Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-06-05HEARINGTRANSCRIPT-CELLCODBAVERIZONUSE14-046 WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT JUNE 5, 2014 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP A regularly advertised hearing on the contested case proceeding of dba VERIZON WIRELESS (USE 14-046) was called to order at 11:47 a.m. in the County of Hawai‘i, Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawai‘i with Chairman Pro Tem Myles Miyasato presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Myles Miyasato, Gregory Henkel, Raylene Moses, and Stephen Ono. ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Charles Heaukulani and Wallace A. Ishibashi, Jr. PARTIES PRESENT: Daryl Inaba (Intervenor); Trisha Nishimoto (Attorney for Applicant), Danette Martin (General Dynamics on behalf of Applicant), Corey Shaffer (Principal System Performance Engineer for Verizon Wireless on behalf of Applicant); Jennifer Ng (Attorney for Planning Director), and Duane Kanuha (Planning Director). ALSO PRESENT: Margaret Masunaga (Deputy Corporation Counsel for the Windward Planning Commission), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager), Jeff Darrow (Staff Planner), Maija Cottle (Staff Planner), Sarah Hata-Finley (Secretary), Kim Tanaka (Secretary), and Melissa Dacayanan (Planning Commission Support Technician). And approximately 2 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: CELLCO PARTNERSHIP dba VERIZON WIRELESS (USE 14-046) Contested case proceeding regarding an application for a Use Permit to construct a 105-foot tall steel telecommunication monopine with 8-foot tall panel antennas and related facilities on an 8,100 square-foot parcel situated in the State Land Use Agricultural district and the County’s Agricultural 1-acre (A-1a) zoned district. The property is located on the west side of Silversword Court approximately 235 feet northwest from its junction with Ainaloa Boulevard, Tiki Gardens Subdivision, Kea‘au, Puna, Hawai`i, TMK: 1-6-102:056. MIYASATO: Under Unfinished Business, we have Item No. 6, Applicant Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless. I’d like to call the parties up. Okay, we have some preliminaries that we need to get through, so--. At a duly noticed public hearing on this matter held on March 6, 2014, the Commission voted and decided to conduct this contested case hearing as a whole upon allowing intervention and granting standing to Mr. Inaba. Presiding Officer means any Commissioner or Hearing Officer duly designated as such, unless otherwise designated, I, as your Chairperson, shall be the Presiding Officer pursuant to 1 EXHIBIT F Rule 1-3(o). Are there any objections to this arrangement from the parties? From any of the Commissioners? The Presiding Officer controls the course of the hearings, administers oaths, rules on questions of evidence, holds appropriate conferences before or during hearings, rules upon all objections or motions which do not involve a final decision of the proceedings, receives offers of proof, fixes the time for the filing of briefs, disposes of any other matter that normally and properly arises in the course of the hearing, and takes all other actions authorized by law that are deemed necessary for the orderly and just conduct of a hearing. Essentially, the Presiding Officer can take action with does not involve final determination of the proceedings, example granting continuances without the need or weight for the Commission to have a meeting on vote on the request for continuance. Are there any objections to this arrangement from the parties? From the Commissioners? Planning Commission Rule No. 4 governs parties may waive or amend procedures by stipulation agreement. Once the hearing commences, the parties will be asked if they have any arguments to waive or amend the procedures, so please be prepared. Rule No. 4-20 requires public testimony prior to the commencement of the hearing on each day of the hearings, so after these housekeeping matters are concluded, we will begin taking public testimony. Parties have right to present testimony, cross-examine, and present documentary exhibits. Strict rules of evidence don’t apply. The Commission shall not be bound by the rules relating to the admission or rejection of evidence, but may exercise its own discretion in such matters with a view to do substantial justice. The Presiding Officer shall rule on the admissibility of evidence. Such ruling may be reviewed by the Commission in determining the matter of the merits pursuant to Rule 4-17(b). Parties have a right to appeal the decision to courts per Rule 4-27 and HRS, Statute 91-14. Any questions from the parties? From the Commissioners? Updating of record. The parties have submitted their Witnesses and Exhibits Lists and Exhibits, with Applicant providing an Errata to their Exhibit List dated May 16, 2014. The Applicant and Intervenor have submitted their Statements of the Issues. All of these materials have been served on the parties and provided to the Commission. Included in these materials is Intervenor’s May 9, 2014, request to Applicant calling for the production of documents and things. Applicant’s objection and response to Intervenor’s Request for Production of Documents and Things dated May 21, 2014. By letter dated May 22, 2014, Applicant serves on parties written testimony from their witnesses, Mr. Shaffer and Mrs. Martin. Letter dated May 28, 2014, from Intervenor request assistance from Commission to compel Applicant to allow inspection of all items requested by Intervenor, May 9, 2014, request to Applicant calling for the production of document and things. The procedure. After the conclusion of public testimony, the Commission must address and decide on the letter dated May 28, 2014, from Intervenor requesting assistance from Commission to compel Applicant to allow inspection of all items requested in Intervenor’s May 9, 2014, request to Applicant calling for the production of document and things. Note Applicant’s objection and response to Intervenor request date May 21, 2014. After decision is rendered to 2 EXHIBIT F the Intervenor’s request, I will give opportunity for the parties to admit their Exhibits to the record. After the admission of Exhibits to the record, the Applicant will present its case. Once Applicant is completed with its presentation, it will be followed in turn by Intervenor’s, Daryl Inaba, and concluded, and concluding with the Planning Director. Are there any questions to our procedure for today? We have no public testimony so will move forward. Will parties identify themselves for the record? SHAFFER: Corey Shaffer, Principal System Performance Engineer for Verizon Wireless. MARTIN: Danette Martin, Consultant for Verizon Wireless and General Dynamics. NISHIMOTO: Trisha Nishimoto of Cades Schutte for Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless. NG: Deputy Corporation Counsel Jennifer Ng for the Planning Department and Director Duane Kanuha who is present. INABA: Daryl Inaba representing myself. MIYASATO: Do the parties have any agreements to waive or amend the procedures? Have the parties agreed to the level of formality? INABA: I don’t know if we ever agreed to anything but less formal the better for me. MIYASATO: Transcripts of hearings are being made so only one person will speak at a time. Could you all please raise your right hand? Do you all swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawai‘i County Planning Commission? PARTIES: Yes. MIYASATO: Okay, I will start with the Applicant. NISHIMOTO: Are we going to address the, Mr. Inaba’s Request for Production of Documents at this time or— MIYASATO: Yes. NISHIMOTO: Yeah? MIYASATO: Yes. NISHIMOTO: Okay. Okay, well our position on that is that his request is not permitted by the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. According to Rule 4-13, it allows for the 3 EXHIBIT F subpoenas of records but not for a broad, extensive document request as Mr. Inaba’s. And, to the extent that Mr. Inaba relies on Hawai‘i Rules of Civil Procedure 34, that is a discovery rule applicable to only lawsuits filed within the Circuit Courts of the State of Hawai‘i, and we would submit that this administrative, pending administrative hearing is not in a Circuit Court in the State of Hawai‘i. MIYASATO: Thank you. Anyone else from the Applicant? Would—Mr. Inaba, do you have a statement? INABA: My only statement is, you know, I requested the documents and I referenced that Rule 34 cause I was informed this kind of follows like a regular court hearing so if that was wrong, you know I understand that, but I requested the documents so I could better prepare myself and also if I was able to review more documentation, I think that would take less time here today, but since I haven’t been able to review anything from them, it may take me longer, but if I’m not able to review their documents, that’s fine. I’m willing to go ahead. Thank you. MIYASATO: Does the Director have a comment? NG: The Department takes no position on the Request for Production of Documents. Thank you. MIYASATO: Do the Commissioners have any questions at this time for the Applicant or the Intervenor? Okay, if there are no further questions, as Chair, I will favor with the Applicant and deny the Request for the Production of Documents and Things. NISHIMOTO: Okay, thank you. MIYASATO: Okay, the Applicant, you may proceed. NISHIMOTO: Okay, at this time, I’d just like to confirm that Verizon Exhibits A through K have been received and entered into evidence in the record. MIYASATO: Okay, are there any objections? Commissioners? Okay, hearing none, those exhibits will be admitted to the record. NISHIMOTO: Thank you. MIYASATO: Mr. Inaba? Director? Do you have— NG: No objections from the Planning Director. MIYASATO: Do you have your exhibit? You can proceed. 