Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-01-04 Hearing Transcript - Verizon Wireless USE 17-067WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT JANUARY 4, 2018 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of VERIZON WIRELESS (USE 17-000067) was called to order at 10:39 a.m. in the County of Hawaii Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii with Chairman Joseph Clarkson presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Joe Clarkson, Donn Dela Cruz, Gregory Henkel, Donald Ikeda, Myles Miyasato, and Thomas Raffipiy. ALSO PRESENT: Michael Yee (Planning Director), Malia Ho Hall (Deputy Corporation Counsel for the Windward Planning Commission), Jeff Darrow (Planning Program Manager), Maija Jackson (Planner), Christian Kay (Planner), and Sarah Hata-Finley (Commission Secretary). And 4 members from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: VERIZON WIRELESS (USE 17-000067) Continued hearing for an application for a Use Permit to allow the construction of a new, non - manned telecommunication facility, consisting of a 167 -foot tall steel monopole tower and related facilities within a 900 -square foot portion of a 1 -acre parcel of land situated in the County's Agricultural 1 -acre (A -la) zoning district. A petition for standing in a contested case hearing for this matter was withdrawn on November 9, 2017. The property is located northeast of the `Ohi`a Avenue - Alapua Street intersection, in the Eden Roc Estates Subdivision, Kea`au, Puna, Hawaii, TMK: 1-1-082:031. CLARKSON: The next item on the agenda is the application from Verizon Wireless. This was also continued from a previous meeting. I want to say right off I'll just ask Donn, did you read this? DELA CRUZ: Yes. CLARKSON: And, so did L So, Commissioner Dela Cruz and I have read the record of the previous meetings. Is there an additional presentation? JACKSON: Can we request a five-minute wait? We're having technical difficulties. CLARKSON: Granted. Five-minute recess. Chair Clarkson called a recess at 10:39 a.m., and the meeting was reconvened at 10:44 a.m. I0V1111.11 11 CLARKSON: Okay, will the Windward Planning Commission meeting come back to order? Thank you. We have a—we'll resume the agenda, application from Verizon Wireless and the presentation by Planning staff Maija? JACKSON: Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, the Planning Commission heard this application last year, August 3rd, and since then—well, at that hearing, the Commission granted Norine Fitzgerald standing in a contested case. Ms. Fitzgerald and Verizon went to mediation, and they didn't come to agreement. So, just before the contested case was going to be scheduled, Ms. Fitzgerald withdrew her petition, and you should have a letter dated November 14th from the Planning Department acknowledging that Petition withdrawal. You should also in your package have a letter dated July 17th, and I don't believe this was included in your original package. This letter was from Theresa Billian and then today we received another letter from Theresa Billian along with a two-page petition of neighbors that signed the petition. So, that's all the new information that came in since your last hearing, and since there were two Commissioners that weren't present at the August hearing, I'll go ahead and do the presentation again to bring everybody up to speed. Okay, so this is an application by Verizon Wireless for a Use Permit. The subject property is located in the Puna District in the Eden Roc Subdivision. You can see the property has a red dot over it. You have Volcano Highway running in a north -south direction on the left side of the slide. South Oshiro Road coming down into Eden Roc Subdivision. To the west is the Fern Forest Subdivision; to the east is the Kopua Farm Lots and Fern Acres. The property is zoned Agricultural – 1 acre along with most of the other properties in the subdivision. And, again, just for a little bit more orientation, you have `Ohi`a Avenue, is one of the main roads into Eden Roc Subdivision, and then the cross street is Alapua Street. So, the property is located in the northeast corner of Alapua and `Ohi`a. The General Plan designation for the property is Rural as well as the rest of the subdivision. And, this is an aerial photo showing the subject property outlined in red, and the proposed leased area in a dashed yellow outline. So, the cell tower would generally be located in the middle of that leased area. The closest dwelling is here and it's located about 150 feet from the proposed location of the tower. The Applicant is requesting a Use Permit to allow the construction of a new telecommunication facility. It will consist of a 167 -foot tall steel monopine with 12 eight -foot tall panel