Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-06-07 Hearing Transcript - Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless USE 17-074WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT JUNE 7, 2018 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of CELLCO PARTNERSHIP DBA VERIZON WIRELESS (USE 17-000074) was called to order at 9:04 a.m. in the County of Hawaii Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii with Chairman Joseph Clarkson presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Gilbert Aguinaldo, Joseph Clarkson, Donald Ikeda, Thomas Raffipiy. ABSENT & EXCUSED: Donn Dela Cruz, John Replogle. ALSO PRESENT: Jeff Darrow (Representing the Planning Director), Malia Ho Hall (Deputy Corporation Counsel for the Windward Planning Commission), Christian Kay (Planner), Melissa Dacayanan (Planning Commission Support Technician), and Sarah Hata-Finley (Commission Secretary). No one from the public was in attendance at the start of the hearing. APPLICANT: CELLCO PARTNERSHIP DBA VERIZON WIRELESS (USE 17-000074) Continued hearing on an application for a Use Permit to allow the construction of a new, non - manned telecommunication facility, consisting of a 155 -foot tall steel monopine tower, retaining wall, 6 -foot tall fencing and related facilities within a 1,050 -square foot lease area on a 33,106 - square foot parcel, situated in the County's Agricultural 1 -acre (A -la) zoning district. The subject property is located at 15-1463 21st Avenue, approximately 1,700 feet north of the Kaloli Drive – 21st Avenue intersection, Hawaiian Paradise Park, Kea`au, Puna, Hawaii, TMK: (3) 1-5-038:013. CLARKSON: And, with that, we'll proceed to the first item on today's agenda which is Use Permit Application 17-000074, Cellco Partnership doing business as Verizon Wireless. Now, this meeting was continued to allow Applicant to bring a technical expert on radio transmission facilities. Seeing no one in the audience, Applicant, testifiers, or anything, I guess the board should discuss the application HALL: Sorry. Sorry, do we have the phone number for Danette Martin? I'd say we just take a brief recess, call her, and see if she's on her way or not and then DARROW: We do have it. KAY: I have it here. DARROW: —Here I'll give her a call. You want to call her Christian? EXHIBIT A CLARKSON: —Okay, it's been recommended that we recess for ten minutes to give any latecomers time to appear, so this meeting is recessed for ten minutes. Chair Clarkson called a recess at 9:05 a.m., and the meeting was reconvened at 9:16 a.m. when the Applicant's representative, Danette Martin, and Adrian de la Garza, System Performance Engineer from Verizon, arrived to the meeting. There was one member of the public in attendance at this time. CLARKSON: Okay, the recess for this session is now ended. We've already opened the planning session or this session of the Planning Commission, and the agenda item has been described. I will say once again, if you're planning to testify, please sign up with Melissa. And, I guess we should go ahead—this meeting is a continuation of a previous meeting at which time there was some discussion and some questions from the Commission about coverage and potential coverage based on antenna height and location. And, if we could—Christian, do we have all of the slides from the presentation available? KAY: Yes, Mr. Chair, we do. CLARKSON: I'd just like to start out with that coverage map. KAY: Okay. CLARKSON: And, give Applicant an opportunity to clarify why they feel this location is essential or if it's not that essential, what other locations and whether their heights—there we go—would be acceptable. So, if the Applicants would come forward, please? So, when we last met, I'd like to—oh, first of all, I guess I have to swear you both in again. Do you MARTIN: —He's not been here before— CLARKSON: hereby swear or affirm that you will tell the truth on this matter before the Planning Commission today? DE LA GARZA: I do. MARTIN: I do. CLARKSON: Thank you. Please, when you do speak, speak into the microphone so that we get an accurate record. If it's okay with everyone, I'll just start out with my first question, and I'd like to refer—now, Mr. MARTIN: —Let's introduce ourselves. CLARKSON: Yes. EXHIBIT A 2 MARTIN: My name is Danette Martin. DE LA GARZA: I am Adrian de la Garza. I'm a System Performance Engineer with Verizon Wireless. CLARKSON: Mr. de la Garza— DE LA GARZA: And thank you for hearing us this morning CLARKSON: You're very welcome. DE LA GARZA: Appreciate your time. CLARKSON: So, there was some discussion in the last meeting and some testimony regarding the availability of alternative sites that were not in a heavily residential area, some park areas, some vacant land, but it was asserted that those sites would not be acceptable because the coverage would be inadequate from any location other than the proposed location. But, my question is, isn't coverage somewhat, not totally, but somewhat affected by the height of the antenna? DE LA GARZA: Yes. CLARKSON: Okay, and so wouldn't it be possible to go away from this location and get adequate coverage with a higher antenna