4 EXHIBIT F NG: Yes, at this time, by Stipulation of the parties, we would ask that the Planning Commission accept the Planning Department’s Background and Recommendations, Exhibits 1 and 2. INABA: Excuse me, excuse me Mr. Chair. MIYASATO: Yes. INABA: I wasn’t familiar with the procedure, but if I can have my Exhibits accepted as well. I thought I had to wait till it was my turn— MIYASATO: Okay. INABA: But I have Exhibits 1 through 42. And am I able to replace two of the Exhibits because in my rush to prepare them all, two of them weren’t color, and I was intending them to be color, so would that be okay with the Planning Department and the Applicant? It’s Exhibits 3 and 16. MASUNAGA: Do you have the copies? INABA: Yes, I do. MIYASATO: Do you have any objection? NISHIMOTO: I have no objections to replace it, but I do have objections to some of the Exhibits submitted by Mr. Inaba, and I’m not sure if you, if the Commission wants to go over that now or after you rule on his request. MIYASATO: I’d like to take care of the request for the— NISHIMOTO: --Okay. MIYASATO: --colors replacement first. Do you have any objections to that? NG: None to Mr. Inaba’s Exhibits and the proposed replacement Exhibits. We would like a ruling as far as the admission of the Planning Department’s Exhibits as well, though. MIYASATO: Okay, could I finish taking his one first, and then I’ll come back-- NG: --Yes. MIYASATO: --okay. Commissioners, any objections to those two, Exhibit 3 and 16? I’ll come back to the Department’s acceptance. I want to finish the Intervenor’s. Okay, we have no objections to Exhibits 3 and 16, but as for the list of Exhibits, are there any objections? 5 EXHIBIT F NISHIMOTO: Yes, we have a few objections that we’d like to place on the record. I would like to object to Exhibits 4, 5, 6, 7, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27, 29, 37, 38, 39, and 40 on the grounds that they are either confusing or irrelevant to the present application for the Use Permit. If I could further submit that specifically, these Exhibits deal mostly with a—an application for a Special Use Permit in another matter that is not relevant to the present application. If the Commission would like me to go into specifics, I can go through it one by one, but I don’t know if that’s what the Commission wants me to do. MIYASATO: Okay, we have a testifier that signed up. She got lost. So, in order to follow procedures, I would like to bring her up before we continue. NISHIMOTO: Okay, sure. MIYASATO: Thank you. Could I have Antoinette Thomson please come up? Could you please raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawai‘i County Planning Commission? THOMSON: I do. MIYASATO: Okay, could you please state your name and residence, and you have three minutes of testimony. THOMSON: Antoinette or Toni Thomson. Thompson without the “p.” And I live at 16-2068 Paradise Court. I’m on the corner of Paradise Court and Ainaloa Boulevard, and I guess I’m speaking in favor of this tower, and I’m sorry I didn’t hear what everybody else said, but I’ll just say what I want to say, so I’m not influenced by anybody. But I really think it’s important we’re getting more and more people up there that are living in, coming in and they’re not very rich people. They’re just hardworking people, and they’re entitled to have the services that are—that in large that a tower would provide as far as access to information, and I think it’s very important that people be educated because I’m an educator, and I’m 91 years old, and I live alone, and I think it’s important to have this access to the best kind of communication we can have. Not that they’re not good. The police are good now, but sometimes, you know a storm or something could knock something out, and if we have a tower, it will be another insurance that we have more up-to-date technology at our beck and call so to speak. Do I ask for questions or do I just keep on rambling? I know, I think it’s a wonderful opportunity for the community though to show its willingness to grow in a positive way and they’re widening the road, too. And so, we’re gonna need much more ability to use that road, and with wireless facilitating cars and trucks or emergency vehicles coming in the area, it’s so much better so I’m all for it. And, I don’t, and I understand they’re gonna decorate it like a tree so it doesn’t even look like a tower so it won’t be that—like a sore thumb. And, I’m looking forward to it. And I don’t think it will fall. I mean, it might fall with an earthquake, I don’t know but, I think, I’m sure when they construct it, it will be constructed safely so that there won’t be any danger of accident like that. So, I think, I don’t know if spoke three minutes or not, but that’s about what I have to say, but I think it’s a great idea, and I’m so happy that somebody’s coming in and having to risk the monetary investment to 6 EXHIBIT F put it in there for us, the people, because we are a democracy, and we need help from everybody. So, that’s my say. Thank you very much. MIYASATO: Thank you. THOMSON: God bless I found the building. MIYASATO: Any questions Commissioners? No? Thank you. ONO: Question. MIYASATO: Commissioner Ono. ONO: I’m not familiar with your residence so, how far—are you close to, living close to the tower? THOMSON: I think I am. ONO: What’s the distance roughly? THOMSON: I think if you tell me—oh, please tell me the exact route of the tower. ONO: I’m sorry? THOMSON: Please tell me the exact location of the tower. ONO: I don’t know myself-- THOMSON: Oh. ONO: --I’m just wondering because of your comments, I’m just wondering how far away are you from the, residing from the-- THOMSON: I’m on the corner of Ainaloa. Oh, I’m on Paradise Court, right on that corner. Yeah, right there. That—on that corner, that’s me. That whole sixth block in this, so I’m kind of diagonally across from it— ONO: --I see. THOMSON: I supposed if it’s a hundred feet, it could fall all over into my yard, but I’m not worried about that. ONO: Okay, thank you. 7 EXHIBIT F MIYASATO: Anything further? Thank you. Do the Commissioners have any questions or comments to these objections or would request any of these to be described in detail? NISHIMOTO: I actually have further objections on other grounds. Should I list—state and list those first before you ask them to further question me about the current objections? MIYASATO: Yeah, could you explain as to what other— NISHIMOTO: Yeah, the other objections are on the grounds that they lack foundation to the extent that they were just copied and pasted from the Internet. MIYASATO: Could you—could you, yeah, could you please briefly reference each— NISHIMOTO: --yeah, those. You want me to start from the beginning or just the ones that I just stated? MIYASATO: From four. NISHIMOTO: From four, okay, I’m going to go through them. Let’s see. Okay, Verizon objects to Exhibits No. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 29, 36 thru 42, either because they’re confusing and irrelevant to the present application or they lack foundation. MIYASATO: Do the Commissioners require further clarification? ONO: Ah, no, but I certainly liked to know from this list of Exhibits, which ones are you accepting. NISHIMOTO: --One— ONO: --you seem to be rejecting— NISHIMOTO: --through three— ONO: One, two, and three? NISHIMOTO: I think, yeah, maybe it’s easier if I go through it that way. We do not object to Exhibits 1 through 3, 14— ONO: Wait, wait, wait—okay. NISHIMOTO: --17, 18, 19, 24, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, and 35. MIYASATO: Does the Planning Director—do you have comments? 8 EXHIBIT F KANUHA: We—we’re taking no position on this except to remind the Commission that Intervenor’s representing himself pro bono [sic] so in that case, perhaps there should be some leeway in understanding why he’s submitted whatever he submitted. That’s just a comment we want to make on that. MIYASATO: Mr. Inaba, would you like to comment on those items that were, are being rejected? INABA: Yeah, I’d like the Commission to allow me to present all of those. You know, I wasn’t allowed to review any of their documentation at all, zero, other than what was submitted to this Planning Commission, and a lot of these documents are public record which I obtained from going to the Planning Department looking at the file, and if the public record and things from the Internet are not allowed in, where else am I going to get any information to present today? I don’t have access to their legal, you know, websites or whatever, to review case law and stuff. I’m just trying to present my case the best that I can, and I wasn’t allowed to review anything from them, so I went to the Planning Department. I looked through files which I thought were very pertinent to the case I’m trying to present. You know, they say they’re confusing, irrelevant, and lack foundation. I’m not going to read through the whole document. There’s specific areas in there that I’m just going to review in front of all of you which I think are very relevant to my situation. And, I don’t think it, saying it lacks foundation, how could they know that if I haven’t even presented it yet. So, I’m just asking, you know, I would agree that you know this is better for me to be less formal. That rule of evidence that she referred to that didn’t apply doesn’t apply, so, I would like to present the information that I came up with in the best way that I can. Thank you. MIYASATO: Okay, because we are having a lax procedure, I will allow your evidence, and you will have the opportunity to cross-examine. NISHIMOTO: Thank you. INABA: Thank you. MIYASATO: The Department—you have your, present your—yeah, we’ll go back to your exhibits. NG: Okay, thank you. And again, the parties are all stipulating to the admission of the Planning Department’s Background and Recommendations Exhibits 1 and 2, so we’d ask that the Planning Commission accept those into evidence. MIYASATO: You have any objections? NISHIMOTO: No objection. 