antennas and related facilities within a 900 -square foot portion of a one -acre parcel. The 900 -square foot leased area will be fenced and used for accessory ground facilities which will include a radio and battery equipment cabinets, an emergency generator, three surge protectors, and one GPS antenna on a concrete slab foundation. The proposed facility serves to expand coverage within the Eden Roc Subdivision as well as parts of nearby subdivisions of Fern Acres, Fern Forest, Kopua Farm Lots. EXHIBIT D 2 This is the Applicant's site plan. You can see `Ohi`a Avenue running straight up and down through the left side of the slide and then Alapua Street on the bottom of the slide and the monopine proposed tower is located in this area here. A driveway to the tower and leased area would be off of `Ohi`a Avenue in this general location here. And, these are elevations showing what the tower will look like. You see the equipment cabinets down below and the fencing and then the monopine tower with the antennas at the top. This is a view of the property standing at the `Ohi`a Avenue-Alapua Street intersection. So, the proposed tower would generally be right in this corner area here. And, this is a view of `Ohi`a Avenue looking north mauka, and the property is on the right. The proposed driveway to the tower would generally be in this location here. And, this is a view of the leased area from Alapua Street, so we're kind of looking in a northwest direction here. The `Ohi`a Avenue, you can just see the corner of it going behind these trees, so the tower would be located in this general area here and here. The Planning Director is still recommending approval of the request with conditions, and that concludes my presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions you have. RAFFIPIY: I have a question. In the August meeting, I asked a question about considering moving that antenna where it provides—the closest residence is 150 feet. The height of the tower is 167 feet, and there was, I know there was some issue about the distance between the, you know, from the distance from the residence, the closest residence. And, I was asking questions about if there's, if the Applicant would consider relocating or kind of move that away to at least to provide a buffer or, you know, if it falls down and falls towards the house, at least it clears the house. Was that even addressed? JACKSON: As far as I know, the Applicant has not submitted any revisions to their proposal so we could ask that question of the Applicant's representative when he comes up. CLARKSON: Yes, I have a question. I think the, and correct me if I'm wrong which I may well be, but I think I read in this and another application that was continued that the setback for a guyed tower is one foot per foot of tower height, but the setback for a monopole tower is one foot for every five feet of height, so in this case, the setback would be 33 feet. Can you explain the difference between those setbacks and why there is a difference? Is it due to the relative risks of the towers falling over? JACKSON: That's a very good question. I don't know why whoever created the Code way back when came up with those two differences. I can guess that it would be because of the structural integrity of the tower. I've heard information that the guyed wire towers aren't as stable as the monopole towers and so that could be one explanation for the different setbacks for the monopole towers. I've also heard that the monopole towers fall or collapse downward rather than outward, so that could be another reason, but I'm not an expert at this, so perhaps the Applicant can explain why that might be. EXHIBIT D 3 HENKEL: Yeah, hopefully, the Verizon engineers will explain it, but I suspect it's because the guyed towers have a larger footprint, so, therefore, more of a setback. CLARKSON: Any further questions from [sic] staff? If not, at this time, would the Applicant, please come forward? Would you raise your right hand, please? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth before these matters before the Commission? SUNG: I do. CLARKSON: Thank you. Would you please state your name and where you live? SUNG: Sure. My name is Steve Sung. I'm from Oahu or—from Oahu, and good morning Chair, Commissioners, and Planning staff Am I answering questions or just? CLARKSON: You can make a presentation or just answer questions. Whatever you prefer. SUNG: Well, I agree with everything Maija has presented, so I can answer any questions that you might have. CLARKSON: Well, maybe you could follow up on my question about setbacks. What you might think the reason would be for a reduced setback for a monopole tower versus a guyed tower. SUNG: Well, obviously, I'm in the same