Good afternoon. Welcome to the fifth session of the Policy Committee on Planning, Lannutes, and Economic Development. I'm calling this meeting to order at 1.30 pm. I think our community for being so extremely patient as we handled other business matters from earlier committee hearings. The council is meeting here at the Hawaii County Building in Heavill Council Chambers, and joining us remotely from West Hawaii is council member Viegas. Present here in Heavill, we have council members Heather Kimball, Michelle Galimba, Holaka Inaba, Freshenishi, James Hustis, and Jennifer Kagiwata. I'm Ashley Kirkwitz, Chair and Presiding Officer, absent and excused, Council Member Matt Kinaley, E. Kleinfelder. With that, Mr. Clerk, can you please read us through, or get us through public testimony. Thank you. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Just noting that we do have one testifier in our YMAA site. We do have a number of testifiersifiers here in Hilo as well as via Zoom. So what we'll do is we'll take our first two testifiers here in Hilo, rotate to Y-Meya, take our Zoom testifier while doing that whole rotation again. So chair with your indulgence, our first two testifiers here in the Hilo Chamber are Jason and Robello to be followed by Lillani Smith testifying on our only agenda item Bill 24. Jason when you begin you'll have three minutes if you could just reintroduce yourself as you start you can just hit that green button at the base of the, and then you can start providing your testimony. Good afternoon, members and director Darro as well. So yeah, this is regarding Bill 24, and I strongly oppose this bill at this time. First of all, I live up in Comon City as you all are aware there's a tower being constructed at this time. And I reside about 384 feet from that tower. Section 25412 states of telecommunications and tenor tower shall be permitted in all zoning districts, providing that the antenna tower and its use are not hazardous or dangerous to the surrounding area and the director has issued plan approval for such use. Yeah, so the surrounding area that includes, you know, environmental aspects of it, of course, flooding and stuff, but it doesn't address the community as well, which it should address for future possible exposures, which these towers do emit strong energy that you cannot see with the human eye. But we all know and I'm sure you guys are all aware of the possible dangerous effects to human health. Another thing that was introduced in the bill was providing a greater setback as far as residential areas, which is 1200 feet. I think this number is probably due to the fact that, you know, the health effects that you want are aware, and the guidance you guys have seeked out there for other communities around the United States that have had health issues with people living within a certain area of these towers. So that 1200 feet is to me it's a number that it's safe at this point in time but I kind of look ahead into the future as far as you know greater technology that's going to produce more stronger 5G, 6G. I don't know what the end is, honestly. It could be 10G by the time, you know, 50 years from now. So the authority having jurisdiction, 30 seconds please, should keep this into consideration and being able to revoke a permit upon such hazardous effects that could affect the community. With that being said, these permits issued the project is done. It's completed. The tower is in service and that's it. You know, nobody has any, basically tie to any health effects that it could create. Thank you. Thank you so much for your testimony. Chair, your next testifier here in the Heelow Chamber before we go to our YMIA testifier is Leilani Smith. Leilani, when you begin, you'll have three minutes. If you could just reintroduce yourself as you begin. If you could just hit that green button there we go. Yes, hi my name is Lailani Smith. Councilmember Jen you probably heard my name several times I called your office in reference to guidance in this issue. I currently live in Kamana City. I'm also near the cell tower that has just been put up near our home. I am in opposition of Bill 24, and the current amendment initiated by the county council director and staff. Chapter 25, article 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7, county code 1983 relating to telecommunications and tenors and towers. We are currently dealing with a cell phone power that has been put up with our consent, my home resides within that area. My name, along with my other members here, was falsely put on the renegade powers that we agree to the permits. You can look back and verify our names on the documents. We would like a cease and desist order until these bills can be pushed forward for the safety of our children and our community. Get subject matter experts involved to help and assist with the health concerns. The children's health Defense Organization has key slots and evidence in which individuals suffer health adverse effects due to exposure to electromagnetic fields. Another thing for our county planning director, I don't think it was you, Mr. Darul. I think it was somebody else. Who are verifying these guidelines that have been sent in place? And are they being followed? Who is checking the checks and balances? Why is my name on documents when I did not approve that? And the whole community within that 500 feet did not approve that. So how is this push forward? Is somebody in the county planning department looking at oh, Delani Smith, Norman Caguada? I'm not sure, but did you actually sign this? Where's my document stating that I'm for it because I am against it? And I also want to know like who is taking the setbacks? Who is coming up there to check that the setbacks are correct? And everything also want to know like who is taking the setbacks. Who is coming up there to check that the setbacks are correct? Another thing also is was there environmental studies? I'm sure there was. I would like to see it. There is native birds, there's Hawaiian bats. We have water catchments in that area. Is somebody checking the water? 