Today is Tuesday, May 20th, 2025. I am calling this meeting to order at 10.59am. If folks can please take their seats we're about to get started. President Ford Committee today are council members Heather Kimball, Matt Canaley E. Kleinfelder, Holika Inaba, and James Houston. Joining us in Kona remotely is council member Rebecca Villegas. Joining us a little later are Councilmember Sresho Nishi and Michelle Galimba. My name is Ashley Kirkwoods, Chair and Presiding Officer of the Committee. At this time, we will take a public testimony both here in person and at our remote sites. Mr. Aracelli, if you could guide us through that process. Thank you. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. To start off our testifiers, we'll start with the two in Hilo, then we'll take two via Zoom and then we'll check with our remote sites. But with our first two in Hilo, we have John Erickson, to be followed by Kalei Kailekini. John, when you begin, you can turn that mic on by hitting that green button at the phone I don't hold it to my head I put it on the speaker phone because of the RF dangers that are at work at that time. minutes. Good morning ladies and gentlemen of the County Council it's a pleasure for me to be here. I hope you notice that I do not carry my phone in my pocket or on my body and when I answer the phone I don't hold it to my head I put it on the speaker phone because of the RF dangers that are at work at that time. Now, some people, some of the systems and bodies can handle it better than others. But I think as a general rule, as a general policy for our public representatives, do you take a note to protect us and to follow the Constitution? I believe that that's part of the noble tradition that you're trying to uphold, and that is to protect us and do what's best for us. What I've seen in the past is the dangers of RF energies on people. Now there were hundreds of studies, well, count lots of studies done before they passed the legislation through like maybe the Clinton administration, where they said you cannot complain about the RF dangers from these antennas, but you can complain about the aesthetics. That was written into law. That's kind of like oppression. We're going to give you the shot for COVID, whether you wanted or not, whether it's actually transparent and good, or it's full of all kinds of nanotechnology is bad for you. Well, there's a lot of people that do independent research and what the government is passing down isn't necessarily beneficial to our health all the time. So there's other avenues to find information. We would hope you guys would pursue rather than the Mockingbird media only for your information, government statistics. Our government is kind of captured in a lot of ways and maybe now there's hope for some sort of transparency. I don't know. I think the enemy is after us pretty good, his claws are dug in deep and by that I mean, I'm a child of God and I believe that the enemy is alive and well. That would be Satan who got thrown out of heaven and is against God's children by all means possible. And I think this, this allowing all these transmission towers that are proven to be cancer or tumor, all the whole gamut of medical issues to mankind. Why would you want that anywhere near a school? One of the issues, one of the latest YouTube videos I watched was a teacher that resigned from school because the kids are getting too much on their computers. They don't know how to read, they're graduated, but they don't know how to read, all they know how to do is go to chat GPT or whatever it is and say, right, this report, do this for me, do that for me. And they speak into it. They don't have to read, they don't have to do their homework. So she says that all this technology, not all the technology is. do this for me, do that for me, and they speak into it. They don't have to read, they don't have to do their homework. So she says that all this technology, not all the technology is in many cases going to waste. It's too much for us to handle. We're not handling that responsibly. And I'm a big advocate of responsibility. I was self-employed all my life. And you've got to be responsible. and I appreciate county councils to be responsible and to protect us. Now there are known dangers of R.M. 30 seconds please. And I wish you guys would would discover some of the studies and protect us. I think that you should bring in that 1200 foot boundary between schools, residential communities, things like that to protect us. If they want to bring it in fiber optics in their own home, that's fine. That's maybe that's the only path that should be followed in my estimate, rather than having always constantly floating through the air and causing damage to people's bodies unnecessarily. Thank you for your attention. I appreciate this opportunity and I wish you well. It's a big job you guys got to do. Thank you so much for your testimony. Chair, your next testifier is Kalei Kailekini testifying on Bill 24 to be followed by April V. Azoon. Kalei, when you begin, if you could just reintroduce yourself, you'll have three minutes. I mean, didn't. Oh, sorry. Okay. Aloha. Aloha, my name is Kare, Kaili Kinney. I reside in Hilohoi and I'm here for the bill 24 regarding the schools. And so, in every present myself in my family, by the way, and I have a little bit of that background. I am from Born and Bread in Molokai, graduated from the only high school there. Molocai high school farmers, so we're farmers, proud of it. And also, I attended Alaska Methodist University and the University of Alaska, secondary education history major. And so I was in Alaska during the, when they had the HART project, which is up at Gawkona, Alaska. So I was up there and I'm of that age of that generation. But my comment and my support, I oppose, vehemently, I oppose 5G proliferation. And what I do support is the County Hawaii County Council's resolution number 678-20. I'm so proud of the aid of the County Council members that was you Ashley you were one Matt was another that took this together and when. Matt was another. That took this together. And when you read this, to me, it's my Bible. It's a Bible. Okay? Because whereas, whereas, whereas, and the most, where the most important whereas for me had everything to do when it referred to children, the elders, the kupuna, and people with medical implants. Do you need statistics on that? So did they complete my question? Did they complete independent studies? And I'm talking about Hawaii County. I'm not talking about the world because I know the answer. In fact, each and every one of you will get from me this morning one of these packets that I diligently put together with my other half who happens to have a PhD in technology. I'm here as an instructor, educator, grandmother, great-grandmother, mother, I care tremendously about each and every one of you. Your children. Thirty seconds please. I care about your families. I really do. Why are you not telling us the dangers? This is packed with information and I do appreciate all your hard work. I know your heart so there. I know you care but this is your red solution. It's not completed. Please finish your job. Mahalini. Thank you so much for your testimony. And thank God bless all of you. May God bless all of you. Is Vizu, April Lee to be followed by Dr. Debra Green. April, if you could unmute your mic, you'll have three minutes. If you could just reintroduce yourself as you begin, please. Thank you. Feel, feel, feel, feel, with the software coming into this. Am I going to end up tonight? Yeah, hold on just a second, Miss Lee. I think if you could, hold on just a second. If you could hit the unmute on the notification, I just said. Oh, okay, hold on. Give me just one second. It seems like you're using two separate devices. Could we... Okay, let me, let me, let me. Okay. Miss Lee, were you able to find the... Okay. Miss Lee, were you able to find the button at the notification I sent you? If not, we can take Dr. Deborah Green at this time and we can come back to you, Miss Lee. Dr. Green, if you could just unmute your mic and reintroduce yourself, you'll have three minutes. Aloha, I'm Debra Green, testifying on behalf of Safe Tech, a by e, many members of the public and several of your fellow council members are sounding the alarm about Bill 24 and neglecting the needs of the