9 EXHIBIT F INABA: No. MIYASATO: Commissioners, any objections? Okay, if not, that will be accepted into the record. NG: Thank you. MIYASATO: The applicant may—you may start your presentation. NISHIMOTO: Okay, thank you. As you know, today’s hearing concerns the application for a Use Permit to construct a 105-foot tall steel monopine telecommunication tower in the Tiki Gardens Subdivision in the Puna District. The property of the proposed project is identified on the Island of Hawai‘i as Tax Map Key: 1-6-102-056, and the land consists of approximately 8,100 square feet. The proposed telecommunication tower is an expressly permitted use under both the Hawai‘i Revised Statutes and the Hawai‘i County Zoning Code. The application itself is about providing reliable voice and data service to the maximum number of people in an area where coverage currently is lacking, with the limited number of impacts to the natural environment and the surrounding community. Specifically, Verizon seeks to provide 4G LTE service in the Ainaloa area which would permit the wireless transmission of voice and data at speeds of up to ten times faster than normal 3G technologies which would greatly enhance everyday living and facilitate emergency, any types of emergencies that the area may experience. The concerns against the granting of the Use Permit come from property owners who do not currently reside in the Ainaloa area, and, for example, Darren [sic] and Shari Shinsato are two Honolulu residents who own properties across the street from the proposed project site, and their concerns focus around the foundation of the project, and any injury that could result in the residential area as a result of the tower falling. Similarly, Mr. Inaba has—a Waimea resident, has objected to the proposed tower on the grounds that his property is within the tower’s fall radius. Each of these property owners do not currently have residences constructed on their properties. This morning, you will hear from Danette Martin and Corey Shaffer. They will both provide testimony on the benefits that the monopine will provide to the residents of Ainaloa, the site selection process, how it complies with the applicable Zoning Codes, and some feedback that Ms. Martin has heard from some of the residents in the Ainaloa community. The testimony will further demonstrate why this Use Permit should be granted. Thank you. MIYASATO: Mr. Inaba? Would you like to do your opening statement? INABA: I’m sorry? MIYASATO: Would you like to have an opening statement for your case? 10 EXHIBIT F INABA: No, I will present everything when it’s my turn. I don’t have to present anything now. Yeah, I’m fine. NG: We have no opening statement at this time. Thank you. MIYASATO: Okay, thank you. Okay, you may bring up your— NISHIMOTO: Okay, I’d like to call Danette Martin at this time. Okay, please state your name. MARTIN: Danette Martin. NISHIMOTO: Have you seen the written testimony submitted on your behalf by Verizon? MARTIN: Yes. NISHIMOTO: And do you adopt it as your own testimony? MARTIN: Yes, I do. NISHIMOTO: Can you tell us your title and your current employment? MARTIN: I am a site, outside site acquisition consultant. I work directly for General Dynamics— MASUNAGA: Can you— MARTIN: Can you hear me now? That’s a funny joke, right? I work as a consultant, outside consultant with General Dynamics who is a turn-key contractor for Verizon Wireless. Turn-key means they give us the project from the beginning when they have the need, and then we take it all the way from leasing, permitting, constructing, and we hand it over to them ready to operate. NISHIMOTO: Okay, and can you tell us about your background and experience in this industry? MARTIN: I’ve worked in as a site acquisition consultant since 1995. I first started with Western Wireless which was turned into T-Mobile, and I did that for a few years and then in 2000, I started working exclusively for Verizon Wireless or General Dynamics and Verizon Wireless. The only project that I’ve done besides Verizon Wireless is I did a project for the County of Hawai‘i Police microwave back call. I helped them with their zoning permitting. NISHIMOTO: Can you describe for the Commission your role in the project, the proposed project? 11 EXHIBIT F MARTIN: In this particular project, I, I locate the site location. I do all the real estate to acquire the property. I do all the permitting and, that’s pretty much it. NISHIMOTO: Okay, and is there any design criteria in that Verizon looks at when they are searching for an optimal site? MARTIN: So, just to start from the beginning how the process works is I get a project issued to me, and if they give me a map, that map gives me circles. They call them search rings on a map, and recently, they used to be big rings, now we laughingly call them search dots cause they’re so small. Technology’s changed so much. But they give me a search ring on there that tells me where the optimal location is, and I go into the community and use my experience and knowledge about where, where might be appropriate. I always try to start with a community association as I did with this one. I—the first day when I hit the ground, I stopped in with Ainaloa Community Association and spoke to Board members, and tried to get some recommendations from them. But, the first thing that we really look at is we try to co-locate on existing towers. We try to get away from installing new towers all together, so we look for tall buildings. We look for existing towers—any kind of structure really that would be suitable. And, I did have, I did see one existing structure, and that was a T-Mobile flagpole located at the Ainaloa Community Association, and that was not in, that would not provide the coverage. We already have coverage in that area, so I was told by the radio frequency engineer that designed the project that, that wouldn’t work. NISHIMOTO: And, after did you further explore any other alternative sites? MARTIN: Yes, I actually did quite a few. When I first started with the Association, they, one of the Board members had said why, why don’t you do it at my house, so we went and looked at that. That’s on Ginger Lane. And, then also the Association said, hey, we’ve got big parcels throughout the subdivision. Why don’t you do it there, and that sounded like a good idea to me, so we actually went down that path. So, we called, actually, we were going to go forward on, on the Ainaloa Community Park location. I think that was the first one that we started. And, so, I got the okay from Verizon Wireless. I submitted my feasibility report, and they said, yes, that looked like it would work. So, we started down that. I ordered the title report, and I found that there was a company—a mainland company—that had an exclusive easement for telecommunication purposes for all the common areas of Ainaloa Association. Called them back, the Association, and asked them about that. And they did—they were not aware that they’d sign away their rights to that. They thought they were only signing for the T-Mobile tower location, but in fact, they had signed away everything, so I called them and said, you know, we’d like to lease some area, space from you, and then they gave me some super high rent, and I said, we’re talking, we’re not talking about New York City. We’re talking about an area that, you know, that doesn’t have, you know, it’s a very rural area, and they can’t support a high rent there, so we had to walk away from that. And then we went to, the next, then that’s when the Board of Directors said well, how about my house, its right next to the park. Okay, we’ll try and do that one. So we were gonna go down that path and really started on that. We started to do drawings so that we could bring them to you, for your consideration. And then she 12 EXHIBIT F called and said that they were being transferred and they wouldn’t be able to do it. They were going to have to, they were going to have to get rid of their house. And then, I went back to the Community Association again, and they said, well, what about Sugarcane Lane. I got a piece of property and my daughter’s got a vacant lot next to it. Why don’t you put it there? So, I said okay, well let’s ahead and do that. So, I went and did a feasibility report on that. And, it was pretty far out of the search area, though, so I didn’t know if it would work, but I did put the feasibility report in. And then, also, I started driving around. I tried calling the big lots. I look at that first actually. I kind of need to go back a little bit. When I first get these things, I pull up the tmk map and immediately I start looking at let’s try to find big parcels. And, I did try to contact some people to the—let me get my bearings as far as the— right, I did try to, it’s a kind of west, west of the current location. There’s four or five kind of larger parcels. I tried to contact them. I could not either contact them, or they weren’t willing to work with us. And, so, I