2024-10-29 Alane Siegrist Testimony Renegade

Home

From:Alane Siegrist To:WPCtestimony Subject:Testimony Regarding Use Permit Application (PL-USE-2024-000028) Date:Tuesday, October 29, 2024 3:23:51 PM Testimony Regarding Use Permit Application (PL-USE-2024-000028) This is in response to the proposal to install a 150’ Multi Carrier Telecommunications Pole at TMK (3) 1-2-7-34. As members of the Kikala Keokea Homesteads, adjacent to the the proposed site, we feel strongly that this installation is not appropriate for this location and the surrounding “natural beauty area”. This proposal does not fully consider the County’s Zoning Code and General Plan. The 11.3.3 Standard requires they must “consider the existing environment, and scenic view and vistas shall be considered and preserved where possible.” On the contrary, the scope of this proposal stomps on these mandates. The applicant’s Natural Resource Study says the general ohia canopy is around 50’ feet high. If the gentle sloping topography does not require it, why allow a tower projecting a full 100’ above that 50’ canopy? Three times the height of the surrounding forest? The application shows almost no recognition of the several local endangered species or of the impact that such a tall tower would have on the landscape and the pristine environment. Their Natural Resource Study says that the Hawaiian hawk, Io, wasn’t observed in the area while they were conducting their survey, except that one was observed flying over the highway as they were leaving. To be clear, the Hawaiian hawk is prevalent in the project area and surrounding lands. They regularly nest in the higher trees of that specific area and are constantly catching rats and mongoose. It is quite extraordinary to witness their lifecycle firsthand. The scope of this proposal is entirely disproportionate in scale to the land and the stated reasoning for the installation. The applicant claims there is, “little to no coverage in or around the Kalapana Sea View Subdivision in Puna” and that those “residents must walk to or park in front of the COWs to place calls or use it for broadband services”. This simply isn’t true. I remember when it was true 10-15 years ago, but not today. Currently, there is excellent coverage throughout Kalapana Seaview Estates subdivision. Cell service along Pahoa Kalapana Road and the project area is generally quite good. While there is one brief area where service is momentarily spotty, this shouldn’t mean that the only remedy is an installation of this massive scope. We appreciate the importance of improved cell service but development should be proportionate to the actual need and to the landscape it impacts. The scale of this project providing for (4) carriers seems more about a business opportunity to collect as many carrier renters as possible. The applicant’s plans appear to indicate that each carrier requires roughly 20 feet of vertical tower space which means that making space for 4 carriers is the key driver of the total height at 150’. If the requested height is designed to provide coverage for (4) carriers, but two carriers have not stepped up after all this time spent planning, and AT&T already has great coverage from Sanford’s 100’ monopine tower, then, in a compromise to protect this Natural Beauty Area, why not design this tower to be for only the (2) carriers who want it? This could effectively reduce that the height by as much as 40 feet. This solution would be in keeping with the Hawaii County’s General Plan to protect Natural Beauty corridors and preserve vistas and scenic views where possible. Better yet, why not redouble efforts to colocate at the 100 foot tower up the road as well as upgrade the 50’ foot COWs down the road, which are the basis for the current AT&T coverage? Why accept the applicant’s statement that there are no colocation opportunities where the existing coverage is very good from towers that could be used for colocation? The topography is relatively even terrain with no hills to block the signal. You can see in the attached photo that a 150’ tower would be an excessive and an unnecessary abuse to the beautiful landscape that should be considered an asset for us all. If the Windward Planning Commission insists a cell tower must be placed in this location within a Natural Beauty Area, we would strongly suggest lowering the height of this tower and mandate that the pole be a “monopine” to help blend in with the existing beauty and natural scenic view of the entire area. The applicant previously requested and was approved for a 155 foot ‘monopine’ just across the highway, so we know that it can work and that they are open to the possibility . We also know from the Planning Department that previously placed ’stealthpoles’ have “ held up well in the elements of Hawaii island.” Thank you for your consideration, Alane Siegrist