community. We implore you to include a setback of at least 600 feet for residences and schools. I'm going to save this up front here. First responder and other dispatch services are exempt from any requirements. So we have to wonder why there against this protection of the people. We've gone from a contested case to now nothing that allows public input only planning and director approval is needed. There is no public. There's no checks and balances yet the impact is horrific. Towers and antennas are allowed in all zones with no protections. It's true that the telecom act of 1996 means you can't regulate based on health effects, but this outdated law is being challenged right now in federal court. Please see my written testimony for links to 11,000 pages of evidence of harm from EMF submitted in that federal case. Back in 96, no one owned a cell phone. Smartphones didn't exist. There was no Wi-Fi, no tablets, no iPads, no infrastructure to speak of. Exposure to wireless radiation is increased exponentially in 30 years. As publicly elected officials, you have a moral obligation to protect the public. And your hands are not tied. There are plenty of other reasons to protect homes in schools, to preserve the character and appearance of the neighborhoods, to protect the scenic, historic, and natural resources, to protect cultural resources, man-made resources, to protect the property values of the homes, to protect the general safety, welfare, and quality of life of the residents, to protect families and children from nuisance, from noise and falling objects, and from dangerous skywires. Bill 24 and 194 were both bullied vetted by the two planning commissions, by court council, by county agencies. In fact, Bill 24 was put forth by the planning department itself. But despite this, new obstacles continue to be introduced at every turn eroding the needs of the community. 30 seconds please. The Hawaii State Constitution emphasizes the importance of public health, safety, and welfare. We hope you will find it in your hearts to allow a 600 foot setback from residences and schools. And again, first responder and dispatch services are exempt from all requirements in this section of this bill. So there's no reason not to do it, but plenty of reasons to do it. Thank you. Thank you so much for your testimony chair. This time we'll try again with Ms. April Lee. April, if you could just reintroduce yourself, you'll have three minutes to provide your testimony on bill 24. After which, we will go to Kona for their testifier and then back here to Hilo. April, if you could please. Thank you so much and I appreciate being here in front of the policy committee on planning, land use, economic development. And it doesn't mention health of the citizens, but I'm sure that is your first and foremost responsibility for any person enacting governance under this law of the land would be first and foremost protecting the people. And I really haven't heard many questions from your panel and your committee there. I appreciate you volunteering and spending your time doing this for us. But I'm wondering why this is my seventh time testifying in front of you folks. And after three times, the planning director actually wrote a whole new thing. And I mean, now, like everyone was just like, what? I mean, do I need to trace this call and figure what planet I'm on? Because that was just completely out of the blue. And then we got set back and then everything, just like Deborah said, she actually did specifically state our emotions and not knowing where this is all going and coming from except the fact that corporations have a lot of power. They have a lot of evidence for why they need to do it on their bottom lines financially. But we have a ton of evidence and I can tell you that what Deborah is sending you, those 11 pages of links, you can't open because I sent you 400 links and I learned that later you cannot legally open a link on your email. So Deborah, I'm informing you, I have sent them hours worth of work. One of them was the video of individuals who've suffered grave physical effects of on this island. And that there's a 5D tower and YKE and people that are sensitive actually feel it when they drive by. There's effects of effects on fetal and newborn development and parental exposure is even extremely low frequencies in magnetic fields impact fetal growth. There is so many things about the damage in the 400 links that I have researched and these are all peer reviewed. I didn't pick anything that wasn't, because I started in genetics in 1966 when I won a state science fair. And I know that these frequencies at 5G especially affect the genetics. So you've got federal appeals court that has revisited this 5G. 30 seconds, please. 30 seconds. Oh, no. There are so many cases that are now going to be brought. I don't want you liable. I don't want anything to affect the money that should go to the neatly homeless and all the money that have been taken out of the budget. I swear this is the one of the worst couple years, this last couple years. But we need to not have you jeopardizing your own legal status. We need better protections to prioritize our safety over the profits of telecom industry and the environmental health trust and the think tank that promotes a healthier environment. I'm so sorry to cut you off, Miss. But your three minutes are up, so we're going to have to move on. Thanks chair. Your next testifier is in corner. Scott if you could and then after your testifier will come back to our testifiers in Heel. Thank you. Thank you, Rayleigh. This morning we have Josephine, Kaley, EPO, and opposition of bill 24. Joseph, go ahead and state your name for the record and proceed. Yeah, three minutes. Good morning. My name is Josephine Kelly EPO from Kaigou, Kona. And I am here to oppose Bill 24. And I agree with all the testifiers that have already said something about opposing it. So I happen to actually be very sensitive to EMFs and it affects me, even when I'm using my phone, I have to be careful because I get a fainting sensation at times with the phone. And I know it's the phone. And I have to, and sometimes the phone is just on. And I have to completely turn it off and wrap it up in my little fair day cloth and throw it to the side so that the sensation will go away from me. So there are definitely health problems with these kinds of telecommunication and tenders being too close to us, to human beings. And to children who are still developing, they're still growing. You need to reconsider and not have this favorable recommendation to forward this bill. It's not right, it really isn't right. And another thing, I also wear something on me to harmonize, you know, these effects from EMS. And it doesn't work, okay. So I still got harmed recently by it. So much that I ended up in the emergency room. So, you know, I'm totally opposed to it. Please don't pass it. Thank you. Thank you so much for your testimony. Chair, your next two testifiers are here in Hilo. Chris Hilo say to be followed by Claudia Shimmer-Kiave, both testifying on Bill 24. Chris, when you begin, if you could just reintroduce yourself, you'll have three minutes. I'm Chris Herose from Mountain View. I support Bill 24 with a setback. Children are more vulnerable to EMF radiation because of higher and longer lifetime exposure. Their bodies are still developing. They have smaller heads so the radiation goes more into their brain. Genetic damage may affect the next generations. EMF advice, in some nations, the recommended safe distance is around 400 meters about a quarter of a mile from the antenna. However, there are other sources that suggest maintaining a buffer of 300 to 400 meters, 984 to 1312 feet, using the distance in the inverse square law compared to the EMF radiation at setback of. 1,200 feet away, 1,000 feet is 1.4 times higher. 600 feet is 4 times higher. 