was driving down the street, and I saw these lots for sale. And, I looked them up on the MLS—I’m a member. And they told me that you know that they seemed to be very inexpensive so I talked to Verizon Wireless about whether or not they would be willing to purchase these lots, and so we entered into an option to purchase contingent on zoning approval. NISHIMOTO: So, you would say that you’re, you, you made genuine efforts to explore alternative options before selecting the proposed site? MARTIN: Yes, I’ll even go further to say that if we cannot get this approved, I don’t know where else we could put this. NISHIMOTO: Okay, now what factors render the subject site optimal. MARTIN: Well, we look for utilities. Utilities are important. We look for topography surrounding topography. We look for—we try to actually not put it too close to existing structures. However, that’s not altogether a criteria of ours. NISHIMOTO: And, I want to address some of the objector’s concerns. For example, Mr. and Mrs. Shinsato—our concern that the tower may fall and cause injury in the residential area. Can you explain to us what you know about tower foundation? MARTIN: Yeah, I did try to get a structural engineer here to explain this better than me but I couldn’t get anybody that had time for us. So, I tried to learn as much as I could about it. I talked to an engineer right here in Hilo. I, an engineer in Honolulu. And what I can tell you is that when we get to that stage, we, in order to design that tower foundation, we do a geonet, geotechnical sample where they take a drill rig out and then they dig one or two inch hole down into the soil, and then they take that in and they analyze it, and then try to figure out, you know, how, what we need to do to design the tower. So, I, this is really, not about this tower. We don’t 13 EXHIBIT F have a design for this tower, but I just think that visuals are important. So, the, after we get the soils report, it goes to the tower manufacturer. Sure-- NISHIMOTO: Can you use the mic? MARTIN: What? NISHIMOTO: Can you use the mic? Speak more into the mic? MARTIN: Oh, speak more into the mic. Okay. So, it’s got this, this design is kind of hard to see from there, and it is eight feet wide, 34-1/2, this particular one, it’s—it could be different cause, for this site. But just to give you a kind of an idea, I’m more of a visual person. So, they, they dig down 34-1/2 feet for this one, eight feet in diameter, and then they install reinforced concrete. This one shows steel rebar every foot. And because the County of Hawai‘i requires the wind low to be a 105 miles an hour, the structural engineer personally goes out and/or has a responsible employee that goes out and inspects the property, inspects the foundation, and makes sure that it’s done. I talk to structural engineers and they said it’s really my— KANUHA: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, is that, can you have the Applicant identify the Exhibit that she’s using. MARTIN: Oh, sure. This Exhibit is Paul J. Ford Company Structural Engineers. NISHIMOTO: It’s actually, she just brought it in today— MARTIN: It has nothing to do—it has nothing to do with this site, and if you want to just disallow it at all—yeah, that’s fine. NISHIMOTO: Okay. MARTIN: I just, I just am a visual person. NISHIMOTO: Okay. MARTIN: So, we were talking though about—I don’t know if I’m getting ahead of myself, go ahead— NISHIMOTO: No, that’s fine—we can keep going about the foundation and the sustainability of windspeed— MARTIN: --So, the foundation is, there’s a new, the County has adopted a new, the 2006 IBC Code just a few years ago. Before that, there was 80 miles an hour was the standard, before they adopted this new code although the County has always had a 100 miles an hour sustained wind. 14 EXHIBIT F So, it used to be that the Zoning Code was more restrictive. The Code now since it’s been amended is more restrictive than our Zoning Code. NISHIMOTO: In your opinion, would it be more likely for trees and other utility poles to fall in the event of a natural disaster? MARTIN: You know, I don’t, I can’t say that for sure, but what I can say is that this tower will be designed for 105 miles an hour—probably more because we provide for co-location and so they beef it up a little bit more, and I can tell you that at a 105 miles an hour, it’s not going to just be the tower. It is going to be, most probably I think would be the antennas or the branches that actually might come off first. I don’t, I don’t see that the tower is really going to ever fall over, but at that point, when you have a hurricane that’s gonna be that big, and you know, that big of winds, sustained winds like that, you’re gonna have not just that flying around, but you’re probably going to have the neighbor’s house, and a lot of other things flying around, and so I just think that it’s, you know, would be a double standard to say that a cell phone tower that meets a 105 mile an hour can’t have any damage to it after they complied with Code and then, and then have the house next door’s roof fly over, you know? Just my personal opinion. NISHIMOTO: In your 20 years of experience, have you ever been aware of a Verizon monopine tower falling in the State of Hawai‘i? MARTIN: No. NISHIMOTO: Okay, I’d like to direct everyone Exhibits E and F, Verizon’s Exhibits E and F. One of Mr. Inaba’s concerns is that his property is located in, within the tower’s, the proposed tower’s fall radius. Can you explain a little bit more about what Exhibit E represents? MARTIN: Yes, I prepared this Exhibit actually using the County’s Real Property Tax GIS system. So, you’ll see the outline of Mr. Inaba’s tower, property, sorry. You’ll see that he’s got his, where his, the outline of his property is, and then also I took coordinates. We had a surveyor. We have to provide survey coordinates to the FCC for regulation purposes, so I had that information, and I searched that and used that pinpoint and measured on the Google from the center of the tower, to a 105 feet or approximately a 100 to 105 feet. It’s not really that exact. I’m not all that good at Google but anyways, it’s approximate, too, and it didn’t, didn’t seem like it even crossed the road. So, it’s—it’s well away from Mr. Inaba’s property. NISHIMOTO: Okay, and then what about Exhibit F? Can you explain what that is? MARTIN: Yes, we actually tried to, we actually looked around at the existing residences there and tried to figure the closest area there and to see if it was in a fall radius of an existing house. NISHIMOTO: And is it within the fall radius of any structure or residence? MARTIN: No. 15 EXHIBIT F INABA: Excuse me. May I comment at this point on these Exhibits? MIYASATO: We’ll let the witness complete her testimony and then you can cross examine. NISHIMOTO: Now, the Zoning Code requires certain set—minimum setbacks for these types of towers. I believe according to Section 25-4-12, the minimum setback, is one foot for every five foot of antenna or tower. MARTIN: Right. NISHIMOTO: Does— MARTIN: That’s right. NISHIMOTO: Does the proposed tower comply with this setback rule? MARTIN: Yes. NISHIMOTO: Okay. There may also be concerns about the visual impact of the tower. What can you tell us that Verizon will offer to mitigate any of these concerns. MARTIN: We have the ability to do stealth towers and that could be a pine tree or a palm tree. We use landscaping. We drove by the property this morning, and just to take a look at it to see how we might be better able to conceal this so that when you’re driving by, truly you can get these to the point where you’re driving by and it’s really hard to see them. I know because I go out and search for towers all the time, and I’ve driven by them plenty of times and not, just not seeing them, so we’re really trying to think of what we could do to mitigate any kind of visual impact for him besides the tower, and I was thinking about, I ask Mr. Inaba if you know what kind of maybe landscaping would he like for mitigation, but when I went by today, I saw the overgrowth there, and I really think the best way to hide this stuff is just to leave the natural growth there. It’s awfully pretty. I don’t know if you’ve seen that—been down that area—but just to leave the natural growth, and I think that it would blend in better. NISHIMOTO: I’d like to direct the parties and the Commission to Verizon’s Exhibit D. And also, in conjunction with Mr. Inaba’s Exhibit No. 6. And if I could be clear, it’s the second page to Mr. Inaba’s Exhibit No. 6. Okay, does, Danette does Verizon Exhibit D accurately represent the proposed monopine tower? MARTIN: Yes, actually it is a—it’s a tower that we installed at the Volcano Golf Course. NISHIMOTO: And looking at Mr. Inaba’s Exhibit 6, does that fairly depict what the proposed tower will look like and the surrounding area? 16 EXHIBIT F MARTIN: No. He’s got a standard monopole there, and we’re proposing what they call a stealth pole to hide it. NISHIMOTO: Okay. Will the surrounding area also be this barren on the subject property? MARTIN: Not from what I saw this morning when we drove by. It was really pretty overgrown. NISHIMOTO: Can you describe any noise impacts that might result from the construction of the tower once it’s actually standing? MARTIN: They do have air conditioners but they are really not very loud. I don’t think that the neighbors would be affected by it unless it was super quiet. I spent the night in Hilo, Naniloa yesterday, and the coqui frogs were quite loud so I don’t think it’s going to be anywhere close to that but and then we do plan on having