situation. I wasn't the person who wrote the Code, but in the mainland and in other areas where when you have guy -wires, I guess, they take into consideration of the, basically the guy, and Maija's right. Some of the poles that we use, monopoles, there basically is a—they do fall straight down. So, it's not like they fall straight - ward, so it depends on the pole that you use. But, at the same time, guy -wires, when, the reason why you're using guyed is because the tower was not supportive and that's why you add the guy - wire, and that's why the footprint is larger. And, I believe that's probably the reason why. One foot for every foot of tower when you use a guy -wire. CLARKSON: Okay, thank you. Any other questions? MIYASATO: Just have you had a chance to review the conditions? SUNG: Yes. Yes, I have, and Verizon will adhere to them, yes. MIYASATO: Okay, thank you. IKEDA: Question. Why was that particular site chosen? You know, like right further I guess you would say east of the property there were a lot of 20 -acre parcels. Why did you choose a one -acre parcel? SUNG: So, when someone like me, when we get a search ring, basically a certain area, I, you know, basically I would go see the owners of the property. So, you know, first of all, I have to, EXHIBIT D 4 the owner has to be interested, and second, it has to meet our RF objective. So, in this case, we found an owner that was interested, and Verizon's RF engineers basically did their study and feel that this particular location will meet their RF, will meet their objective. IKEDA: So, you're saying that no one that owned a 20 -acre parcel was interested in putting a tower on their property? SUNG: So, I don't which one you're referring to, but I pretty much with the search ring that I drove through, I spoke to most of the landlords. Absolutely. CLARKSON: How large is the search ring? SUNG: It was less than a quarter mile. About a quarter mile so CLARKSON: Radius? SUNG: Radius. Correct. A little bit over a quarter mile. IKEDA: I don't know what the map that Maija had, it showed just east of the property. I'm not sure how far away it was. It showed a lot of 20 -acre parcels. I just wondered why one of those weren't chosen. Can you put that on the screen, Maija, please? JACKSON: You tell me when to stop. IKEDA: The ones that you showed all the—all the ones in green with all the parcels, 20 -acres. JACKSON: Okay. This one? IKEDA: I think so `cause you're—had one that showed, the one further east with 20 acres. MIYASATO: Use your mic. JACKSON: This one. IKEDA: I think that's— MIYASATO: Donald HALL: You have to use your mic. JACKSON: So, these larger ones up here, Commissioner Ikeda? IKEDA: No, on the, on the east side of the property, further east. Isn't that 20 acres? One parcel over? EXHIBIT D 5 JACKSON: I think there are some larger lots in Kopua Farm Lots. I don't know if they're 20 acres, but they are larger, much larger. IKEDA: Yeah, but, even like also, like the one on the top. They're all 20 acres, so I was surprised one of those weren't chosen because it's, no one's living there. SUNG: Yeah, so it didn't meet our objective. So, basically what I do find is I find candidates. So, when I do find candidates, I present it to Verizon and there are engineers who chose which location they want based on obviously meeting, you know, what they need to cover. CLARKSON: And, can you explainI think, can you explain in a little detail what the, how the search ring is decided upon. Where you're allowed to look for candidate properties. SUNG: So, basically, based on obviously coverage needs, capacity needs, if they have enough complaints from customers saying hey, I'm not getting coverage at my house. I gotta go walls out to use the phone, you know, I'm going to switch service if you guys don't improve your service here. So, based on this three criteria is usually what they do. In most cases, Verizon RF engineers, they'll look at it every year. They'll come up with basically priorities, areas of where they think lack coverage and capacity. As you know, there's more people using cell phones now. So, the capacity needed in case, so make sure there's no dropped calls, no dropped data, but, more importantly, when there is, you know, power outages, when there are natural disasters, that these—these service[s] when land line goes down, that cell phone coverage will continue for customers. Sometimes when you have natural disasters, everybody wants to call home. People from the mainland want to call you, you want to call to the mainland if you have family, and a lot of times, like Honolulu, I think when they had that power outage, I think a lot of cell, a lot of areas, basically they had dropped calls and everybody was panicking. Everybody was complaining