height? DE LA GARZA: Possibly, but I would have to look at the modeling, but I don't really think so. I can say with certainty that this location is ideal for us because of the footprint that that site provides, fills in our coverage gaps, and it also kind of blends nicely with what sites we have and in our future planned sites. As far as moving to another location, just raising the height, with consideration of the height of the trees, I don't think it's going to be a viable option, and I think the location that we picked is from a coverage perspective is ideal for us and how we plan to cover that neighborhood. CLARKSON: Okay, are there—thank you. Are there any other questions at this time from the Commissioners, other Commissioners? AGUINALDO: I do. HATA-FINLEY: It's on. HALL: It's on. AGUINALDO: As far as that other site you said is not viable, any other location from what you guys are proposing on that lot versus say the park because the park was kind of presented. Can EXHIBIT A 3 you explain little bit more? Did you guys do any testing on that other street or whatever street they were talking about? DE LA GARZA: We did do some modeling. The problem with the park location is that it's very close to our existing site, so we would end up having overlapping coverage. Overlapping coverage is actually bad for LTE `cause it all operates on the same frequencies. You end up having interference, and the sites will interfere with themselves. So, you end up having to tilt your antennas down. They don't cover as far. It's not, from an efficiency perspective, it's terribly inefficient, and it doesn't make the park a really good viable option because it's too close to our existing site, and it also leaves a huge gap up to the north of section of houses that wouldn't be, wouldn't be covered. And, if we are in a situation where we have to build denser and denser or closer and closer to our existing sites, we end up needing more sites. So, from an efficiency perspective and getting the most sites, the most coverage from one site, this location that we chose is ideal for us. AGUINALDO: If you go further little bit more north or to the dead end, would that work? DE LA GARZA: Then, we would end up opening—you see the coverage hole, gap in the center right there? The yellow that's in the—on the right, the right hand? AGUINALDO: Mm-hmm. DE LA GARZA: That would end up opening up that gap, and it would also cause us to have to build more sites to completely cover the neighborhood `cause that's our MARTIN: I also wanted to let you know that I did try to seek out those property owners on the end, and I couldn't find anything viable. CLARKSON: Okay, any other questions for the DE LA GARZA: I hope I answered your question. CLARKSON: Applicant. RAFFIPIY: Question. The green shaded areas, that's the coverage area. The yellow shaded areas are not the—that's the not DE LA GARZA: I would say, I would say it's more marginal. I would have to take a really, really close look at the legend in the corner there to CLARKSON: So, it's like the green is four bars and the yellow is three or two bars or? DE LA GARZA: It's not as, it's not as clear-cut as bars, because bars can indicate signal strength, but if you have like interference where your sites are too close together, you'll get poor signal-to-noise ratio. The sites basically they interfere with each other, and it causes you to have slower throughputs, and it doesn't perform as well, but note from our previous coverage maps EXHIBIT A 4 that I've looked at, in the center, you end up having this—it's more marginal, and those are handover areas where you're handing over between two different sites, and you also have like poor SNR and things like that so. I'm sure what was theI just want to make sure I answered your question. RAFFIPIY: Well, what I was trying to get at is I wanted to know, the covered areas, what is DE LA GARZA: Oh, okay RAFFIPIY: you know, the cell, you know, the cellI wanted to see the cell and see where they overlap or, you know, if you move it around and, so the green shaded area is the covered area. DE LA GARZA: So, the green shaded area is a pretty strong signal strength. RAFFIPIY: Okay. DE LA GARZA: So, anywhere you have like a stronger signal strength that's stronger than the other sites around it, you'll have good SNR, good performance. The middle area is lower RSRP, and when you have like what we call cell edge, which is kind of like when you get to the edge of the coverage area, you'll probably still have some coverage. It won't be as good as it is in the green area, but yeah. RAFFIPIY: If there is another carrier to come on to, you know, to apply for a co -location you know coexist with Verizon, any other company talk to you folks? A carrier talked to you folks yet or expressed interest in? MARTIN: Verizon has a co -location department, and accepts those applications. As part of the condition of approval, the County of Hawaii requires for co -location, and we always design our towers to at least hold two other carriers' equipment. If a third one wants to come on, you know, we can always switch out the tower for, or reinforce the tower in order to accommodate