an emergency generator, and we do, can put a sound cowling on there, and with the 6 DBI I guess is what they, what they say, 60—I’m sorry. And that is—that’s pretty quiet. It’s about the same noise decibel as an air conditioning unit which is allowed in the subdivision, you know. NISHIMOTO: So, I’d like to go over the compliance with any of the Zoning Codes. Can you explain the permitting process and how this tower might comply or how we can insure that it will comply with these Codes and applicable rules? MARTIN: Well, let me look at my notes, hold on—I can’t really remember what this question’s about--okay, so what I need to do for my job to comply with permitting is we first get that survey that I talked to you about. We order geotechnical soil sample. We have a professional structural engineer licensed in the State of Hawai‘i as required by this County to certify that it is a hundred, you know, a 100 miles an hour sustained winds. We file an application whether it be a Plan Approval or Use Permit, whatever’s required by this, by the Zoning Code. And then we apply for a Building Permit and in that case, we are under the 2006 IBC Code which requires a 105 miles an hour. And then during that process, during inspection process, we do the structural engineer comes out and verifies that this, that the foundation was constructed properly. NISHIMOTO: Is there anything submitted to the County, the Hawai‘i County Building Department, for review before the construction begins? MARTIN: Oh yes, the Building Permit drawings, the construction drawings, which include structural drawings, electrical drawings, primarily. NISHIMOTO: Earlier you, today you testified, that you spoke with some Board members of the Ainaloa Community Association. What did they tell you about their current voice and data service, phone service, Internet services, and the like? 17 EXHIBIT F MARTIN: When I first came to meet with Rhonda and Debbie with the Ainaloa Community Association, they said you don’t understand how happy we are to have you here. We really, really need this service. This was back in 2011 when I, when I first spoke to them and they said, you don’t understand, we just got dedicated lines here, five years ago, before that, we all, we’re on party lines. So, we are really behind the times with, with our choices. We didn’t have any other choices. We, and we’re happy to be able to have that, you know, they also have restricted, not everyone has the availability to Internet in this area of our County. NISHIMOTO: And, in your explanation of optimal building or subject sites for the construction of the tower, did you receive any feedback from any other Ainaloa resident expressing support for the tower? MARTIN: Yes, I did, actually. Toni just called me just a few days ago, and I thank her for showing up. She’s a, sounds like a pretty smart lady, and commend her for making the effort to come out today. But not just that, I also was in the area posting my sign as required by the County on the property, and as I was leaving, there was a lady that was hitchhiking to go to the bank in Pāhoa, so I picked her up and she, I told her what I was doing there, and she said she was so happy. She said I don’t have the ability to have a LAN Internet service, and I work from my home. And, I’m a graphic designer, and this will mean everything to me. And, I’m so happy. So, I have spoken to other people to. I have not, I haven’t had one person that lives there object to this tower. NISHIMOTO: And of those, you sent the required notice under the Zoning Code to all the property owners. MARTIN: Yes, there was quite a lot because there are such small lots in this area, so I sent out 78 which is 500 feet from the property line as required. NISHIMOTO: And did you receive any letters or phone calls from any of these residences or residents in the area objecting to the construction of the— MARTIN: I did not. NISHIMOTO: Okay, can you describe for us the benefits that will result from the monopine? MARTIN: Well, the obvious one is that people will have service and the, our State has identified the availability to redundant communications is important for safety, but also, they’ve also in the process of establishing a task force to see how we could actually have, get faster, you know, get the wireless broadband, because they understand how important it is for our economy. It really is an, a—will bring a better economy to this community. NISHIMOTO: How about emergency services? Will that improved with— 18 EXHIBIT F MARTIN: Well, absolutely. Verizon Wireless is required to provide E911 service and so in the event of a problem, I heard in another location in Kapoho, that there was someone that drowned, and gosh, if we had the wireless service available, we don’t think that person would have died, so you know, we hear of those stories all the time. NISHIMOTO: Is there anything else you’d like to add? MARTIN: I did want to point out that in our Exhibit that I did reach out to the Ainaloa Community Association after, after this, after you know, just prior to this hearing, and I talked with Debbie Boggs there. She works there, and I don’t know if she’s a Board member. I did put in my Affidavit that I thought she was, but later on, I think maybe she just works there. But, I talked to her, and I said you know, I know that we talked before, and that you know, you had said that the Association was supportive of this, but would you be willing to write me a letter. So, her question to me was, who is objecting to it. And I said, well, it’s—they’re Daryl Inaba, he’s on Silversword, and just to let you know, Silversword is not in the Ainaloa Community Association. It’s in Tiki Gardens, and they have no community association. So, I explained to her. I said, well, there’s the fellow that lives across the street or doesn’t live across the street, but he has a vacant lot, and I told him what her, what his concerns are and things, and she said well, he just doesn’t get it. He doesn’t understand. He doesn’t live here. And, she said if he lived here, he would know how critical that this service is to us. I will absolutely get that letter for you, and she did. NISHIMOTO: Thank you. Are there any questions for the Commissioners? HENKEL: Yeah, you just answered one. I was wondering if Tiki Gardens was a separate entity from Ainaloa. It is. MARTIN: It is. HENKEL: And yet you keep referencing, you know, the Ainaloa Community Association, but the project is in Tiki Gardens. MARTIN: It’s kind of on the cusp, technically it’s in Tiki Gardens. Tiki Gardens is a, the coverage is mostly going to be affected for Ainaloa Gardens, and I can let Mr. Shaffer explain to you why, why this site is going to be the best coverage area for Ainaloa. HENKEL: I have one more question. Yeah, I mean this one’s been answered. The other question—is there a recommended distance or buffer zone from the tower for residences for microwave or radio frequency radiation? MARTIN: I kind of answered this before at the last meeting, but the FCC has strict regulations for safety, and I had—I don’t think I brought it with me this time—but I, there’s an FCC brochure that’s put out, and I was trying to hand that out at the last hearing, but I don’t think I brought ‘em with me. I can forwarded it over just in case anybody’s wanting to know what it is, 19 EXHIBIT F but basically, it says that you have to be two feet in front of the antenna for a prolonged period of time for it to have an adverse effect. HENKEL: That’s the FCC’s? MARTIN: FCC’s brochure. HENKEL: Okay. MIYASATO: Mr. Inaba, would you like to cross examine this witness? INABA: Yes, thank you. I have a couple comments. You mentioned that they comply with the setback rule. This tower is a 105 feet, and the rule is one foot for every five foot of tower. So, they need a 21-foot setback on their plans. If you go to their Use Permit application, the second to the last page, their overall site plan, it shows 20 feet. And I checked with Planning, I walked into Planning one day, and I said hey if somebody comes in with some plans and they don’t show the correct setback, could that, could that plans still go through and get approved, and they said no, we would kick it back to them unless it shows the—even if they have room—whether, I’m not sure if it does. But, if it’s supposed to be a 21-foot setback, it should show 21 feet on the plans, and theirs does not. It shows 20 feet. So, I want to make, put that on the record. I believe that’s incorrect. On the Exhibits E and F that were brought up earlier— MIYASATO: Excuse me, Mr. Inaba, we would like to stick to cross examination for this witness. INABA: Yeah, they were talking about Exhibits E and F. Oh, so I’m supposed ask them a question? KANUHA: Yeah. INABA: Oh, so is your setback correct? Does it show 21 feet? MARTIN: Oh, does it show? No, it doesn’t, it says 20 feet. You’re correct. INABA: Okay, thank you. So, I can go onto something else now. On Exhibit E, I believe this was prepared by Ms. Martin, and she discussed it earlier, all the lot lines in Tiki Gardens continue on. It’s like a big grid, so they’re not offset. So the, I guess in this case, the north boundary line, the long length of my property, would be a continuation onto their property. With that being the case, if their setting their tower back 20 feet from the north boundary line, it should be actually lower on the page. It shouldn’t be above the north boundary line on my side. I don’t know if everybody can follow that. This is Exhibit E that Ms. Martin prepared. Oh sorry—so do you understand what I’m saying? Where the north boundary line of