30 seconds. Okay, I'm gonna use my 30 seconds. Also, why was this tower put up in Kalmanas city in my neighborhood when a mile up the road, a saddle road is open. It's state land. Put it on a state land. Let's worry about our health and welfare. and I hope everybody everybody responsible for our lives from this point on. If that's the old full tower comes on, that is what I'm worried about. Thank you. Thank you so much for your testimony. Chair at this time, we'll take our single Y-Mail testifier, Kendra, if you could lead us and then we'll transition back to Zoom before coming back to more of our Helo testifiers. So at this time, Kendra, if you could please lead us with your Y-Maya testifier. Thank you. We have Cindy Evans testifying on 24D2 Ms. Evans. You'll have three minutes and please reintroduce yourself before you begin. Thank you. Okay.Leake. Okay, you got me on, I don't see my fix. Good. There we go. That's what we were looking for right there. All right, Aloha Chair Kirkwoods, I see you are in the room and to members of the committee, thank you. It's a pleasure to be here in front of you today and watching you do the work really good work. I'm here to comment on draft 24 or bill 24 draft two, which is the telecommunication tower bill, which we're now working on bill 24, which I think every time we touch it and move it forward, it gets better and better. I do have a couple comments on the current draft. I was thinking that we probably would have an amendment coming in to look at that I never did find it online, but have I said that there's some key things I want to highlight. And one is that I think it may be worth talking to Corporation Council and the planning director about putting some language in about if the federal government changes regulations when it comes to towers and antennas that the person would have to comply with those changes within 120 days of the effective date of the regulations. That would take more of the burden off the county to make sure they're current. Instead, they would have to sign some agreement with us that they would have to comply or they would be out of compliance and then that would maybe mean their they may be a fault. I don't know what language you would put in, but I think that might be worth looking at. The other one is sometimes these towers and tennas transfer ownership. And I know some of the requirements that we're asking is making sure... The other one is sometimes these towers and tenas transfer ownership. And I know some of the requirements that we're asking is making sure that there is an easement agreement to be able to get to the tower or the antenna because of wildfire safety or fire safety. We want to make sure we have access. So there may need to be some language about what happens if they transfer a sign ownership over to someone else. What that language might look like so that we're always current with whoever the owner is in their contact information and the fact that they have reviewed and understand what their requirements are. The other thing is, I just, you know, hearing two testifiers before me, I do think there's always a way to maybe add a little bit of language to what we currently have when we talk about certificate of compliance that would include the fact that they are meeting all emission standards established by the Federal Communication Commission. When it comes to operating, they have to operate within a certain transmission range and making sure that they continue to always comply with that. And I guess the last thing I heard in that comment from the last testifier is I do think we just speak briefly about priority placement and how we would love to see things placed based on priorities. I know that that member Kimble pointed that out. So those were my comments and I want to thank you for your hard work on this and I'm available for questions. Thank you, Aloha. Thank you so much for your testimony. Chair at this time, we'll transition to our Zoom testifier, Derek Maderals, testifying on this bill 24, and then we'll come to Hilo for Lehu Ananiakal. Derek, when you begin, you'll have three minutes if you could just reintroduce yourself as you begin, please. I'll go to the council. My name is Jared. My name is Jared. My name is Kristia. My name is Kristia. My name is Jared. My name is Kristia. My name is Kristia. My name is Kristia. My name is Kristia. My name is Kristia. My name is Kristia. My name is Kristia. My name is Kristia. My name is Kristia. My name is Kristia. Thank you for taking the time. So this thing was brought to my attention and I know Miss