to the cell phone carriers, and that's why they keep coming back. We're trying to improveI mean, all the carriers, the bigger carriers try to, you know, improve their coverage that way. RAFFIPIY: Question. Two questions. You don't have a graph that shows the cell bubbles, around that area where we can see just the cell bubbles—that you can present to us so we can see the cell coverage, the cell bubbles. SUNG: Like a propagation map? RAFFIPIY: Correct. SUNG: I think one was presented in my, on the write-up. If not, that's something I can get from Verizon. And I think—sorry, I think your initial question RAFFIPIY —Right SUNG: —are we willing to move the location of the tower? Actually, I did speak with the owner. I did speak with Verizon, and I'm, basically, I'mif it was requested, the owner is EXHIBIT D 6 willing to allow us to move the tower toward the back. Maija, could we go back to the aerial view? Sorry. Yeah, okay, one more. Okay, so toward the back, maybe somewhere over there. Would that work? Would that be better you think? CLARKSON: So, you're saying the owner is okay with it as long as it's one or the other corners where it's not right in the center of their property? SUNG: Correct. And we'll, as long as we meet the, you know, the setback requirement, yes. Yes. RAFFIPIY: And, I know there was a cave running in that area. SUNG: So, we've done our research. We've gone through State Historic Presery—our application was, you know, was reviewed by State Historic Preservation. It was not noted on that. And, I understand. I've read this, and once again, we've gone through, we basically did our soil study. So, our soil engineer would be, would do research such as this, and he agreed that there was nothing, not through that property. Not through that one -acre parcel. IKEDA: Can I go back and ask staff a question? CLARKSON: Absolutely. IKEDA: Maija, how far is this from Mountain View, because I remember—didn't we pass some kind of, allow a tower in Mountain View somewhere? JACKSON: There are a few towers in this area, but I believe they're all out of the range of what the carriers look for. IKEDA: Okay. JACKSON: There's a really large tower. I think it's almost 300 feet high on the mauka side of the highway in this general area. And, for Commissioner Raffipiy, the propagation map is Exhibit "E" in your package. RAFFIPIY: Oh, okay, okay. JACKSON: Did that answer your question, Commissioner Ikeda? IKEDA: Yes. JACKSON: Okay. RAFFIPIY: I have another question. Sorry about that. [Referring to something that fell on the floor.] I know that we made comments or somebody made comments. You made a comment or EXHIBIT D 7 somebody made comment that these poles they fall straight down. I mean, anybody can say anything right now, you know. We don't have nothing to back it up that, you know. Common sense test in my own way, you know, if the wind blows this way, and if that thing gonna fall, how can it fall straight down when the wind blows it that way? SUNG: It's built in sections, so it goes section like this. So when it falls, it comes down in sections. It doesn't go that way. RAFFIPIY: Got it. SUNG: And, all we can do is follow what the Code allows us to do so if the Code said one foot for every five foot then we adhere to that setback guidelines. RAFFIPIY: Thank you. CLARKSON: Any further questions? If not, please take a seat. We have some public testimony. Two people are asking to testify. Would Theresa Billian and Crystal Schiszler come up, please? My apologies if I mispronounced your names. SCHISZLER (from audience area): No, it's fine. I'm used to it. CLARKSON: Would you both raise your right hands? Do you swear or affirm that you will tell the truth before this matter, before the Commission on this matter? SCHISZLER: Yes. BILLIAN: I do. CLARKSON: Thank you. SCHISZLER: Hello, my name is Crystal Schiszler. I'm Theresa Billian's daughter. I'm also a graduate student at the UH, and I was wanting to testify before you guys again about some pertinent information that I've found that I believe will, that this tower will adversely affect the surrounding properties, and I guess that was the condition to not approve the Special Permit, and I believe that should also be the condition to approve this Use Permit because there's been extensive studies, research studies, that has found that these mobile phone base stations produce radio frequency electromagnetic radiations. And, that these, there's been studies that have been showing that people living next to these towers have increased rates of headache, memory changes, dizziness, tremors, depressive symptoms, sleep disturbances, and these rates are significantly higher among those living close to these towers within about 500 meters. I believe that's about