your parcel 20 EXHIBIT F where you’re siting the tower, it should be a continuation of the north boundary line of the parcel you’re identifying as mine. And, if that’s the case, and you’re setting the tower back 20 feet from the side, the side setback, it should be further lower on this picture. Do you have any questions, Mr. Martin? MARTIN: I don’t—I can’t comment on that. I put in the coordinates into Google Earth, and I used the County’s website. If it’s off a little bit, it might be. INABA: Okay, then if this picture’s off, if you went to Exhibit F— MARTIN: Yeah, it’s still across from your property, right? INABA: No, I’m trying to get to Exhibit F. So, if that tower is a little high on the picture, if you went to Exhibit F, and it’s a little lower than it should be, that tower may fall on that structure, and that’s all I said. The tower may, or it appears it may fall on the structure. MARTIN: Even if it was off, I actually interestingly enough, I met the guy that did the website for the Real Property Tax last night. And, I talked to him about this issue, and I said it looks like when you go to these sites, that it’s off a little bit. And he did say that it was off by like three degrees or something, and they were working to fix that, but he said it’s obvious how, how, what the adjustment is because you can see that the lot doesn’t line up with the street like it should. So, even, even if it was to be adjusted that way, and even if this was to say the tower was to stay where it is, and Mr. Inaba’s property would border this street, it still wouldn’t cross over. INABA: No, I never said it would cross into my property. I’m talking about Exhibit F where you’re showing that it doesn’t reach a structure on that Parcel 49— MARTIN: You still say the — INABA: I’m saying if the tower were supposed to be further down or lower on this picture, it would be closer to the structure. That’s all I’m saying. It appears it may hit the structure. MARTIN: So, these are surveyed coordinates. These coordinates are correct. The tower is where I’m showing it on here unless Google Earth is wrong and that’s rare— INABA: --You know, I would agree with you that the person that told you that it may be off, I would agree, and I would just say that both of these pictures are unreliable— MARTIN: No, no, not these coordinates. I’m talking about the map itself. And you can tell by looking at—yeah, the tmk line’s off, not the map itself. INABA: Well, you can’t, nobody can be sure of that. I’m just saying these two maps are unreliable, and we shouldn’t rely on them. You actually said that the person you talked to said 21 EXHIBIT F they were probably—it’s not entirely survey accurate. There could be discrepancies. I’m just saying they’re unreliable. MARTIN: Actually, survey coordinates, as a matter of fact I have them with me. Even survey coordinates has—where they’d go—even they have a margin so, an acceptable margin, so, for instance, the accuracy certification is 15 feet horizontally and 3 feet vertically. That’s, that’s the survey coordinates. This is, you know, even surveyors have to have some kind of an inaccuracy in there. I mean, it still regardless if it’s three feet or whatever, it’s still not going to be on his property or hit this house. I mean, it would have to go, it would have to go ten, fifteen, you know, it’d have to go, I don’t know. To hit this house, or to hit this house, it’d probably have to go double the size of the tower, and I, it’s not off like that. If it’s off, it’s off by a small degree. I don’t think the coordinates are off, though. The coordinates were surveyed. INABA: Let’s move on. You mentioned Exhibit 6. It doesn’t reflect what the tower would look like. It’s a monopole versus a stealth pole. MARTIN: Right. INABA: And the only reason I included that type of pole on my Exhibit was, Verizon never included a nice picture of a, I guess it’s called a monopine, until they submitted their Exhibits in their application and their Statement of Issues, they never included an accurate picture of a monopine, so I had nothing else to use other than what I could pull off the Internet, and that’s what I used. MIYASATO: For the cross examination, could we keep it to questions to the witness instead of statements and you know, although we are informal, we don’t want our cross examination to be argumentative. Could we just stick to questions? Thank you. INABA: Okay, understood. Thank you. One last question, if I may. You stated that, you answered Ms. Nishimoto saying that you notified all the parties within the 500 foot radius, and you stated that you never received any feedback. Isn’t it true that I called you after I received the first notice on this matter? MARTIN: The question that I was asked was have any residents contacted. Residents in the, in the 500 foot radius. Has any residents objected to it, and my answer was no. INABA: Okay, I misunderstood the question. Thank you. Thank you. MIYAMOTO: Does the Director have any cross examination for the witness? NG: No questions. Thank you. 22 EXHIBIT F MIYAMOTO: Okay, I was informed one of our Commissioners has a appointment at 2 o’clock, and we will not have a quorum when she leaves, so if we don’t get completed, then we will have a continuance. NISHIMOTO: Okay. MIYAMOTO: Your next witness. NISHIMOTO: Okay, I’d next like to call Corey Shaffer. Could you please state your name? SHAFFER: Corey Shaffer. NISHIMOTO: And have you seen the written testimony submitted on your behalf by Verizon? SHAFFER: Yes, I have. NISHIMOTO: And do you adopt it as your own testimony? SHAFFER: I do. NISHIMOTO: Okay, what is your title and current employment? SHAFFER: I’m a Principal System Performance Engineer with Verizon Wireless. I’ve held my current job since 2006. NISHIMOTO: Okay, and what is your background and experience in this industry? SHAFFER: I’ve been in the wireless industry since 2004, and working in this specific job since 2006. And, working in this specific job in the State of Hawai‘i since 2007. NISHIMOTO: What was your role in the proposed project? SHAFFER: So, basically, I’m the engineer, the field engineer, so I’m responsible for understanding the existing coverage, so I was instrumental in developing the search ring that was sent to Danette, and it’s based on where is our weakest coverage today, and where can we put a tower that will cover the largest area with the smallest impact on the community. So, those were the design criteria that we used to pick this location. NISHIMOTO: And how are these coverage holes identified? SHAFFER: Through three methods primarily—drive testing the network where we just drive around and collect data and check the signal levels; customer complaints which we get a large number of in Ainaloa; and propagation studies which are computer simulations of all our towers. 23 EXHIBIT F So, if you’ve seen the coverage maps that they show on the commercials, that, those are propagation studies. And, there’s one as an Exhibit as well. NISHIMOTO: Okay, is there a reason why these tele—these monopine 4G LTE telecommunication towers need to be closer to certain residents as opposed to the middle of nowhere, where it won’t be a bother to anyone? SHAFFER: Sure. Yeah, the real reason that we need to put towers close to the users is so that the signal is good. So, the higher the signal, the more efficient the signal, then the fewer towers we need to build. So, if we were to build towers on the outside of communities and tried to shoot in, it would create a number of technical problems, but it’d also require three to five times as many towers which is not something that we’d like to do from a cost perspective or litter the landscape with more structures than is necessary. NISHIMOTO: And, I know Danette has gone over some of the design criteria. Is there anything else you’d like to add with regard to radiofrequency and coverage? SHAFFER: No, other than, yeah, the search ring that we developed for this area was based on the existing drive data and the computer simulations showing that this would be the best location. And, it’s a, you know, it’s a, it’s a range on a map that gets sent to Danette, and she goes out and looks for any properties in the area. NISHIMOTO: Okay, and of the alternative sites that you’ve explored, or Danette has explored, why were they unsuitable as far, in terms of coverage? SHAFFER: So, I think, I think a total of six different things have come across my desk, and I had approved several of them as Danette mentioned. The one fell through—she mentioned the reason that several of them feel through. They were three that came across my desk which were unsuitable for technical reasons. So, the first one would be the Ainaloa Community Association on Ainaloa Boulevard, and that is on like the eastern part of the neighborhood where our coverage is actually still pretty good. So, if we were to build a cell site there, we’d still need to build a second cell site in the western portion of the neighborhood, so that’s why we rejected that location. There were two more locations brought to our attention on—was it Sugar— MARTIN: Sugarcane— SHAFFER: Sugarcane Lane, and that’s a bit too far west in the neighborhood and would also require a second tower, so this location on Silversword Drive is in the middle of the neighborhood, so it’s ideal because it’s kind of situated on a ridgeline. So, basically, we can build one tower as opposed to having to build two or three. 