Kirkwich is the one that introduced this. She's also the person that introduced that one bill where she wants to shut off the telecommunications when there is an emergency. You know just what happened to Lahaina right shut off the communications to the public you know I just want to remind everybody that now we have Donald Trump as a president of the United States. So everybody knows that he's now, he's DOJ, is not supporting anything that or council, council members, mayors, governors, they're not supporting anything that goes against the people. Okay, when you see this kind of language on a bill 24 like this that says, recommendations to remove the requirements. Oh, or for a use permit. You got to be concerned, Matt. The weak language that is in this, know that if this go true, we now can sue you folks in your personal capacity. This is what Donald Trump's DOJ is doing. And thank goodness that he's doing that, because there's a lot of issues that you guys have created within our county. First and foremost, you guys should stop depending on the state of Hawaii because we are. The county is the host government. Okay, what brought the administration and the last administration. Yeah, hand over jurisdiction to the state of Hawaii. You guys, we depend on you guys, the county council, to take back that jurisdiction and do something with it. We don't need their funding. We have enough things that goes on our county to pay for our own budget. We don't need the state of Hawaii. It's up to you guys to minimize their participation, not depend on them. Memorize, be the leaders that they, well, I can't say we voted for. 30 seconds please, 30 seconds. I can say that be the leaders that was selected, okay? Because none of you guys was voted for. Telling you guys, I'm in opposition to this because it's not a good idea. Ashley, know that the DOJ won't support your decisions because this is a personal choice that you're making, okay? You will be responsible for the sickness of people and I will hold you to be accountable for it. You guys are acting like leaders in our community as the people that we supposed to vote for. Thank you so much for your testimony. Unfortunately, your time is up. So we're going to have to move on. Chair, your next testifier here in the Heelow Chamber is Lehu Anani Akau to be tested for to be followed by Norman Kawabata. Before you get started, I just want to say to say that no kind of threats to any member of this body will be tolerated. Please engage in a productive civil manner with actual ideas of substance for how we can improve legislation. Thank you. You may proceed. Thank you for being here. Mahalo, council member. Aloha, my name is Lehu Ananiyakao or Dr. Lehu Ananiyakao. I'm a doctor-prepared nurse practitioner. I'm a primary care provider here in our community. I am an instructor of nursing at University of Hawaii, Hilo campus, and I take care of patients from birth to geriatrics. I wanted to share that I am in opposition of bill 24. I think that we should go am in opposition of Bill 24. I think that we should go back and look at it and again offer some suggestions as the woman in Waimea did. I think that's a wonderful idea. I think that this bill serves to give preferential treatment to companies and developers of telecommunication antennas and towers. and I'm opposed of that. I found over 30 plus meta-analysis studies in article stating that these towers emit radio frequency and microwave, sorry, and microwaves that can actually cause severe headaches, sleep the services, sleep deprivation, depression, not to mention apoptosis or cell death in these individuals that have been exposed to radio frequency waves and microwaves. I just wanted to share some suggestions and I'm just gonna give you, I think the verbiage should change specifically in section five, 25, and align item 2. It includes together with the initial antennas and other equipment proposed to be installed therein will have survivability of sustained winds of up to 100 miles per hour. That was requested to be removed. I think it should be replaced. And the reason why I think it should is again, going back to the Lahaina fires, the Kula fires, and the fires in California, these towers, if they are placed, should have some wind sustainability of at least 100 miles per hour to prevent any kind of catastrophe that has happened in Maui and Kula and California. So I think that should be left in and it looks like it was in the original document, it was since taken out. So I'm going to request that to be replaced. Another thing is Section 5, F line item 8 talks about proposing that the proactive effort to notify, meet and inform adjacent land owners and affected communities. I think that the proposal should be and documentation should state that they actually give a public notice for intent for a permit. 30 seconds please. And that they've actually had documentation and proof of support from adjacent land owners and affiliates of such proposals. So I think that was, that needs to be corrected. So not a proactive effort, an actual effort, an evidence stating that there was enough attempt and approval for such towers to be in their community. Again, I just think again, I am opposed. I think this should be postponed or it should be tabled for an additional overview. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Thank you so much for your testimony. Chair, your next testifier is Norman Kawabata to be followed by Jean Thomas-Sierreau. Norman, when you begin, you'll have three minutes. If you could just reintroduce yourself as you begin. My name is Norman Kawabata, I live on Opali Polytree in Kamada City, by the way, Opali Poly means Cliff Cliff. I also submitted a photograph and I want to talk about the picture and here's what we up against and I think stringent permitting and controls to really define where towers should go and if you look at that picture there's homes that is at the same height, same height, or even above the tower top. And where does the source of the radiation coming from? The tower top, not the bottom. So measuring from the bottom to residents has to be changed, it's also for people who live at the same height. That's one issue, and I think that 5G towers should be, should not be also placed on existing towers, because they're not engineered and they don't have setbacks properly for any future 5G is going anywhere else in Hilo or anywhere in the country. And basically that's what I want to tell you so thank you. Thank you so much for your testimony. Share your next testifier is Jean Thomas Sheryl to be followed by Judith McDaniel. Jean, when you begin, you'll have three minutes. If you could just reintroduce yourself, please. Yes, sir. Which one should I use either way? The green. Hello, Kako. Alo. Good to see some familiar faces. I'm Jean Thomas-Sherro. I am a Hawaii national in full process of abduration from the occupying corporation. It's been a multi-year process been in the courts over 10 years and in that time our fundamental claim is Hawaii Nationals and we got to stop persecuting Hawaiians in our own country. Our fundamental claim is Hawaii is at this point 132 years under US corporate military occupation. That is our true status. Attorney General Anelope is now five months in default. We have the forensic evidence. We did our due diligence. We make our claim. We bring our evidence. She did not respond. So when law enforcement or judges come to me and say, oh, that's above my pay grade, well, we went your bosses, bosses, boss, and she has acquiesced. Also in acquiescence over one year now is DNR, BLNR, Chairperson, Dawn Chang. So I'm telling you guys, everybody knows Hawaii's true status and I think it's important. I'm really drawn here just to encourage you and to remind you that you did pledge an oath to the United States Constitution. The United States Constitution 1789 is built on the same Kalkua God's natural law that our constitutional monarchy is built. So we have a constitutional republic and we have a constitutional monarchy, all operating if it's functioning properly under God's natural law. The three principles are what is the truth was any harm done and what is the status of contracts agreements and treaties. And because all of you pledged an oath to the highest law in the land. We could take this opportunity and we must to enforce the highest law in the land. So I'm bringing forward to you in the public record, evidence, I am bringing it in my hands, but it's all in the court system that judges and prosecutors and law enforcement and maybe even you guys are operating outside of the law. I'm not here to persecute anybody. We were born into this big lie and it's time now because a new 37- second speech. A new administration is here and at least they say, I don't know if it's true, but they say they are going to be honorable and in integrity regarding the U.S. Constitution in protecting everyone's God-given, un-editable rights. And that is the major and primary purpose of good governance is protect people's rights. So if I make a claim and I bring evidence and anybody makes a counter claim, they better bring their evidence. Okay? Because no one is talking about law. Thank you so much for your testimony, Jean. We're going to have to move on. God bless you, Mahal. Chair, your next testifier is Judith McDaniel to be followed by Joanna Pike. Judith, when you begin, you'll have three minutes to provide your testimony. If you could just please reintroduce yourself as you begin. My name is Judith McDaniel and I'm a resident of Kamala City. I have owned my home for 20 years. I was never asked my opinion on the tower. I didn't even know about the tower until I was driving down the street on December 11th and all of a sudden I saw this tower being put up by a crane. I have pictures to show you. And when I contacted planning and the mayor's office, I was told I was denied how I felt about the tower because my house was beyond 500 feet. In the meantime I have catchment water and I have seen videos of what the tower does to catchment water. It actually contaminates the water which is a health hazard to everyone living there. I want to hand you guys this before I walk away, which states that the towers have been removed, and it names all the reasons why cancer is the number one reason. Health effects, it even affects the DNA in young children and pregnant women. I will leave this with you so you can check it, but I'm very, very upset. The fact that I was denied to have an opinion on a tower that is 180 feet and eight houses down from me is unacceptable. Thank you. Thank you so much for your testimony. Chair, your next testifier is Joanna Pike. Joanna is not