120 feet is 100 times higher. The fire chief's testimony said that we get rid of the 1,200 setback so there will be better mass emergency communication. The bill could allow for exceptions. The International Association of Firefighters has an opposing view. They oppose the use of fire stations as base stations for towers and or antennas for the conduction of cell phone transmissions until a study with the highest scientific merit and integrity on health effects of exposure to low intensity RFP or megawatt radiation is conducted and it is proven that such sightings are not hazardous to the health of our members. The Fire Fighter Association also found that EMF radiation caused increased cancer, sleep disturbances, headaches, Alzheimer's and damage to the DNA, ice, nerves, and brain. And relevant to school setbacks are more childhood leukemia, blood cancer, and school children's less memory, less attention and slower reaction time. As of May 15, 2025, in the U.S. National Library of Medicine there are 397 studies for EMF radiation cancer. 879 studies for EMF radiation health. The FCC lost a court case because they ignored scientific evidence of harm caused by EMF radiation in August 2021. Tonguealer was CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association, CTIA, lobby from 1992 to 2004. In 2024, CTIA ranks 14 of 9,200 in lobbying organizations. Wheeler is CEO of CTIA oversaw the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that fundamentally gathers citizens and local governments from voicing health concerns about wireless infrastructure. The electronics manufacturing and equipment, Lobby is the second biggest industrial lobby after pharmaceuticals of health products. The electronics lobby spent $253 million in 2024. Wheeler became FCC head in 2013 to 2017. 30? Cancer from the telecom industry might be purposeful. BlackRock rock Van Garden State Street together have a majority share an 88% of the S&P 500 and can select their boards. When the telecom industry gives people cancer, the pharmaceutical industry profits. The telecom industry lobbies to protect them from liability. Hawaii doesn't have ugly billboards like the mainland. Ugly cell towers can be out of sight. Please show a low-haw and help Big Island. Thank you so much for your testimony. Check your next testifier as Claudia Schimmer-Kiabi. Testifying on Bill 24 and then we'll go to our Zoom testifier, Naomi Millamit. Claudia, when you begin, if you could just reintroduce yourself, you'll have three minutes. Oh, Schimmer-Ki doing. I'm not sure if you're doing it. I'm not sure if you're doing it. I'm not sure if you're doing it. I'm not sure if you're doing it. I'm not sure if you're doing it. I'm not sure if you're doing it. I'm not sure if you're doing it. I'm not sure if you're doing it. I'm not sure if you're doing it. the last five years. I have a son named Kimokiavi who's on the mainland. And I have been in the health industry since 40 years ago. And I was involved being a secretary of the health board in the county I came from and was very involved with research being done regarding 2G at that time, was already causing people who were EMF sensitive to have issues. So there were various studies done and one was a cell phone put in a backpack. 10 minutes later, people's blood changed. So I know that we cannot eliminate people from having the cell phones and the laptops and the iPads. But the fact is that it is a lifetime accumulation of the radiation that will affect people. And our children are the first generation, my child, and then the next generation after that, my grandchild as well, are getting a much higher accumulation of those radiation exposures. So the EMF sensitivity factor will increase exponentially as life progresses and more of this radiation becomes closer to everybody. So Chris has given the facts surrounding the spacing. I know that we cannot eliminate technologies here to stay, but whatever we can do to help keep that distance, at least for the eight hours the children aren't school every day, that would go a huge way towards mitigating future electromagnetic sensitivity. There are many people that are so sensitive, they can't even be in a room with people having five cell phones on them. They get migraine headaches. There's a huge amount of data coming out about the wave that's coming that only people like yourself can help mitigate. So I'm really hoping that you will thoroughly investigate this booklet that Kalay Kaila Keene put together for you to really have all the facts close at hand before you make your decision regarding the setback in particular. We cannot eliminate progress and all that, but at least we can protect our children here on the island. There is a lot of evidence to prove. I know from my own experience, the early 5G Triggy Towers were placed on telephone poles that were paid to each individual's city. So there was a lot of money involved to help roll it out. I have no idea how all the various cell phone companies are now paying the state to have all these towers, but I don't really know what that's all about. And I'm wondering, thank you very much for your time, and I hope you make proper decision for our futures. Thank you so much for your testimony. Chair, your last two testifiers are via Zoom. Naomi Milamer to be followed by Susan Higa, both testifying bill 24 Naomi when you begin if you could just reintroduce yourself you'll have three minutes. Hello, good morning committee members. My name's Naomi mellamin. Good to see you. I'm here again representing safe tech of IE as the big island leader. Today I speak to the urgent concern, the lack of a setback in Bill 24. We urge you to include this setback of at least 600 feet from residences and schools to safeguard our communities well-being. Firstly, the current framework eliminates public input in the sighting of cell towers and antennas. Previously, there was an allowance for contested cases, but now only planning and director approval is needed. This effectively excludes any public participation, removing checks and balances. Essentially, we're left with this moment, these three minutes to voice and use our voices. The setback is very much important. It matters in our residential communities to the people of Hawaii Island. Now, aligned with state law, towers and antennas will be permissible in all zones. Further, no clear process for public notification of nearby residences exists. And without setback protections for people in their homes or young children and educational settings, we render the population vulnerable. A setback is crucial to balance the discrepancies in bill 24. While the Telecom Act of 96 restricts regulation based on health effects, it is being challenged in federal court. It's a matter of time. Our situation has drastically changed. 96 is when some of the first cell towers were put up in the world. With mounting evidence towards harm, should we not practice the precautionary principle? A setback is a gesture of sanity, care, and protection. There are numerous additional reasons to impose setbacks in our homes as Deborah stated other than health. The list is long. The community needs a setback in residential and school zones. Bill 24 has undergone rigorous review by planning and county agencies yet obstacles continue to undermine community needs at every committee needing. Please do follow the Hawaii State Constitution in its promises. Article 9 mandates protection and promotion of public health while Article 11 underscores the right to a clean environment. We must remain true to these values and before we're thinking. 30 seconds please. Thank you. Please uphold the values as our elected officials. We've provided you with ample evidence and information supporting our desires for a setback and our written testimony from Safe Tech, a grassroots, not-for-profit, group dedicated to supporting a safer solution by and for the people and life in Hawaii. Thank you so much for your attention and for making good decisions for Island today, Aloha. Thank you so much for your testimony. Chair, our last testifier is Susan Higa. Susan, if you could unmute your mic and reintroduce yourself, you'll have three minutes to provide your testimony on Bill 24. Susan, I just sent you a notification to unmute if you could just hit that. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. If you could just reintroduce yourself, you'll have three minutes. Thank you. My name is Susan Higa. I'm calling to ask you to give back the setback, please, because you are removing the only protection. Perhaps you might think that what I'm about to say is a bunch of nonsense, but the body is foundationally electromagnetic. Please consider the following. What does an electroencephalogram, EE-e measure? It measures the electrical activity of the brain. What does an electrocardiogram e-k-g measure? The electrical activity of the heart. What does a heart pace do? It electrically regulates heart beat. What does an electromyogram do? EMG. It measures the electrical activity of muscles and nerves. And as you know, all nerves originate from the brain down the spinal cord to reach all parts of the body. What does a defibrillator do? It electrically jumps starts the heart. What does an MRI do? It reads the magnetic resonance of the body and puts it into pictures. Oxygen is an electron donor because each molecule of oxygen provides multiple electrons. So with every breath the body is breathing in electrical charge. On that ridge without breath for more than three minutes the body dies. It's not unlike how an appliance stops dead when unplugged from its power source. The surface of the earth is the greatest source of charge, which is why the ocean side has always been a place of healing. Going bare feet on a beach enables direct contact with the surface. Plus, the ocean water with its salty content is an excellent inductor of electricity. Health issues have been gutted and prohibited, exactly for the reasons I've outlined. Not only are cell towers powerful disruptors to help, but by removing that setback, turn this into a land grab. That's a blatant trespass to the people who live on this land. These companies shouldn't have first choice of what they do with these powerfully disruptive electromagnetic devices. So please, as members of this committee on planning and land use, you are in a position to prevent this. You are in a position to protect the land and protect the people. Thank you for your attention. Thank you so much for your testimony and chair. With that, those are all the testifiers you have at the beginning of your meeting. Thank you, Mr. Araceli. Mr. Clerk, if we could please move on with business of the day. Thank you. Last chance for anyone to testify in Bill 24 draft four. Please speak up now. Hearing none, Bill 24 draft four, amend chapter 25, articles 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 of the Hawaii County Code 1983, 2016 edition as amended relating to telecommunication antennas and towers. Planning director initiated. The Winward and Leeward Planning Commission's forward, their favorable recommendations to remove the requirement for a use permit to establish telecommunication antennas and towers in certain zoning districts at application requirements and amend standards for the establishment of telecommunication antennas and towers introduced by councilmember Kirkowitz by requests. This was postponed on February 4 and 18 March 16 April 1 and 15 2025. Please note there is a motion by council member inu, seconded by Council Member Houston to recommend passage of Bill 24 and first reading. Thank you, Mr. Clerk. We have a couple of amendments to get through. Mr. Houston? Chair, thank you, Chair. Motion to amend Bill 24 draft four with a contents of communication 110.117. Thank you. There's a motion by Councillor Hustis, a second by Councillor Oñishi to amend Bill 24 draft four with the contents of communication 110.117. This includes a suite of amendments based on our last meeting last month. council members have the communication in front of them, I'll just walk everyone through this. Number one has to do with small wireless facilities. We're called the conversation and presentation that we had with Deputy Corporation Council. Jean Campbell about our county's inability to regulate small wireless facilities and her recommendation to add that to the definition. Number two is in regards to a submittal checklist. This is to identify everything that an applicant is required to submit to the planning department as part of the plan approval process. Number three is our attempt to ensure that verification or notification letters are sent to property owners within 500 feet of the proposed installation. This is in addition to a section within this bill that calls for proactive community engagement by the applicant. Number four is about renumbering this section accordingly. Number five is to provide clarity around the federal regulations that we are referring to. That's Title 47 the Telecommunications Act and support planning in their work to align their work with any federal or state regulations. And finally, Section 6. In consultation with Corporation Council, we cannot require industry to have redundant power supplies on site. We can encourage them. So this language is offered in order to address what is potentially interpreted as a taking. There are members of the Planning Department here, Director Jeff Darrell, Tracy Lee Camaro, as well as Planning Corporation Council. Jean Campbell here to answer any questions folks might have. Thank you. Any questions? Chair? Council Member Vegas. Yes, first up I want to start by thanking you for taking so many of the different amendments that had been discussed and working with planning to re-incorporate the terminology from what I'm reading meets the needs and incorporate some of the other amendments that we had kind of gone back and forth about in putting in this language here. So I wanna thank you for doing that. I have another amendment coming forth but I don't see any conflict in those and they actually would align quite perfectly. So thank you for the due diligence and all the effort you put forth to ensure that this legislation incorporates, takes into consideration and helps to better protect our community and ensure their long term health and safety and for that of the land as well. Thank you, Councilmember Canneley, Eclan Filter. Thank you, Chair. Maybe for the planning department. This question is applicable, Mr. Good morning. Please introduce yourself. Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair and members of the Hawaii County Council, Jeff Darrow with the Planning Department, as well as Tracey Lee Camaro, planner with the Planning Department. Thank you. A question for you for the amendment that we're on. Number three, which is Section 5 of Bill 24. The verification of notification that I'm trying to grasp this section where we're saying the we're going to notify owners and less ease of record of properties within 500 feet of the point along the boundary of the building site for the installation. Define for me perimeter boundary of the building site. You know, normally we just use property boundary, so that sounds... this is a fancy way to describe that. But typically they notify, so if the property is... the difficulty is, let's say, it's on a large property, right, like hundreds of acres. It's not specific to a location, it's specific to the property boundary. So it has to go out 500 feet from the entire perimeter of the property boundary, which would be the perimeter of the building site. That's typically what we do in notification. It can be 300 feet or 500 feet. In this particular request to amend, it's specific to 500 feet and this also includes information to be provided as part of the notification. Okay so the perimeter boundary of the building site is the entire parcel. Correct. Okay so not the actual physical site of building. Correct. Which would be, you know, maybe a 50 by 50 area. And I associate equipment. We're going to look real quick as to the language we normally use. That might be something we may want to adjust. Just to make it clear. My understanding is I believe it's the property boundary. But again, this is the building site to me and something different. Maybe it's because of my background, but. Well, it's, yeah, perimeter boundary of the building site and the building site again normally is the property. So we're looking at other language in the code and in the short term vacation rental language. It did use something similar to this perimeter boundary of the short term vacation rental, but again it was specific to the property boundary, not just the location of the home. So building site means property boundary. We do have a definition of building site within our code and we'll bring that up. Thank you. I remember this term because we don't have a link in the short and additional. Yeah. Just if you could I want to hear that definition please. So building site is defined as a parcel of land which is occupied or is to be occupied by a principal use and accessory uses or a building or group of buildings and includes a lot or a plot. Sounds familiar. So that is one or the other or is both? Both. Yeah it's sometimes we determinate as a lot or a plot. Plot being parcel? Yes. Okay. Like we'll ask for a plot plan or that's a typical term we use. But there are, you know, you have parcel lot, plot lot different terms at the use okay okay that was my only question thank you thank you anyone else seeing none there is a motion on the floor all those in favor please say aye any opposed nine eyes carries. Bill 24 draft 4 is amended with the contents of communication. 