the range that was tested which is about, you know, 1,500 feet, and these, as been said, there's a house right next to this tower, a 150 feet away, where it's been told before that there's children living there. Numerous grandchildren of the man who owns the property, and they play in the street directly across from this proposed tower, monopine I guess it is now. It was supposed to be a monopole. I guess that's changed. So, I feel this is a great danger to the community. I don't understand why this has to be placed in a community. My mom's property 10V1111.11 11 is three parcels away, which is still in the 1,500 feet range of this danger zone, emitting these high frequency electromagnetic fields. It was testified by Verizon at one of the other hearings that this pole only emits as much radiation as a cell phone. I believe that's very erroneous. And, two, I have a choice if I want to use a cell phone, hold it to my head. I don't have, we don't have a choice if this tower goes up. And, my mom, who already has significant health problems, she's disabled, on SSI. I believe this is very egregious that this tower is going to be placed close to these children and my mother. It's going to increase her health problems as it is noted. And, I'm very upset about this. I believe this is definitely an adversity that will affect the community. I believe there's also already a tower in Hawaiian Acres. There's already a tower on the highway which is close to this neighborhood. I don't understand why this needs to be in this neighborhood. There's a high density of people living very close to this tower, and I believe this is—it's unbelievable this is being proposed. And, it maybe because this area has a low SES, that's social economic status, this is being proposed there. I don't know if this would be proposed in a place, you know, like maybe Sunrise Ridge. I think maybe people have a problem with that, but I think this is kind of sneaky. They're trying to sneak this in here. And, also I don't think it's right these people can rent their property, who don't even live there. And, people around have to suffer for it. And, also these radio frequency waves have been shown to negatively affect the central nervous system through oxidative stress on the body's cells which can cause—which has been shown to increase the rates of cancer in children living around these towers. In many studies, these are very prevalent studies in foreign countries and also here shown through years and years of people living next to these towers. And, there's, like I said, there's children who play right next to this. I don't believe it's fair that they're going to have to have an increased risk of cancer so Verizon can have better, people can have better cell phone coverage. I think it's egregious, and also outdated due to the fact that many broadband networks are now very prevalent, and people are using that due to the high speed capabilities. This is unnecessary, and I believe it definitely it's going to adversely affect the community. I don't understand how this is approved. I think the regulations need to be changed if Verizon's [inaudible] regulations that are harming people. These regulations are unacceptable. And so, eight out of ten studies assessed show that there's an increased prevalence of neuro- behavioral symptoms such as I noted before and also cancer and people living at distances within 500 meters. And I said it before, it's just a 1,500 feet, so these kids are 150 feet away. You know, I think this is horrible that what they're proposing to do to these children, and they exist, you know. I'm sorry that aren't here today or the grandfather of these children. They work. They don't have time to come here. You know, so we're here speaking for them also, and I'm speaking for my mother who doesn't deserve either to be negatively affected by these people to have better cell phone coverage. I think it's just sick personally it's even being proposed. This should be moot. They should put this somewhere else. I don't see—there's nobody here speaking for it, other community members. You know, I don't see why it's that desperately needed. You know, I think it's just outrageous. And, also the cave does run near this area, and I just think it's outrageous. There could be kids playing on the street, and this tower could fall down. I don't think moving it a hundred feet away is going to help. Thank you. CLARKSON: Thank you. EXHIBIT D 9 BILLIAN: Hi, my name is Theresa. I've lived on this island for 43 years. I raised my kids here. I have a grandson. I'm retired. I have a physical disability. I prepared my property to retire on and then big business comes into my neighborhood, and I think that there should be a law that could stop this