here. She is strongly opposed. Hearing that, Chair, with the absence of Joanna Pike, that seems to be all the testifiers you have at this time. Thank you very much, Relly. Mr. Clerk, if we could please move on to bills for ordinances. Bill 24, draft to a men's chapter 25, articles 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 of the Hawaii County Code 1983, 2016 edition as amended, relating to telecommunication and tenors and towers, planning director initiated. The Winward and Lee were planning commissions for their favorable recommendations to remove the requirement for a use permit to establish telecommunication and tenors and towers, in certain zoning districts, ad application requirements, and amend standards for the establishment of telecommunication and tenors and towers. Introduced by Council Member Kirkowitz by request, this was postponed on February 4 and 18, 2025. Please note there's already a motion on the floor by Council Member A. Naba, seconded by Council Member Hewstitz to recommend passage of Bill 24 and first reading. Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Could I just call leadership up from planning department? And since we have a really captive audience audience I just wanted to use this as an opportunity for you folks to do high level overview of why we have to advance this particular bill. And then I also just want to explain to members of the public if you're looking at bills and you see the letters BR next to a council members name. name. That means this piece of legislation was not something we authored. This is being introduced by the request of the administration because we are the legislative body. Only one of these nine members can introduce any legislation for us to talk about. So I just, I wanna be very clear that folks know this is not my bill, it's coming from the planning department. We actually had two telecommunication bills that we were considering. One was introduced by former council member Cindy Evans. And the decision of the body was we can advance to because there was some conflicts. So we were going to advance one and amend one. And that's why we are left with bill 24. Folks, if you could just do me a favor introduce yourselves for the record and explain the legal necessity for why we needed to make changes to chapter 25 related to telecommunication regulations. Sure. Thank you, Chair Kirkowitz, Vice Chair and members of the committee. My name is Jeff Darrell with the Planning Department with me is Planner Tracy Lee Camero who's been assisting on the drafting of this particular bill. This has been ongoing for some time now. The reason why these bills, both the Planning Director initiated as well as the County Council initiated bills were brought forth is because of a change in state law of 46-89. What that particular law did was it placed a time limit on the time to approve, approve with modifications or to deny a request for a telecommunication tower that comes into the county. Our process consistently was through a use permit, which once it is submitted and accepted, the process allowed the planning department 90 days to prepare an application and background recommendation and to forward that to the planning commission for either approval or denial. It also allowed for the ability for the public to participate in a contested case, which once that occurs, the time frame can go on for quite some time. So this particular law puts a lot of pressure because if it is not approved denied or approved with modifications, it's automatically approved. Without conditions, it just automatically approved. So Director just high-level summary our current code is in conflict with federal law. Correct. Where we the county must make a decision within 60 days. Correct. So we're removing the special permitting process which we like because there's a public hearing there's a public engagement process. So we're removing the special permitting process, which we like because there's a public hearing. There's a public engagement process. So we're removing that and we're trying to make sure that we are strongly encouraging, mandating the applicant to engage community members. Correct. Should they petition you for locating a tower or antenna on Hawaii Island. And that's the strict regulations that you see within this bill of minimum lot size of increased step backs of a number of requirements that the applicants need to comply with before submitting as well as continuing as they operate. Thank you. And I see that we have fire two here. Thank you for joining us. At the last council hearing, I come into hearing, I did mention wanting to advance some amendments related to work for with fire department. One was evidence of a fire safety plan being submitted and received by the department and the other was related to vegetation management and an executed agreement to access the building site. That is in review. If there are any other changes that members would like our office to work on, we can. I do believe that Council Member Evans did bring up additional good points that are worth exploring further. Council Member Viega stood reach out to my office to see if we could have a little bit more time. She was also interested in working on some amendments. So with that being said, I'm going to ask someone make a motion to postpone this measure. Till April 