24 EXHIBIT F NISHIMOTO: Okay, and can you—if everyone can take a look at Exhibit G, Exhibits G and H, Verizon’s Exhibits G and H. Can you explain to everyone what these represent? SHAFFER: Yeah, so Exhibit G is basically the coverage existing today. This is one of these propagation studies that I mentioned, and this is a computer simulation. So, all these little dots you see with different pie shapes coming out of them, those are our existing towers. So, you can see the signal. Typically, when it gets down into the green and blue, the signal is very poor to non-usable. So, you can see that the, you know the center to western part of the neighborhood is the, is the part that needs the most improvement, and that, you can see the proposed Ainaloa tower right in the middle of that neighborhood to try to capture all that area with a single tower. If we were to go too far northeast, or to far southwest, we can’t basically pick up the whole neighborhood, and it would require us to build more than one tower. So, if you look at Exhibit H, this is basically the proposed coverage with the Ainaloa cell site. And you can see that it eliminates a lot of the blue coverage and almost all the green coverage as well, which are the poor coverage areas. NISHIMOTO: Okay, and just in—very concisely—can you just explain why the subject site was the most optimal? SHAFFER: Yeah, basically, because there, as you drive up Ainaloa Boulevard, you’ll notice that it, it peaks right before this area. So, basically because of the topology and the ridgelines in the area, if, as I had mentioned several times, if we went too far east, we’d have to build a tower for the east part of the neighborhood and a tower for the west. We’d much prefer to build one tower in the middle so there’s a pretty limited—probably four or five streets worth—that, that ridgeline takes up where we’d accept any property in that, that area. And we did, we did approve several prop—two properties in that area that fell through for other reasons, so--. NISHIMOTO: Okay, and lastly, I just want to take a look at Exhibit C, Verizon’s Exhibit C. MARTIN: T? NISHIMOTO: C as in “cat.” Is that a current and accurate depiction of the surrounding area? The immediate surrounding area of the proposed property? SHAFFER: Yeah, looks correct. We saw it today, and it looks just like this I’d say. NISHIMOTO: And a lot of times people don’t want telephone poles, utility lines, electrical lines in their line of sight, but we have them anyway because of the tradeoff that, and benefits they provide. The area is already as the pictures depict, filled with these. Correct? SHAFFER: Correct. NISHIMOTO: Okay, is there anything else you’d like to add? 25 EXHIBIT F SHAFFER: Nothing else. NISHIMOTO: Do the Commissioners have any questions for Corey? HENKEL: I have one. You know, I’m pretty satisfied with the structural integrity of these and the visual impacts, you know, have been mitigated, and forgive me for going back to the radiation concerns— SHAFFER: --Sure--. HENKEL: --the smaller rings that you’re talking about. Does that mean that the technology has improved to where’s there not as much radiation danger as there was in the past? SHAFFER: Absolutely, so over the years, wireless technologies have decreased in power, so if you go back to the old analog days, people’s phones that they carried around— MARTIN: Those big ones— SHAFFER: --yeah, bag phones, car phones, those were three to six watts. The highest your phone can transmit today according to the FCC is 250 milliwatts. And one thing to keep in mind—Danette talked about how you have to be very close to the antenna for it to cause any radiation, yeah, over 99 percent of the areas that you’ll be, your phone is going to expose you to more energy than the tower, and that’s because the energy from radio signal decays as one over to the distance to the source squared. So, that’s like a really quickly dropping curve. So, if you stand for example. If you were to stand at the base of this 100-foot tower, as close as you could get to it, your phone would be transmitting about 1,000 times hotter than the tower, at the location of your head. So, I encourage you to use your headsets. No, I mean, so, you know, but the FCC has determined that it—so, we’re still at a much safer place than we’ve ever been, a quarter of a watt, and some of the new FCC regulations, they’re using proximity sensors, so if you’re closer to it, it even clamps your power down to what we call 10 dBm which is significantly lower than 250 milliwatts. That’s closer to 10 milliwatts, so the power as the cell density increases, our exposure to radiation actually decreases, because the cell phone is closer to the tower, and the cell phone can talk much quieter. So, if you live out in the rural area, you’re actually exposed to the most radiation if you own a cell phone because your cell phone has to scream to be heard by that tower. So, the person who is exposed to the least radiation is the person closest to the tower ‘cause their phone can talk the most quietly, because the downlink coming from the tower to the phone is always much, much quieter than the phone itself because of your proximity. HENKEL: Thank you. SHAFFER: So, the point where the phone becomes equivalent to the tower is roughly five feet away, so you have to be quite close, and we do these EME studies, and they, the FCC, does not even require them for towers because they’re so tall that there’s no way anyone could get in front 26 EXHIBIT F of there, but we do, do those on rooftops, and that’s a very serious thing. We measure everything. So, it’s a much bigger concern on like apartment buildings where people live closer to the antennas, but for towers, never comes up. HENKEL: Thanks. MIYASATO: Any further questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Inaba, would you have any cross examination for Mr. Shaffer? INABA: Yes, thank you. I just had a couple questions. Would a greater area of the Ainaloa Subdivision be covered if the tower was located on the Ainaloa side of the Boulevard? I’m looking at Exhibit H and you know toward the bottom of the subdivision, there’s a lot of yellow, green, blue, to the bottom of the subdivision. And my question is if the tower were actually moved onto the Ainaloa side, up Ainaloa Boulevard, would the coverage improve? SHAFFER: No, basically the terrain is flat across the road there, so there wouldn’t be any increased coverage from moving it. INABA: Would, in these cell towers, is a higher tower, would that improve the coverage? SHAFFER: Typically, that’s true, yes. INABA: That is true? SHAFFER: Yes. INABA: For, you know the other towers that are shown on this Exhibit H, the coverage area seem broader, and what is the reason for that? SHAFFER: Mostly terrain. So, if you look at Hawaiian Paradise Park, for example, that’s the Verizon Tower right at the church there, right on the main highway. Hawaiian Paradise Park is like a gently sloping straight downhill, so it propagates pretty well downhill. Ainaloa, as I mentioned, has this ridgeline where it curves, so it, these computer simulations are based almost exclusively off terrain. They’re quite accurate. They’re not very accurate in places like Honolulu, where you have a bunch of man-made structures, but places where the terrain is the main factor for degrading the signal, the computer modeling is quite accurate. We compare it to our drive testing, so we verify that. INABA: How high are the towers like the one in Pāhoa and the one in Kurtistown? SHAFFER: I think Pāhoa—you’re really testing my memory—I think Pāhoa is 85 feet. I think Puna is a hundred feet. Kurtistown is maybe a hundred feet. We’re at eight, yeah, we’re at 80 feet on Kurtistown, yeah that’s right, we’re co-located there. 27 EXHIBIT F INABA: Okay, but I believe the Puna one is a 120 feet. SHAFFER: A hundred twenty—that’s right. INABA: Okay, just to clarify. SHAFFER: Yeah, thank you. You know my network better than I do. INABA: So on a, if a tower, increased tower height improves coverage, if you located the tower above Ainaloa Boulevard, it would improve the coverage if the tower was higher? SHAFFER: We—we could look at that. We’d have to do a study. You know, the terrain is very specific so if you move the tower, you’d have to rerun this propagation study, so I could give you a guess based on my experience. If it was the same elevation and we raise the tower, the coverage should get better in general, but it really, the devil is in the details of the actual terrain relative— INABA: --okay— SHAFFER: --to that location. Because basically, what the tool does, is it goes out in an arc to everyone of these dots, and looks at how much terrain is in the way, and that’s how the signal gets degraded by the computer model. INABA: Okay, thank you. SHAFFER: Sure. MIYASATO: Director, do you have any cross examination? NG: No, thank you. MIYASATO: Ms. Nishimoto, you have any further witnesses? NISHIMOTO: I do not. MIYASATO: Does that conclude your presentation? NISHIMOTO: Yes, although I do want to just preserve for the record something that I forgot to go over before we started. I just wanted to preserve our objection to Mr. Inaba’s standing in case any appeal is ever taken. MIYASATO: So noted. NISHIMOTO: Okay, thanks. 