110.117. Council Member Villegas. Yes, thank you. Motion to amend. Bill 24 with the contents of communication. 110.118. Thank you. There is a motion by Council Member Villegas and the second by Council Member Inaba to amend Bill 24, draft four as amended with the contents of communication. 110.118, Council Member Villegas. Thank you. Thank you everybody for this great conversation today. We have learned draft four, which has been a long time coming. I do want to put forth for the public an understanding that this legislation is really important for our county because it puts us on the map with actually having some policies surrounding telecommunications as it relates to our county. So you know, there are people who would like to see it more restrictive and protective and others that, you know, would either don't mind or work for telecommunications company. But I just wanted to make sure that that is put out there, that we're working for the best policy possible. We'd like to limit small cell towers, but now we're told that the state has a policy on that that we can't supersede. So, my ask today, as I've brought forth a number of number of requested amendments as we've navigated this process is something quite simple. I'm asking for a specific number of feet to be added back in as it relates to the distance necessary that it not be less than 600 feet from any residents or school. Originally in Bill 24, the legislation which was drafted and worked on by our prior planning director was 1200 feet. So my belief, my strong belief is that this will do more good than harm. We've also had it clarified already and thank you planning for responding to me when I sent this amendment earlier to see if there were any issues and the only issue in response I got was that the first responders, police and fire may have some issues with it. I'm thankful that it's been clarified today that first responders and other disfetched services are exempt from setback requirements so that eliminates any point of concern there. And I just want to appeal to my colleagues to support this amendment and put back in the 600 foot. Half of what was asked before, totally feasible. Going to do more good than harm. But that it wouldn't be any less than 600 feet from any residents or school. Some of the biggest complaints from community members is when towers or tenants are installed all their homes or schools. They research shows that wireless infrastructure negatively impacts property values. Tower installations also impact the community through a compromised safety, diminished quality of life, and disruption of the integrity and cultural character of their land. Community overwhelmingly wants towers and antennas as far away as possible for their homes, from their homes and children. This amendment is for very minimal and reasonable 600 foot setback from residences and schools. It's only half of what was prior. And as I listened to all this testimony, I find myself doing my own personal inventory of the amount of time that I spend on devices and that my grandson spends on devices and my daughters. And I'm concerned because there's a part of me that believes that I will probably live to see the day that I regret all of that and not not being more ferocious about protecting myself. You know, this specific legislation is more related to protecting cultural resources, historic resources, aesthetics, property values, and safety from falling objects. But I want the constituents and those who have spent a lifetime researching the potential negative consequences from exposure to electromagnetic radiation. I hear you. And I share those concerns. And we're in a wild time as we, you know, who would have known that we'd be? I'd be in my lifetime walking into the era of AI and such technological advancements with such loss of natural resources and connection in other ways. So I ask for my colleague's support in this simple amendment that puts back in a minimum setback. I yield. Thank you, Councilmember. I really appreciate your creative approach here. I think we are all aware that we cannot regulate public health, but this is I think one way that you are creatively trying to address that. So thank you for your efforts. I do want to just ask the Planning Department since you're seated here before us, your opinion regarding this amendment we are deliberating on. Thank you chair. The planning department from the outset has included a larger setback. So being that this as mentioned by Council Member V. Guess is half of what that setback was were supportive. Thank you. Thank you director. Any questions or comments here on the dius? Council Member Canaley, Equine Filter. Thank you. Actually, I'm going back and looking over where we started, where we are now, and this amendment is a part of the amendment. And for reasons that public brought up, there are some good reasons this morning. I think why this This is important, especially with their cakey. So with that, I'll be supporting the amendment. Thank you. Anyone else? Council member Kimball. Yeah, just looking for confirmation of what was mentioned in the testimony, which was the objection to the site, the SEPAQ, previously was the exemption for emergency responders and that sort of infrastructure. So can you confirm that that is, in fact, the way that this bill should be interpreted? Hi, thank you so much, Councilmember Kimbo for that great question. I'm Tracy Lee, Comarile Planner within the Planned Department. So when we were drafting the bill, just a brief history again, we did meet with police, fire and civil defense, and they did have concerns about the 1200 foot step back. So we did put in an exemption in our bill that did allow for those towers that are brought up by police fire and civil defense to not have to meet the setback requirements. However, it is my understanding that police and fire did still have concerns on the 1200 foot setback as it may affect their first net and correct me if I'm wrong director Darrell but I think that was at the last meeting that fire chief Kuzul Todd did speak to that. So Council member Viegas did you happen to consult with fire and police and you know get their feedback on this and the exemption? I'm sorry, I don't understand the question concerning the exemption if they're already exempted from it. As just mentioned by planning. They were concerned about the potential impacts on the first net and those that would be not excluded for the exemption that's in the bill. The first, I'm sorry, I can't the first net. Yes, First NET towers, which are part of the emergency response network supported by the federal government. And it sounds like from, I don't know if you want to elaborate on what first net is for Council Member Villegas. Sure. With respect to the question. I had briefly touched upon it before and I'm definitely not the expert on it but But sometime ago there was, I believe it was AT&T that was given the contract for FirstNet. And it was a collaboration of being able to utilize their system to prioritize emergency services to police, fire, civil defense to utilize their infrastructure for those purposes. So even though this bill may exempt fire police civil defense from building their own towers, the question remains whether it would exempt towers that would be utilized using the first net system, even though they're not police fire or civil defense towers. So I think that's where the clarification may need to come from fire or police civil defense. Thank you for that explanation Director Dero. I'm looking at 25 412b which states that telecommunication facilities developed by government agencies primarily to protect public health, safety and welfare, including but not limited to facilities for police, fire, ambulance, and other emergency dispatch services, shall be exempt from the telecommunication antenna