1st, I want to give us enough time to make sure that we are going through this bill line by line and resolving the community concerns that have been brought forth today. I do want to address something that Dr. Akal asked about earlier, which was the wind speed piece. We had a lot of discussion around that particular section of the bill. And the reason why we changed it to meeting the requirements of the building code was it includes the wind speed piece and everything else in building code. So that actually strengthens the requirement and the responsibility for industry to build according to every single law that is in the building code. Anything else that you would like to offer, Tracy, Director Daryl? I'm so sorry Mr. Thomas here. We cannot engage council members and members of the public in this format. I appreciate it. Dr. Darrell. Dr. Darrell, you have the floor. Thank you chair. There's whenever we have these hearings regarding telecommunication towers, there's a lot of concern about health risks. I think we're all completely aware of that. But a number of you are very familiar with the federal laws that restrict government comports and commissions and to be able to make decisions based on health risks. And that's been the ongoing practice with the planning commission. Whenever they are trying to make... I'm going to have to put us into recess if I have another outburst. Or I'm going to ask you to leave. We are in recess. So... Oh, what Get in, run! you Hi everyone, we are back on the record from our recess to 11pm. I've asked Fire 2 to come forward and just provide us with an overview of some things that you would like this body to consider as we work on amendments. You had a chance to review some of the concepts that I had sent over to Chief Todd. And so Chief Wolpy, if you could just introduce yourself for the record and high level overview of the three items that you would like us to consider. Go ahead, thank you. Thank you members. My name is Daniel Wolpy, Deputy Fire Chief, or Fire Department. So I just wanted this across into the towers themselves wherever they ended up ended up being built. Language in the bill that talks to that the tower should maintain the building code. I would like to recommend that it meets specifically in a P.H. 76, which is the standard on telecommunication towers. And that's going to speak to the ability to tower itself to have some higher suppression, some higher detection, resiliency to the tower to maintain the integrity of the tower, recognizing that the role it plays on public safety. Number two is going to be the second thing I want to discuss is just the ability for some of the towers to maintain some space to put other equipment that perhaps can do some fire detection, smoke detection out in the environment again, increases the time to detection, increases the time for response, so that's such response to emergencies faster. The third thing I wanted to talk about is that I didn't see a specific dimension within the bill as a concept of power redundancy. So all of a sudden the tower itself requires electricity to operate. Understanding the importance for public safety of 911 calls being made from a phone, also emergency messaging coming in through the phone. If conditions exist where there's a power shot off, where there's a fire in the area and other emergency, and we lose primary power to these towers, I'd like to see some, we would recommend some redundancy and power generation to maintain the service of the towers to keep the towers up to maintain that conduit of public safety messaging in and out of through the towers. Okay. That summarizes kind of what I wanted to discuss. Chief Bulpie, thank you. So, I want to make sure I have this correctly. Make reference to NFPA standard 76. Correct. And sure that there's language around power redundancy so that there's two-way communication, right? Right. Going into and out of the community. And then monitoring systems. Correct. Okay. our office will work with Fire Department on exact language and consultation with planning. Thank you for being here. Thank you very being here to represent the department. Council Member Kagiwata, you had a question for planning leadership. Director, please. I just wanted to go back to what one of the testifiers brought up, which was how notifications to neighbors are currently done and verification on support. She said that her name was listed in supportive neighbors and that she did not give her support. I just want to understand the process and how that might have happened. What we think is being referenced is the actual list within the file that identifies who was supposed to be notified. So it's a list of people that the applicant has to submit to the planning department to confirm that they did the notification to surrounding property owners within 500 or 300 feet, whatever the zoning district is. Okay, so there's no current requirement for the applicant gathering support for or against and submitting that information to you. It's not a requirement. I mean, as we all see, applications come in and they will generate support or will see tremendous opposition. Okay. Normally those aren't a list or anything. normally's normally testimony that's submitted, that identifies whether or not they're in support or in opposition. That's why it appears that if very