seriously health defying big business from building in our communities. It's not like a bad neighbor moves in. It's serious. It's our health, and I don't believe they did a project study to see if there was a cave below this. I saw the driller there for 3 or 4 months. Never started up. And Kazumura Cave is known to run underneath that area. So, that's the considerations I think our government should be more educated about what they're letting into our communities. Thank you. CLARKSON: Any questions from the Commissioners for the people testifying today? If not, thank you for your testimony. Please be seated. Are there any other people who wish to testify on this matter in the audience? If not, I'll ask for a motion to SCHISZLER (from audience): Can I make—can I make one more statement I forgot to address? The person who dropped this petition, we were not notified of that, and we would like to take on that role as, and pay the fee and become the contested case people so we can continue to fight this tower. Thank you. Sorry, I forgot to address that, but [inaudible]. CLARKSON: I've been informed that the deadline for an application for a contested case hearing has passed. SCHISZLER (from audience): [inaudible] we were not notified that it was dropped so, we feel like we're now, we were left hanging, you know. We were not notified of this, so you should give me a chance [inaudible]. CLARKSON: If you—I've been informed that if you had wanted to continue with the contested case hearing, you should have joined Norine Fitzgerald's application for a contested case. SCHISZLER (from audience): We were not given that opportunity [inaudible] [Ms. Hata-Finley asked Ms. Schiszler to use the microphone.] SCHISZLER: I was not informed of that. I was told that I'd have to pay a separate fee of my own, another $200 of my own to file my own contested case. I was not told that we could join Norine's. We were not told that. CLARKSON: Oh, you still would have had to pay the fee. SCHISZLER: Okay, well CLARKSON: —I'll let our Corporation Counsel just explain the procedures if she's willing. Hold on a second. HALL: Can we take a recess and then I'll find it and then we'll come back, yeah? EXHIBIT D 10 CLARKSON: Okay. Five-minute recess, please, at the request of the Corp. Counsel. Chair Clarkson called a recess at 11:16 a.m., and the meeting was reconvened at 11:21 a.m. CLARKSON: Okay, at this time, the meeting is back in session, and Deputy Corporation Counsel, Malia Ho Hall, will explain the rules regarding application for contested case hearing. HALL: Yeah, sorry, it took me a minute to find the rule, but in the Planning Commission Rules under contested case Rule 4-6(a) on the pre -hearing procedures, it basically states, "Any other person seeking to intervene as a party shall file a written request on a form approved by the Planning Director and accompanied by a filing fee of $200 no later than seven calendar days, prior to the first meeting on the matter." They also, the Commission gives the discretion to people who attend that first meeting if they want to join at that point so that they're allowed to hear the information. As to Norine Fitzgerald dropping out, the Commission at that point, it's between the parties. It would have been her kuleana to say, to have informed you that she was dropping out. It would not be the Commission because it's kind of a private matter. It's her decision. We don't put out notice on her decision. So, I apologize. I hear you guys, but at this time, the deadline has passed for filing a contested case on this matter. CLARKSON: Okay, if there's no more further public testimony SCHISZLER (from audience): [inaudible] I have a question for her statement. I mean [inaudible]. CLARKSON: Well SCHISZLER (from audience): I thought I was going to be allowed to address that. CLARKSON: I'm sorry, no. SCHISZLER (from audience): I cannot? CLARKSON: No. SCHISZLER (from audience): So I can't—how do I get answers now to this situation? Where do I go CLARKSON: I would suggest that you go into the Planning Department and talk to them about the procedures for any future contested case hearings you might want to participate in, but a review of your options wasa review of the procedures was made. It's pretty clear from what the Corporation Counsel has said that there is no prospect of a contested case hearing at this time. And, so, I wouldn't want to just go into a discussion of why that is any more than we've already have. EXHIBIT D 11 SCHISZLER: I don't have a question about why. I have a question about where does that, where does that lead from—now, where do we go from here is my question. Where can we expect this—that's my question. HALL: I work for the County so I can't really give you legal advice on