and tower requirements provided in this chapter. It's also my understanding that Chief Todd had communicated that first net runs on another band. It's also my understanding that Chief Todd had communicated that first-net runs on another band. It's not 3G or LTE or 4G or 5G. The folks I was working with on this amendment have met with Chief Todd to confirm that. Okay, thank you, Council Member Villegas. I wish we had police or fire here to kind of clarify and ensure that the first net system is being covered because I do think that there remains a concern in the sense that the towers developed for first net are contracted I believe to a provider and so they're not technically being developed by a government agency but they are providing that necessary coverage. Okay, I'm willing to support this amendment today, but I think we need another tweak to ensure that the first net process is covered. Thank you, Councilmember Kimball. Councilmember Kennedy, Klein-Velder? I was thinking about one of the testimonies that was provided by Siri through one of our individuals. Well, now she's talking to me, stop it, go away. Okay. But I looked up that discussion that was brought up, sort of that point that was brought up about the International Association of Firefighters. I found this site and currently the IAFF, Association of Firefighters does oppose the use of fire stations as base stations for towers and or antennas for the conduction of cell phone transmission. Until a study with the highest certain scientific merit and integrity and health effects of health effects of exposure to low intensity RF slash MW radiation is conducted. And it is proven that such sightings are not hazardous to the health of our members. And I think about that, I'm making that statement because we're doing, I think what And I was wondering if Vegas is hoping to do here is to work with the communities requests to make sure that we're not putting our own kids in the same situation that even the IAFF is saying they don't want to be in regards to having towers too close to their own personnel. And so in that sense, I think this has merit. And again, it's supporting it. We're just wanting to provide some other people outside of us and outside of, we're talking about today, that are upstanding levels of information for us to base our decision on. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, Council Member Vieg, let's go ahead. Yeah, I just want to quickly go back kind of historically in July of 2024. The creation of Bill 24 by the former Planning Director Kern, he consulted with telecommunications corporations, including Verizon, AT&T, Crown Castle, and the Wireless Policy Group, government agencies, including DL&R, and all nine of its agencies, the county's civil defense agency and the police department. It's all in record from back in July of 2024. So, you know, and that was at a 1200 foot setback. So I thank my colleagues for your support in this and perhaps we can have fire come to the next one if that's an area of concern for council member Kimball, but I feel quite confident moving forward that all of the bases have been covered and that this footage for a setback requirement is It won't harm anything and will in fact provide the necessary setback for health and safety and what the community is asking for. I yield. Thank you. Councilmember Galimba. Thank you. I just wanted to ask about existing cell towers that would not be 600 feet from a residence or I'm recommend but can you speak a little closer to your mixture? Sure. Did you get that? Yeah, so existing towers if they had to be renovated or you know completely Redone in the future with this then be a problem for those powers to be redone. We have what's called a non-conforming section within our code. And basically it applies when a use is conforming at the time and the code or law or rule changes and it becomes non-conforming at that point. There's certain allowances but when it's a complete demolition and rebuild that's difficult because in that portion of the code it basically says you have to comply with current code at that point. If they were doing something where they did repair and maintenance for a period of time they could eventually you know replace the tower but it had to be over a period of like four years at 25% per year. And it's just the way the code is written. So if that is a concern, it might be something that we might want to place as a portion in the code in this change. We normally, we do get requests periodically because of the shape of towers. I mean, in the sense of they're becoming outdated or dilapidated and they need to be replaced. And so they'll come in. It's normally there's an opportunity for them to replace, right? Either it's covered under the use permit or they come in for a new plan approval, but in this particular case, being that if that tower was within 600 feet of a residence or a school, that's hard to get past, right? It's you're not going to meet the current code at that point. So you're saying that if we wanted to ensure that we could still have the towers that we have, that we might need to put something into this build. Correct. Okay. There's something just simply that if an existing tower needed to be replaced, it could be replaced, but you may want to keep language in there that it's replaced to basically match what is existing. It doesn't expand during large. Okay. Thanks. With all the discussion, I don't think we actually thought about that particular issue. Anything else, council member? Okay. Seeing no other lights on, there is a motion on the floor. All those in favor, please say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries with nine eyes. Bill 24, draft four as is now amended with the contents of communication 110.118s. Back to the main motion on the floor, which is to forward bill 24 as amended to the council with the favorable recommendation. Any final comments before we proceed with the vote? Seeing none, all those in favor please say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries with nine aye votes bill 24. Draft four as amended is for to the council with a favorable recommendation. Thank you everyone for your work on this. Mr. Clerk, moving on to the next set of bills before us. If anyone would like to testify in Bill 52, please speak up now. Hearing none, Bill 52, a mens chapter 25 articles 1, 4, and 5 of the Hawaii County Code in 1983, 2016 edition as amended relating to henneries. Allows hens for household egg production and single family, double family, multi-family residential and residential commercial mixed-use zoning provides for certain conditions and regulations introduced by Council Member Kimbo. Chair, motion to forward Bill 52 to the planning commissions. Thank you. There is a motion by Council Member Kimbo. Second by Council Member Houston- to forward Bill 52 to the Planning Commission. Any discussion? Councilmember Kimbo. Yeah, if I may. So this was a constituent request to allow for female hens specifically, not roosters, to be raised on certain types of residential parcels. You'll note that there is another bill subsequent that is almost identical. This is I've never actually seen this. We're not allowed to talk to each other just so the public knows about bills that are in progress. And but this is always possible to happen. So Matt and I were working on these independently and only discovered when they were both agendas that we had similar legislation. So I'll just take a moment. What I would suggest ultimately is both of these go to the planning commissions, they deliberate about them, bring the feedback and then we settle on one bill. But I will just highlight a couple of distinctions. I wanted to specifically call out the zoning districts where these would be permitted as opposed to using the language that would say just word livestock. They're not permitted because there are a couple zoning districts like industrial, which I did not want to be included, but do not allow livestock either. So that in Bill 53, that sort of't even district would be included. Also not necessary per se because the definition of Henry includes female chickens or female poultry and then it also says for the non-commercial production. So in some ways the distinct exclusion of roosters in number three and And then the statement that sale is prohibited in