mayor, Managing Director. So I'm just curious, you know, passage of this resolution, what does that mean exactly for your department? MR. YEE: Well, first I thought it got moved to this committee because you guys miss me and you enjoy my responses. Aside from that, straight shooter. I think, no matter how stringent, strongly worded resolution you want to make, it's still just a resolution. I'm up against, you know, Federal Law and having to make determinations on let's say, cellphone towers that right now don't have 5G. So I think it'll have little effect from a Planning Department aspect; and as Matt has said, you know, really around the small cell, which is looking at 5G is really around DPW, right? I want to say, though, that Joe had mentioned that the testing of things once they're implemented is certainly one way, you know, through a licensing agreement that DPW is looking at. We could also from Planning taking, you know, some lead from them to maybe potentially condition some of our cellphone towers around some testing, now that we hear that. Page 22 PC -25 July 7, 2020 So that's a good idea. I think even larger, and this is why you invite me, I think, is we're talking about a system that is broken. When the PUC is not doing their duty, it's all about systems change. And if you know me well enough, I'm always about trying to work within these systems that are broken within government. And we work within the systems that don't serve us well around climate change. DLNR (Department of Land and Natural Resources), SHPD (State Historic Preservation Division); you know, affordable housing; infrastructure. And we're constantly trying to figure out these priorities and trying to accord it from a County perspective. Just sometimes, I've realized, the County can't do it all. There's no way, we don't have the resources. So we have to pick and choose what we can prioritize from the County level and what we will have to prioritize for the State to take the lead. Clearly the State has a lot of area here for improvement, and I certainly would hope that the Council walks away understanding their role in trying to organize other islands to realize that the State has to step up in their leadership on this issue, and not leave it to a small County to fight the big fight with the telecommunications industry. So it is about a larger systems change, but to get systems changed sometimes you have to nip on their heels. We have to pass these testing things, right? And that's how you get systems changed. And so it won't be overnight, which people want, like just outright and say, "No." It may take a little longer. So again, I appreciate the conversation, too, because it gives us a chance to step back to reflect what are the small things that we can push on for systems change here? And then clearly we identified some areas. Even in the small area of Planning, there are things I can look at. So hope that's helpful. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Yeah, that's great and you kind of entered into territory that I wanted to get into, and that was in conditions of approval. You know, it kind of came to my mind as Ms. David was speaking and saying, is there anything within our abilities, our process, our systems to kind of require folks that are coming forward proposing this technology, to submit, you know, some kind of health impact report prior to them deploying, Joe. And so, you talk about their shot clock and then activating, you know, when an application is submitted or whatever. And I'm wondering if a prerequisite or requirement before they're able to submit is, you know, having something like this done. So, I think that's something you need to look at and potentially report back to us next time we meet as a Council, where I think this resolution is going to be heard, if that's possible? Joe, can? MR. KAMELAMELA: I mean not in my head, but Page 23 PC -25 Vote on Res. 678-20 (Approved) BILLS FOR ORDINANCES July 7, 2020 CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Yes, for the record. MR. KAMELAMELA: Yes. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Great. Okay, thank you. Great discussion everyone. Any other comments or questions? Okay, we have a motion on the floor, all in favor please say "aye." Oh yeah, go ahead. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Sorry, so I'm learning just as we speak, that some of the other counties are getting ready to start passing ordinances to stop 5G as well. I'm just getting texts from different members. So, it is out there and this is how we make a difference. So thank you, I appreciate that. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. Again, we have a motion on the floor, all in favor please say "aye." The motion to recommend adoption of Res. 678-20 was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Eoff, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Lee Loy, Poindexter, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz — 8. Noes: Committee Member Richards — 1. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Yes, Mr. Clerk, if we can move on to the rest of today's business, please? I believe we have a bill for ordinance. The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, Bills for Ordinances. Page 24 PC -25 July 7, 2020 Bill 150: AMENDS SECTION 25-8-33 (CITY OF HILO ZONE MAP), ARTICLE 8, CHAPTER 25 (ZONING CODE) OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2005 EDITION), BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM MULTIPLE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL — 1,500 SQUARE FEET (RM -1.5) TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL — 7,500 SQUARE FEET (RS -7.5) AT WAIAKEA, SOUTH HILO, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY: 2-4-028:009 (Planning Director Initiated) (Area: 3.292 Acres) The Windward Planning Commission forwards its favorable recommendation for this change of zone. The Planning Director recommends returning the parcel to its original designation to create an appropriate land use pattern for the area. The property is located at 364 Hualalai Street, east of the Hale Nani Street-Hualalai Street intersection. Reference: Comm. 798 Intr. by: Ms. Kierkiewicz (B/R) ; and Comm. 798.1: From Planning Director Michael Yee, dated March 5, 2020, transmitting the draft transcript from the Windward Planning Commission's February 6, 2020, meeting. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Clerk, could I get a motion to forward Bill 150 to the Council with a positive recommendation? Motion to Approve: Ms. Lee Loy moved to recommend passage of Bill 150 on first reading. Seconded by Ms. Poindexter. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: You know, I've been in touch with the landowner on this particular bill for ordinance. And because it was Planning Department initiated, you know, I sent letters; made phone calls to the landowner in the hopes that he would be able to appear before us today. But he's requested that our committee postpone this matter until the next meeting on July 21 ", so that he can make travel arrangements to the island. So, just looking for some, you know, some consideration on this from my colleagues and a motion to postpone until July 21 ", our next committee meeting. Motion to Postpone: Ms. Lee Loy moved to postpone Bill 150 to July 21, 2020. Seconded by Mr. Richards. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Any discussion on the postponement? Seeing none, all in favor please say "aye." Page 25 PC-25 July 7,2020 Vote on Motion The motion to postpone Bill 150 to July 21, 2020 to Postpone: was carried by the following voice vote: (Approved) Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Eoff, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Lee Loy, Poindexter, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz—9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Motion carries. Bill 150 is postponed to our July 21St meeting. Thank you very much, Mr. Clerk. May I have a motion to adjourn? ADJOURN- There being no further business, at 3:54 p.m., Mr. Richards moved to adjourn MENT: the meeting. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Eoff, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Lee Loy, Poindexter, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz—9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Motion carries. Planning Committee is adjourned. Thank you very much. Stay safe. Approve : g )°02A) Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Chair ( ate) Planning Committee AK/dt Page 26