them. RAFFIPIY: Okay, thank you, and with that, will the layout—will the layout, Verizon tower's layout, will it, will that accommodate the layout for, you know, anybody else, or? DE LA GARZA: Yeah, if they're using similar bands which they should be. Yeah, I mean, that's up to them— MARTIN: —They would have to come back to you. We don't—our equipment, we don't share ground space, so if another carrier wanted to come on, they would have to go to the landlord and negotiate their own ground space, but we would accommodate them on the tower. RAFFIPIY: Okay, so even if any carrier wants to come in, they can—they can install their equipment using your, all the same towers that you have and they can also provide the same coverage if they want to? EXHIBIT A 5 DE LA GARZA: That's dependent on what carriers they choose to deploy. Like what frequencies, what frequencies they use, because all the different frequencies have different characteristics. What antennas they use—that's a huge portion of it because your antennas have different beam widths. It would depend on their coverage objectives, and I can't really speak to what they would, what they would do from a design perspective. I have no idea, but I'm also not entirely familiar with what they're, the other carrier sites, like their locations are because we don't share that information with regards to locations of our cell sites. RAFFIPIY: Thank you. My intent was, you know, what I wanted to see ifI don't want to see so many antennas all over the place. DE LA GARZA: Understood, yeah. RAFFIPIY: You know, if multiple carriers can, you know, can band together and provide an efficient layout where we don't have so many towers, but you have towers that, you know, you can have everybody can coexist and co -locate on one, a tower. MARTIN: The main aspect in this design was to, you know, the tower is a 150 feet, or it's a 155, and the top of the antennas are 50 feet. Typically, you need ten feet per carrier, and so we specifically designed that in there so that those carriers would be able to at least see over the trees. RAFFIPIY: Thank you very much. AGUINALDO: I have another question. As far as the towers, I know from the previous meeting, I guess with you ma'am, is the, you know, residents that is around it, the height and what not. Now, what if you guys had a COW? So, if you guys don't know what is a COW, it's called Cell On Wheels, Cell On Wheel. What if you guys deploy one COW you know as far as, you know, because the height I guess, you know, that's maybe another alternative solution, yeah. DE LA GARZA: Yeah, the issue with COWs is we're limited with regards to our antenna height. There's other limitations, too, because it's designed to a mobile asset to be deployed in emergency or situation where we have to cover an event. Different things like that. We usually don't—we don't like to use a COW as a permanent solution. AGUINALDO: Yeah, I'm just trying to think of, you know, other things for you folks, yeah? You know, I'm—it's just one of them things like what Commissioner Raffipiy was indicating. It's, you want to minimize on, you know, the cell towers, because there is existing ones already. MARTIN: So, back to the drawings, we weren't here when they were introducing them, but I did change things up a bit. So, the, on the side of the property that faces Railroad Avenue, I'm proposing leaving the existing vegetation so for those people HALL: Sorry, one moment. Christian, can you put up the drawings, please? Thank you. So, we can have a reference. EXHIBIT A 6 MARTIN: That's right, no that's good. I'm looking at `em. You guys should look at `em. How does this thing work? DE LA GARZA: This button here I think. MARTIN: Oh, there we are. Okay, so we've got like a little Delta line around here showing where we propose to leave the landscaping, the existing landscaping, and I think the, some of the neighbors across the street here were objecting to the cell tower, so for them, this would really minimize. There's tall trees here. This would really minimize. They wouldn't be looking at the tower, and it wouldn't be anything different from what they already see unless they looked up to see the top of the tower. And, then here, I've added very tall, a four -foot wide hedge, and that is to help provide some buffer between the neighbors here, and we also moved the tower site over. It was right here, and we moved it down here and kinda in the middle. DARROW: If I could ask a question, when you compare the two site plans, it doesn't look like the actual tower moved. MARTIN: That's right, it doesn't look like that. I did ask that it be moved, and I didn't recognize that it hadn't been moved. I did ask that it be moved further away and with the shrubs around. We can move that over as needed. DARROW: Mr. Chairman, can I ask a question? CLARKSON: Please go ahead, Mr. Darrow. DARROW: So, the, just for reference for the Commission and for myself. The DeAguiars live just to the right on the map? MARTIN: That's right. You can see their turnabout. DARROW: Okay. Is there a way that you could actually move it to the other side of the property so that it's actually away from