what you can and can't do. I would just consult you to speak to an attorney and find out what you can do. SCHISZLER: Not about what I can do. Where is this case going to be going from here? What is the next step in this case? Is this the last hearing? HALL: Yes, basically, this is the last hearing. SCHISZLER: So, this, this is to—the tower has now been approved. HALL: It hasn't been approved yet. There's no motion on the table at this point. CLARKSON: Oh, I'm sorry, I misunderstood you. So, what's going to happen now is we're going to vote on whether or not to close public testimony, and then we're going to have a discussion on the merits of the application. If there is any, then we're going to have a motion one way or another on the application, and then the Commission will vote on that motion, and at that time, the matter will be pretty much concluded unless there's an appeal by the Applicant of our action. So, at this time, I'd like to hear a motion for the closure of public testimony, please? IKEDA: Move to close public testimony. HENKEL: Second. CLARKSON: It's been moved by Commissioner Ikeda and seconded by Commissioner Henkel to close public testimony. All those in favor? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. CLARKSON: Opposed? Public testimony is closed. So, we now need a motion on HENKEL: —Can we have some discussion first? CLARKSON: Yeah. HENKEL: The Applicant has offered to mitigate the one concern about the location of the tower and move it further in the lot. Another big concern seems to be in this issue in past applications, as you heard is the electromagnetic radiation, and I mean, I've done my own research. I found out for every study that says that it's very dangerous, there's another study that says it's not that dangerous, especially now that they've gone to digital signals. So, it kind of depends on your point of view as, you know, which study you've read last. EXHIBIT D 12 The other thing that I would, you know, dispute from testimony so far is that this cell phone that everyone has, including Crystal over there, which I appreciate your testimony by the way, this is a transmitter, and this sends out a signal to a cell tower, and what I've found out from my research is that when you have a poor signal, it sends out a stronger pulse trying to find a signal. If you're out of range—if I go down to the beach, I can feel my phone heating up because it's sending out a stronger signal to, you know, try to find a tower. It's always, when it's on, it's in search of a tower, and that, this is more dangerous to children and people than the cell tower itself. That's what I've learned from my studies, and I feel like, you know, other than you know trying to hide the towers which they're doing by making it look like a tree or moving it further on the lot, that, you know, to really address the problem, we've gotta change our culture and get rid of cell phones, and I just don't see that happening. I feel safer when I'm closer to a tower than when my phone is heating up in my pocket trying to search one out. That's what I found. Thanks. CLARKSON: Any further discussion? If not, can we have a motion on this application? HENKEL: Mr. Chair, with that, I move that application for Use Permit Docket No. USE 17-067 be approved based on the Planning Director's findings, recommendation, and proposed conditions which shall be adopted. CLARKSON: Is there a second? MIYASATO: I second. CLARKSON: It's been moved by Commissioner Henkel and seconded by Commissioner Miyasato that the application be approved. Maija, would you call the roll? JACKSON: Yes, just to clarify. That was just approved as presented, not with moving the lease area. Correct? HENKEL: I'd like to amend that motion to be approved on the condition that the leased area be moved further back on the lot. SCHISZLER (from audience area walking out with Theresa Billian): Closer to our house. Thanks. Bullshit. Good luck when you build there. There's going to be problems soon. CLARKSON: Does everybody understand the motion? MIYASATO: Yeah, I'll second the amended motion. CLARKSON: All right. Maija? JACKSON: Okay, all right, with that, I'll take the roll. Commissioner Henkel? HENKEL: Aye. EXHIBIT D 13 JACKSON: Commissioner Miyasato? MIYASATO: Aye. JACKSON: Commissioner Dela Cruz? DELA CRUZ: Aye. JACKSON: Commissioner Ikeda? IKEDA: No. JACKSON: Commissioner Raffipiy? RAFFIPIY: No. JACKSON: Commissioner Clarkson? CLARKSON: Aye. JACKSON: Okay, the motion carries, four, two. CLARKSON: Okay, now we'll take upoh, and you'll be informed of, in writing of the action of the Commission. The discussion ended at 11:30 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sarah Y. Hata-Finley, Secretary Windward Planning Commission EXHIBIT D 14