number four are redundant, but we know that definitions up are in the section of the code and then you have the details in this other section and I just wanna make it, make it expressly clear that this is not for commercial production in any way. And that roosters are not allowed. So thank you for the consideration and look forward to seeing what the planning commissions come back with. Thank you, Councilmember. Councilmember Inaba. Thank you. Yeah, with the sunshine law obviously we are where we are now. I as a matter of process don't prefer to see two bills referred to the commission. So I'll be voting no on both of these just because I want to send one. I think this council itself has a difficulty dealing with multiple bills on the same topic. And we're asking two commissions to do the same now. So I'm assuming it's going to go forward but ask the planning department and most especially the corporation council to pay some extra attention and care and getting these done with the commissions. Thank you. Councillor McKinney, can kind of better. Yeah, I'd just, I'll be supporting this bill. And I'm actually just to make this easier for everybody else. I'll just put a job bill 53. There's not much of a difference. And I may think it, I think Heather and I both stem from the same place. It was a few months ago, Mr. Curry came in front of us. And he explained somewhere in the discussion of whatever we were discussing that if you live in residential property, you can't have chickens on your property. And I went back and referenced some previous ordinance that had been brought to the council. I think even stepping back to Don Donald E. Ceta, a bill to do the same thing that didn't manage to get through for whatever reason. I think from that moment, I think both her and I tracked into LRB and then we came out at the same time. So I would just, I would draw a bill 53 today to make it easier for everybody. Main idea, we see skyrocketing egg prices, and we're going to limit... Actually, we seek agricultural resiliency. All these things that we're doing in the county, except you can't have chickens on residential property. It just makes zero sense. You have a few chickens, you have three to four eggs a day. I mean, that's the point. So thank you Heather for bringing this forward. I want to make it competing for the planning commission. So I'll just switch off to three when we get there. And we move this forward. Hopefully, everyone's a want. But I love the idea. I'll be it. I don't live in residential property. I live in ag property. But I don't find hands intrusive. If kept right and in the right numbers, you're not going a lot of bugs actually eat cookie frogs the all the pests that we ate Santa peeds like they eat all that stuff and they make eggs out of it They're not loud roosters are loud and irritating for a lot of folks and this My wife looked to me as a you brought back the rooster bill And I said no no no no no let's distinct that does, very clear distinctions to Bill. This is allowing pens, but not roosters. The other Bill said no roosters, but you know, a certain boundary. So I'm not totally not related to the rooster bill of the early 2010 decade. And to be clear, there is no rooster bill on the floor. There is no rooster bill on the floor. This is only to allow people to have laying hands on properties within certain districts in the county. So be supporting and thank you for the conversation. Thank you for you for communicating your intent. We will address Bill 53 once it has been read into the record by the clerk. Mr. O'Neill. Thank you Madam Chair. So Chair. So in regards to that bill, former council member, I was on the council at that time, and we did vote it down because of the residential areas we had gotten calls that the neighbors didn't want it because of the situations. As you mentioned about having them eating the cookie frogs, but what I see in here, it has to be cooked up, whereas before they were feral, they were just all over the place, and that's what the neighbors were against it. So this is possible, something good, but within the neighborhood, and like in my district, I don't think they would really want this, and I understand about the eggs in production for home use which is great but it's a neighbor's possible could be to smell depending on how many hens do you have on your property and the way I read it it's like if you can have two has per thousand square foot. So if you have a 15,000 square foot log would that be like 10 more? No, five times two. No, what if you have a thousand square foot you have two? Yeah. For every thousand. For every thousand. Yeah, so let me. So if you have a 15,000 square foot lot. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. Yes. Yeah, I'm sorry. I thought it was a 150,000. No, no, no. So you're correct. So you have ten. And then you have an additional one more hand per that thousand square foot area greater than the three thousand square foot Right, so somebody has an eight half acre How many hands would be able to be allowed? I don't mean to interrupt you But the motion on the floor is to forward to the planning commission What what what have our discussion once we get the recommendation? I think before we do that maybe this this should be amended again, or fixed before we approve. Do you have anything to say? No, we were just trying to figure out the matter. Okay. But then yeah. So right now I cannot support this consent. It needs to be fixed. It looks like according to the bill you get two hands for the first 3000 square feet and then one for every additional thousand more. Correct. Yeah, so okay. So yeah, so I won't be able to support in and into the planning commission. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Kimball. Yeah, I think understand the concern and I think that there's probably an opportunity for several improvements. One maybe would be a cap, which is something that I considered, you know, you could follow that math up to a certain point, whatever that point maybe. I do recommend that we forward this though to the planning commission so that they can provide that feedback on what is appropriate. Thank you. Councillor McKinney of the Eclan Fudder. My first bill they sent in the other bill actually had a cap and I'm looking over my bill $53 and realizing that it changed pretty substantially. And I approve that. I think I captured it five or six. If you get five, five chickens, I would actually preface the statement. I hate seeing government limit people's ability to sustain themselves. So you want to have chickens, you want to grow your own food, you go for it. When we use government step inin and say you can't have chickens on certain types of property, we've kind of, I think we made a gross mistake. But in understanding Michel, Michel and you see in different areas of our island, I think it would be good to have a cap of some sort. So we go for the Awaneker property in Heelow that's residential, and that gets out to be 40 something chickens and they got to be cageed in and cooped. You know, I understand the concern concern so maybe a cap of some sort will be good thank you thank you. Thank you. Cards my brownie she. Yeah thank you man. Yeah on that like for example if they do natural farming of the of the hands then it's supposed to reduce the smell to almost zero. But if you do it normally, then you're gonna have the smell. And so that's where the neighbors, depending on how close they are, it might affect them. Now, there was an incident within my district, this one resident, what they need to do, he had some dogs that he went to raise. He got proper permits from planning and so forth. But the neighbors started to grumble because of the amount of dogs he would have. Planning revoked his permit. And he had already spent over a hundred thousand dollars in infrastructure. So I don't wanna see that happen again within a residential urban residential area. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Thank you for your work on this. Yeah. Oh, I'm so sorry, Consumegas, you had your lead on earlier. Please proceed. Yes, thank you. I want to thank both Council members Kimble and Coneale Eclinfelder. This piece of legislation has been needed for a long time and I've had a number of people come to me requesting how to fix the glitch in our system and create policy. I appreciate the parameters that are around this. I do know, I also appreciate Mr. O'Neill Shee's concerns. There's someone that lives in District 8 who's caused a lot of challenges and problems for a whole subdivision because of unruly chickens and roosters and not being responsible for them. So I recognize that concern there, but I see within this, I mean also today this is just a proving for it move on to the planning commissions and be vetted further from there. But at a time when food resilience is so imperative for every one of us having grown up with Rhode Island Reds myself and and and been sustained by their nutritious eggs and it was a a wonderful chore I had every morning going to get the eggs. So I really am grateful for this and moving this forward. I think this is very timely and poignant. And I do trust that any nuances that need to be adjusted will be adjusted. I'm also aware enough as I I know my colleagues are, that there will be somebody who will try to manipulate the system. And as I continue to say in community meetings, that's when constituents and people need to take responsibility for themselves. And make sure that they're considering the broader good of their community and their behaviors and in how we take care of our animals. You know, chicken manure is like gold if you use the resource appropriately and make sure that it doesn't have negative impacts on your neighbors. So really grateful this council is taking care of our responsibility by creation of this policy and I look forward to communities and people that live in residential neighborhoods perpetuating that intention by also keeping their hands, not the worsters responsibly. Thank you so much. Sorry about missing your light earlier. The motion on the floor is to forward Bill 52 to the planning commissions for their review. I look forward to their review and recommendation and just appreciate the work by both council members to create solutions that empower our residents to be part of creating resilient food systems and being more sustainable. So thank you for that. There is a motion on the floor. All those in favor please say aye. Any opposed? Mr. Clerk, if we could do a roll call, but thank you. On the motion to forward Bill 52 to the planning commissions, Ms. Calimba. Aye. Mr. Houston. Aye. Mr. Inaba. Aye. Ms. Kagiwara. Aye. Mr. County Lee Klein-Filter. Aye. Ms. Kimball. Aye. Mr. Houston. Aye. Mr. Inaba. Aye. Ms. Kagiwata. Aye. Mr. Kindly Kleinfelder. Aye. Ms. Kimball. Aye. Mr. Onishi. Hope. Ms. V. A. Yes. No. Chair. Aye. Chair, you have eight votes in favor with Mr. Onishi voting. No. The motion is will pass being forwarded to the planning commissions. Thank you. Moving on to Bill 53. Chair, please motion to a job Bill 53. I think once I can Mr. Clark needs to read it into the. If anyone like to testify in Bill 53, please pick up now. You it shortly. I'm sorry. Could you introduce yourself once you start you have three minutes. No need to do that. No need. My name is Kalei Kai Kaili Keeni, born in Bratamolo Kai. And we live at Waikah Uka. We just invented a technology to grow foods. It's my other half. He's a PhD in technology. He invented it. It's awesome. But chickens are so important. I mean, you guys gotta know that in the South, the Southern States, Mr. O'Neal, she, they killed over four million chickens. Which means we don't have eggs. Which means when you go to KTA, local eggs $1,12. Yeah, food is important. So every opportunity that you have and I have and Chris has to raise our own foods, we're doing it right now. And chickens are very important to the ecosystem, the manure, we use it. And there are natural farmers that know how to take away the smell naturally. So I would tell you, don't be so concerned about chickens. Be more concerned about the dangers to us. That's why we come here. My life is on the line. The chickens, if they feel that they're threatened, they'll be here. They're not. Okay. They're not lining up. I am. We are. EMFs, the wireless. What have come to the conclusion is, your hands may be tied, but all I recommend that you do your utmost best to listen to the people and vote for the people because if the FCC has the final say, if the state of Hawaii believes they have the final say, let them hang themselves. Don't you hang yourselves? Let them decide because we are so fired up that if we are pushed, which we are, we will organize and sue the living daylights out of the FCC because lawsuits are happening and we can communicate with them. Technology is so wonderful. You know what Zoom Zoom, webinars, and they're willing, they're ready, and they're able to listen to us, complainers here. Because when you injure a human body, a human person, that is liability. Not to the taxpayers, ever. Thank you. Would you like to testify? Sir, my name is Chrissy Roise. I don't know if you know what's happening to the bond market right now, but what happened is because of all the tariffs China and Japan are slowly pulling their bonds selling US treasuries. Right now the US is in over $36 trillion in debt. That's over $100,000 per person. Our money is dependent on the dollar being the world's reserve currency. Not right now, countries are dumping dollars. So all that has to happen is enough countries to dump our dollars and there is a financial crisis. And what's going to happen is going gonna have a credit freeze. And when the credit freeze happens, nobody trusts credit. That means the ships cannot ship food, medicine, everything, transportation, oil, gasoline will be, will be basically after. So we as big island need food security number one. The big cities are going to be cropped at that happens. It's going to be like Argentina. Like in Russia, when the Russia defaulted, the reason why they didn't starve is because they had communism they had food shortages they were already growing their food when the dollar collapses we're gonna be left so we need everything we need you you guys, we need build general plan 2045 to go out the door and say number one priority, go food, we need food trees on all the middle of the We need food, the big city like Oahu, the B.A.F.T. Big island needs food security. We need hands, we need eggs, the ruling class is run by people like Henrik Kissinger. He said, control the food, control the people, control the energy, control the countries, control the money, control the world. That's what they're focusing. That's what they're doing. They're trying to blow up the money system by doing the tariffs, destabilizing dollar. So we will run to them and say, we won,. We want central bank digital currencies. That's what they want. They want the ruling class who controls the central banks, who control the corporations. Thank you very much. True testimony. We're on Bill 53 regarding household heneries. Mr. Clark. Bill 53, amends Chapter 25, articles one, four and five of the Hawaii County Code 1983, 2016 edition as amended relating to heneries, allows hens for household aid production and single-family residential zoning, provides for certain conditions and regulations, introduced by Councilmember Kalyle Klein-Felter. Kalyle Klein-F Felder, excuse me. Thank you. I forgot to say this. I've had chickens my entire life. And I just, I have a thing with chickens. I don't know what it is. I just like chickens. But I like trying to keep it. I like regular chickens. I like eggs from my chickens, but I think that was, you know, she kind of reminded me that was some of the reason for bringing the bill forward. It's not just, we should allow it. It's that I've liked them my whole life, but they also serve a purpose in people's lives. And in farming and in resiliency. So there's a lot of truth. That's thank you for inviting me, because I appreciate it. Thank you. No, we're from people. Yes. One day, even an hour before. Council member, we're in deliberations. Thank you. So with that, I just want to put that out there. I'll be withdrawing Bill 53. Given that Bill 52 will be moving to the planning commission for their review. Thank you. Please note for the record that bill 53 has been withdrawn. Mr. Clerk, we are at the end of the agenda and committee is adjourned at 12.25 pm. The governmental operations and external affairs committee will begin at 1 pm. Thank you. Okay, have your mom come here for you five minutes? Yes. Oh, yes. Yeah. Thank you. Go with the Japanese change.