their residence? MARTIN: Absolutely. DARROW: Okay, so I mean that would be on the left side of the property. MARTIN: Right, we'll just swap it over, so—you see the setback area there? DARROW: Yeah. MARTIN: So, we would just, we could snug it up to the other side's setback area. DARROW: Okay, thank you. EXHIBIT A 7 MARTIN: Mm-hmm. RAFFIPIY: If you move it, if you move it to the left, will that be a 150 feet away from the house? MARTIN: So, right now, the site looks like it's 30 feet, oh, 31 feet away from the DeAguiars' property, and on the other side is, there's 74 feet, so, it would not be a hundred, but it would be 50 feet, 50 or 60 feet away, plus we've got that and then around that, then the 4 -foot buffer with the tall shrubs. DARROW: So, it looks like the width of the lot is 135 feet. The setbacks on both sides are identified as 20 feet. If you end up moving the tower over to the, abutting the setback on that side, that would give you, depending on what the width of that tower site is, your left side would be 115 feet, but then depending on how much your tower is and then also adding in the distance of the house on the other side which I would at least guess 20 feet out of the setback, so it's going to be over a hundred feet. It just if the tower could bump more towards the setback that would give you a much, pretty close to that. It would probably be about a 130 feet or so. MARTIN: So, the width of the site is 30 feet. DARROW: Okay. MARTIN: So, your—what did you say it was? A hundred and—the width of the lot was a hundred and? AGUINALDO: One thirty five. MARTIN: Thirty five? Oh, okay. Yeah, you're right then. So, it would be about 80 because you've got your 20 foot setback, 31 for the cell tower, so it would be about 80 feet, a significant amount. DARROW: You would also include the distance of the DeAguiars' house from their property line which is possibly another 20 plus feet. MARTIN: That's right. Okay, I see where you're going. CLARKSON: Do we have a map that shows all the residential properties? All the residences in the property surrounding this proposed location? KAY: There's an aerial photograph I can find. CLARKSON: Could you—so was there, is there any height for this tower that could be, it could be reduced to that would keep it from falling on a house were it to fall over? EXHIBIT A MARTIN: We're designing this as a monopole, and those typically have huge caissons and don't typically fall over. CLARKSON: Are they lava flow resistant? MARTIN: No, we lost our Kapoho site. CLARKSON: Well, my point exactly. I know if a lava flow came through this neighborhood, it would not be good for the neighborhood, but it would be especially bad if the edge of a flow knocked over this tower and it fell on an otherwise unaffected home. Just saying. RAFFIPIY: That's exactly what I was gonna, I was leading up to. You know, I respect the, you know, the design and all that, but, you know, we can never tell. You know, we get a lot of active earthquakes over here. And what if the thing is approved and then just falls over. I don't know. MARTIN: That's true for other structures, though, too. RAFFIPIY: Right. CLARKSON: Well, it is, but other structures aren't coming to us asking for a Use Permit that is entirely optional and not required to be granted under existing law so. MARTIN: I understand. CLARKSON: Okay. Are there any further questions at this time? We can follow up later after testimony. Okay, thank you very much. Please don't leave. We have one person scheduled to testify today. Utae Suzuki, would you please? SUZUKI: Hello? [Testing mic. ] CLARKSON: Would you please raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter before the Commission today? SUZUKI: Yes. CLARKSON: Thank you. Please proceed. SUZUKI: Okay, I am surprised that my neighbors didn't show up. You know, they are kind of very disgusted about whole thing, and I know I cannot speak for them, but they said, you know, they are not going to listen to us. They [inaudible] the County, you know, I hope not, but that's why I'm here. So, my residence in HPP sits diagonally across from Mark's place. The, on Railroad, Mark is on the right uh, left. Mark and Aida. Aida is his mother, diagonally across from him. So, it's, you know, 500 yards. EXHIBIT A 9 AGUINALDO: Is that the one with the blue roof in the photo? SUZUKI: No, you don't see it here. No, just, it's hiding. Green yeah. Anyway, a, you know, most of the angles that I want to explain this project should not go forward. That day was that big earthquake day and since then, a lot of things went on, and that's one of the, my main concern is that unthinkable could happen, you know, lava. So, and also the topography of this land. Have you been there? CLARKSON: [Shook head indicating no.] SUZUKI: Okay. Aguiar, their place, half of their place is CLARKSON: Please speak into the mic. SUZUKI: Oh, going upslope, okay? I don't know how many feet, probably 20 feet. And, then, flat. Half of their property almost is flat and the rest of them going downslope. So, I'm sure Evans, I haven't looked, you know, I didn't walk into his property, but from what I see is going up like this and flat, and