well could be the list of identifying the people that were required to be notified. OK, so just to clarify, it was a list of who the notifications went out to, not if they supported the project or not. And again, that's what we're thinking about without looking at this and not being individual. Right. Okay. In this current proposal and this current draft, would the notifications change? Are there still the same kind of requirements or are things different in this draft around that specific issue, because I think we've got people that are concerned about that. So, So, So plan approval normally does not require notification to surrounding property owners. That's across the board. There is a notification of applications that comes in through our public notification that we submit to the paper. And there has been comments that, oh, that's only a small, that's how the paper is. We also place it on our website, those notifications of all the applications that come in to the planning department. but it doesn't, it's not anything similar to the process before with the use permit. Additionally, there's a section under 25274 number 8 that talks about documentation of proactive efforts made to notify me with informed and engage adjacent landowners and the affected community regarding the proposed use. That's right and I believe somebody else spoke to that particular item and I'm just wondering do we know what this means documentation of proactive effort. Do we have a little more that people can understand what that means? I think that was our best effort at this point in trying to figure out how to do this without doing a notification process. In the past, when we've had towers come in in a particular area, we've requested them to conduct a community meeting and then they've come back with the information that they received through that community meeting and the effort was to try to if there were issues to try to work to see how they could somehow resolve whatever issues it might be. But again this is a difficult situation for all of us in the sense that we've been required by law to have to expedite this process in a manner that is going to essentially stop our process from being able to do what we did before to allow public engagement as much as we did previously. Okay right. I'm gonna look a little closer at this and I can reach out to Council Member Kirkowitz around this if need to be. I guess just this is one last question. So for there are many testifiers here from come on a city who are concerned about that cell tower. So are you saying there was a public meeting for that particular cell tower? Up to this point because this bill hasn't passed, the process is that you submit a use permit application and you go through that process of public hearing and approval or denial to the planning commission. That did happen with that tower. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. And I'll follow up with a few of those things. Thank you very much, Chair. Council member Kaukiwada, I reach out to my office. Let's talk story about the community engagement piece. This is where we landed with planning department because the type of community engagement that we would be requiring for this project would be drastically different from what you require for other projects looking for plan approval. And so there was a there was a concern that we would be challenged on that but I do want to look at this a little more closely with Corporation council to see how far we can push the envelope. A lot of folks can't afford to have a newspaper subscription. So they're not reading the paper. They're not getting those sort of public notifications. A lot of us are consuming information online, digitally, Facebook, email, things of that nature. So I just, we don't have to talk about it right now, director, but it's something that I want to explore a bit more. So the community is clear on how they will be engaged. Should something be proposed for their neighborhood. And I also want to call out that, you know, there's a strong suggestion, but I want to look at how we might require a pre-consultation. Because this was missing from the earlier bill, the in-memment I introduced last meeting talked about a pre-consultation because this was missing from the earlier bill. The amendment I introduced last meeting talked about a pre-consultation meeting with the county because you could help identify areas that just no can, not can work, don't waste your time looking to cite something there. So we might want to look at strengthening that language. Thank you for being here. I look forward to working with you guys over the next month. I'll take a motion now. Motion to postpone bill 24 draft 2 to the April 1st Committee meeting. Thank you. There's a motion by Council Member Inaba, seconded by Council Member Onishi to postpone bill 24 draft 2 to the April 1st meeting. Any discussion? saying none, all those in favor please say aye. Any opposed? Any opposed? Motion carries with eight aye votes bill 24, is post-pons. Councilmember Canneley, E. Kleinfelder is excuse. Those in favor, please say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries with 8 aye votes bill 24 is post-pons. Councilmember Canneley, E. Kleinfelder is excused. Seeing as we are at the end of the agenda, I am adjourning at 2.21 p.m. Have a great day.