it's very small area if they are, you know, trying to do this project, and that's a big concern for me, too, and for both neighbors. Anyway, I think this whole thing, I didn't know what was going on, so I spoke to Lauri, and Mrs. Lauri said well this is how it happened, and she wrote her testimony, and I printed out and gave it to you guys. When I first came with that thing that this project, the notice from Cellco, I went to see Ms. Watanabe, and she mentioned well this, they accepted it application from Danette, Ms. Danette because she said the neighbors agreed to it. And, I think in the beginning she said twenty to thirty-five feet or something like that, and then all of a sudden it's a 155 feet. I don't think that's very dishonest, I mean honest way to approach. Her, Ms. Danette's approach is I wouldn't call it lie, but you know it's maybe just I don't know. Least, I'll say deceptive. And, they fell really bad about it, okay, and I wished they talked to me in the beginning but, you know, they are local people. They are very quiet usually, and they are very humble, and you know I understand how they feel, you know, toward authority, toward big corporations, they feel fearful, okay? So, anyway, I'm not against the cell tower. Okay, we need that. One of the thing that I found out when I was gathering the signature that some people have Verizon, they have no problem, you know, receiving signals. No problem. Even though the big trees are around them. So, I don't know why they need it right there in our face, you know? So, I think the location should be effective and beneficial to community, not being you know, repulsed. Okay, anyway, I hope they find a better location for everyone, and Ithat's it. CLARKSON: Thank you. SUZUKI: Thank you. CLARKSON: Are there any questions for the testifier from the Commission? No? Thank you. You may be seated. Is there anyone else that wishes to testify here today? If not, I'll ask for a motion to close public testimony. EXHIBIT A 10 RAFFIPIY: So moved. IKEDA: Second. CLARKSON: All those in favor? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. CLARKSON: Opposed? Motion carries. Public testimony is closed. Before I ask fora motion for action, if I may, do you ask for a motion—excuse me, do we ask for a motion for action and then have discussion on that motion or can we have discussion prior to the motion? KAY: Malia, would you like to answer that question? HALL: Usually, you have the motion and then discussions. CLARKSON: So, the Chair will now ask for a motion for action from one of the Commissioners. There being none, can we proceed to a discussion? IKEDA: I move that the application for Use Permit Docket No. USE 17-074 be denied based on the following reason. One, I don't think it's the best interest for the community and although Verizon says it's not a health hazard, I really believe there's a health hazard because, well, even when I was going to college, that's in the sixties, there was studies about kids getting leukemia when they were some kind of electrical towers near their playgrounds, so I have concern about the health hazard also. I just want to sideI just want to be cautious because I don't want 20 years, 30 years from now where people get sick and says oh, it was because we allowed this tower which may or may not be true, but that it is my belief, and I don't want a cell tower by my home either. And, I don't think any of us want one because I know it will lower property value. Thank you. CLARKSON: Is there a second? RAFFIPIY: Second. CLARKSON: Okay, now is there any discussion on this— HALL: I think we need to go into an executive session, or I guess I could just state it on the record. There's a telecommunications act that basically lays out that you guys cannot deny a cell tower application based on health reasons. So, you guys would have to find different reasons then the health implications. CLARKSON: I'd like to—oh, go ahead. RAFFIPIY: Yeah, I was going to say my reservation with this application is the—like I stated before, I tried to figure out a way we can relocate this thing around so that, you know, it's a 150 EXHIBIT A 11 feet away from the residents. Given the recent activity in Puna, you know, we got all these earthquakes, and now we got lava and, you know, monopine towers were supposed to be supposedly if they fall, they fall down like this. They crash down. But, with all these activities that we have that I cited earlier, I'm really worried about that tower falling down on the nearby residents. That's my concern, and if I have to—that was one of the, I would have that as a reason for denying this permit. CLARKSON: I'd like to say that I concur with that concern. I've only been involved in one or two tower applications and in all those cases, all the neighbors were identified, told about the proposed tower, and had no objections. And, any successor owners would have been able to see the cell tower, know that it was in the neighborhood. If they wanted to buy the house next door, so be it. That's fine. They know what they're purchasing. But, to me, to put a cell tower in a place where it could fall over and hit any one of three different houses is not appropriate. I personally think that they should be located unless all of the neighbors are perfectly fine with it. I personally think that cell communication is a very valuable public utility, and that there may be ways to condemn or otherwise acquire property in suitable locations. But, I just wanted to say that I'm going to vote against this application because I just don't like the fact that it would be putting their neighbors in a situation where they have to worry about a cell tower falling over on their house for whatever reason. Now, you say that that's very unlikely, but I don't think however unlikely it is that is a risk that a neighbor should be forced to take by my action, and so I won't take that action. Is there any further discussion? Would you like to respond to, Applicant, to the discussion? MARTIN: I would. Mr. de la Garza has explained to me that Verizon if they are forced to move this site that they will not be providing service for this area. So, it's not a choice of moving it to an inappropriate location. There are just not enough people there to support moving the tower to an area where it's not going to cover as many people as they need to have it cover. Rural areas are very hard, and that's the reason why they haven't been covered prior to this. CLARKSON: Okay. MARTIN: It's just not cost effective. CLARKSON: And, you're not willing to go to the expense of acquiring enough land to site a tower so that it has a 150 -foot radius around it? MARTIN: There's no way that you can do that. These properties—if you, we actually did target, we did try to target areas that were vacant, and this is what we came up with. This is the best we could come up with. I sent letters out to every large vacant area within the coverage objective, and these are the only people that responded, so I don't have the option of going to another place that has a bigger fall radius. The only place is the park, and the radio frequency engineer said that won't work. CLARKSON: Okay, well, try offering more money. EXHIBIT A 12 HALL: I think we should go intoI think we need to discuss your guys authority, so maybe we should go into executive session. CLARKSON: Is there a motion to go into executive session at the suggestion? RAFFIPIY: I so move to go into executive session. IKEDA: Second. CLARKSON: All those in favor? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. CLARKSON: Opposed? Okay, we'll go into executive session now. We're going to have to respectfully ask everyone to please step outside for a few minutes while our counsel advises us on the law in this matter. At 9:54 a.m., it was moved by Commissioner Raffipiy and seconded by Commissioner Ikeda that the Commission go into executive session to consult with its attorney regarding questions and issues pertaining to the Commission's powers, duties, privileges, immunities, and liabilities, pursuant to Hawai `i Revised Statutes Sections 92-4 and 92-5. A voice vote was taken of all Commissioners present, and motion carried with four aye votes. At 9:55 a.. m., the Commission went into executive session. At 10: 04 a.m., it was moved by Commissioner Raffipiy and seconded by Commissioner Aguinaldo that the Commission go out of executive session. A voice vote was taken of all Commissioners present, and motion carried with four aye votes. The hearing reconvened for regular session at 10:09 a.m. CLARKSON: Okay, this session is now back in order. At this time, we have a motion on the floor. Is there any desire to rephrase the motion? IKEDA: Yes, I will rephrase the motion. I move that the application for the Use Permit Docket No. USE 17-074 be denied based on the following reason. There will be substantial adverse impact to the community's—community character, and surrounding property because of the falling risk of the tower, and it will affect the, also affect the property value. RAFFIPIY: I second the motion. CLARKSON: It's been moved and seconded. Is there any further discussion amongst the Commissioners? If not, please call the vote, Christian. KAY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Ikeda? IKEDA: Aye. EXHIBIT A 13 KAY: Commissioner Raffipiy? RAFFIPIY: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Aguinaldo? AGUINALDO: Aye. KAY: And Chair Clarkson. CLARKSON: Aye. KAY: Thank you. Motion carries four, nothing. CLARKSON: So, the Applicant will be notified in writing, and there will be ano, go ahead. IKEDA: I move that the adoption of the written Findings of Facts, Conclusion of Law, and Decision and Order be continued to the next scheduled meeting for denial of Use Permit Docket No. 17-074. RAFFIPIY: I second the motion. CLARKSON: All those in favor? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. CLARKSON: Opposed? That motion is also carried. So, as you heard from the motion, the consideration of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Decision & Order that will be formalized and presented at our next meeting to be adopted by the Commission. The discussion ended at 10:13 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sarah Y. Hata-Finley, Secretary Windward Planning Commission EXHIBIT A 14