28 EXHIBIT F MIYASATO: Mr. Inaba, would you present your case? INABA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for hearing this contested case for Cellco Partnerships proposed tower. My name’s Daryl Inaba. I represent myself, my wife, and my son. Exhibit 1 is Hawai‘i County Ordinance No. 10 17 or Bill 186, and my understanding is in 2007, the State Legislature passed Act 171 allowing construction and operation of wireless communication antennas as permitted uses in the State Land Use Agricultural District without a Special Permit. Surrounding owners were no longer able to express their concerns regarding antennas and towers within their immediate neighborhood. I’m aware of a Mr. Alfred Souza, who owned property is Ainaloa, and he was unfortunately caught off guard and a tower was approved without him being able to voice his concerns at a Commission meeting like this here today. The purpose of 10 17 was to require wireless telecommunication antennas and towers to obtain approval for Use Permit from this very Planning Commission. My understanding is that Ordinance 10 17 was Planning Director approved which I’m hoping was to protect Hawai‘i County residents and prevent people from being in a situation like Mr. Souza was. This Use Permit process is my only protection that I feel I have. Hawai‘i County Code Section 25-2-60 to 67 which is Exhibit 2, that’s basically the section of the Code pertaining to Use Permits. Use Permits are permits for certain permitted uses in zoning districts which require special attention to ensure that the uses will neither unduly burden public agencies to provide public services nor cause substantial adverse impacts upon the surrounding community. I’m here to protect my family’s interest in four properties located across the street from the proposed Verizon tower. My concerns consist of three areas. One is according to Section 25-2-65(2). One of the criteria for granting this permit is and I quote, “The granting of the proposed use shall not be materially detrimental to the public welfare nor cause substantial, adverse impact to the community’s character, to surrounding properties.” This application does not satisfy that criteria, and (2) I feel that there are discrepancies in Cellco Partnership’s Use Permit application dated 12/11/13, and there are discrepancies in Cellco Partnership’s Statement of Issues dated 5/8/14. First of all, I’d like to state for the record that I’m not opposed to towers in general, just the specifics of this case. My Exhibit 3 is a tax map for 1-6-102. The red parcel is the subject parcel Verizon is proposing the tower. The yellow ones are additional properties Verizon is purchasing. I guess they have an option to purchase those additional parcels. And the four blue ones are families owned, parcels owned by my family. The reasons I feel Cellco Partnership, the Use Permit Application No. 14- 046 does not satisfy the County Code, Section 25-2-65 are as follows: (1) I feel there would be a significant visual impact to our properties if a 105-foot tower and related facilities are constructed across the street. This is not regarding an ocean view or a Mauna Loa view or Mauna Kea view. I’m just saying that the tower, a 105-foot tower located right across the street is gonna loom over our property and will be the only thing we’ll see from our front yard and driveway if I build a house there. The tower and related equipment will transform our view into 29 EXHIBIT F an industrial setting, and by that, I mean a 105-foot tower windowless buildings, air conditioning units outside, back-up generators, cables, etc. Exhibit 4 is the Findings, the document is entitled “Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order” and this is for a previous Verizon telecommunications tower application back from 2005. Our situation is very similar to Verizon’s previously proposed tower, and this was in the Orchidland Subdivision. On Page 14, if you don’t mind turning to Page 14, under item, I’m sorry, it’s under impacts on surrounding properties, item 2, “visually, the proposed tower will also be 200 feet away from the Pa’s home, across the street, from which most of the tower will be visible. The tower will also be visible from the Alatan home, partially screened by trees, but only 63 feet away. Intervenor specifically objected to the visual impact of the proposed tower. It is well established that even under [a] substantial evidence review such as under the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, land use decisions based on aesthetic concerns can be valid, and that aesthetic harmony is a ‘prominent goal’ of land use codes. The Commission is entitled to make an aesthetic judgment as long as it is grounded in the specifics of the case, not just an objection to towers in general.” I feel that applies to us here today. Exhibit 5 is an excerpt from a Planning Commission hearing transcript dated I think it’s February 3, 2005, but I believe the document should have been dated 2006, under Yuen at the bottom of the page, I just want to read a part of it again. “The Hearings Officer seems to think that people’s, the fact that somebody doesn’t like the way something looks built next to them is to be completely disregarded in the special permit process. That’s totally, totally, 100 percent wrong. He says that it doesn’t affect the surrounding property, it only affects the feelings of the people who live on the surrounding property. Almost everything we say -. We have to consider the commonly held opinions of people as to what they like to have in their neighborhood [sic] neighboring property. You know, there’s a general feeling, I don’t [sic] think, it’s [not] an odd-ball feeling shared by only a very few people that you would rather not look at, say, a 100- foot [high cell] tower, 100-foot high cell tower right out your back yard. I mean, that doesn’t mean that you wouldn’t approve it, it doesn’t mean that it couldn’t have a special permit. But it is, that opinion is entitled to protection in the process of a special permit.” And that’s quoted from Mr. Yuen who was the Planning Director prior to Mr. Kanuha. I understand Planning Directors differ, but he did feel strongly about aesthetics being a pretty important concern. I realize that the Code has now changed and this is a Use Permit application, not a Special Permit but I still feel we should be entitled to protection as Mr. Yuen felt 100 percent sure of. Exhibit 6 is the exhibits—when I though the Exhibit, the monopine would look at in front of the property, I understand it’s not a monopine as Ms. Nishimoto said, but that’s the only tower I could cut and paste and put onto this picture. And, the reason I put it in front of that back house there is because there would be no reference as far as high the tower was if I just put it in the open field, so that’s why I put it so you could see it next to that existing structure there. So, in the current location, it’s actually further toward this house than it should be. It’s not located on the correct property, but I just needed a place of reference. 30 EXHIBIT F Exhibit 7 are photographs of the neighboring property and where the site was to be located for Verizon’s previous tower in Orchidland, and you can see there, there was a lot of nice trees surrounding the site and the neighboring properties. And Verizon proposes to mitigate the visual effect of the tower by planting trees but there previously existed large, beautiful trees at Orchidland, and the Commission still found that there was aesthetic impact there. Exhibit 8 is something I just pulled off of the Internet but its article entitled “Fed. Dist. Court in NY Finds Aesthetics Sufficient to Deny the [sic] Cell Tower Application” and that was dated 10/26/12. On page 3, I believe that’s the middle paragraph, it says, “In particular, the court found the aesthetic concerns significant,” and I feel that applies to me with this proposed tower. On page 3, the fourth paragraph, it starts with the second sentence, “the court addressed T- Mobile’s three part claim that aesthetic concerns could not support the denial. Addressing the first [sub-]claim, the court found the Board was permitted by the Town Code to address aesthetic concerns, even though the tower was permitted in the residential zone district by way of [a] special [use] permit. Next, the court found the aesthetic concerns were supported by objective evidence—far from being speculative—given pictures taken from the surrounding area during the crane tests, the fact that the tower is twice as tall as any tree in the surrounding area, and testimony of local residents stating they could see the tower [site] from their homes.” And, thirdly, which I find is important, “the court found that although there did not seem to be another feasible near-by location, it was not improper for the Board to weight that factor less than the Planning Department staff or T-Mobile had, as the code did not state how to weight the factors.” Second point is there will be an adverse impact on my family’s property values, and this is not, I can’t tell you what a specific dollar value will be or any type of percentage, but a tower located directly across the street with an unobstructed view of it will make other properties more desirable since there are hundreds of others to choose from in Tiki Gardens and Ainaloa community. My wife has a friend who just moved from Thailand, and they had a cell tower located next to their house, and the mom and the son got sick from the tower, and at our first meeting on March 6, 2013 [sic], a lady came up to me and dropped me off a card and she told me to give her a call. She had information about cell towers. When I called her, she told me that she lived next to the Lualualei towers in Oahu, and over there, many people got sick from the towers. And, other people know similar accounts related to cell towers. Just to be safe, people would simply buy elsewhere, and I’m not bringing those up. I want to clarify that. I’m not bringing it up so you can decide yes or no on this tower due to health reasons. I’m just bring it up because other people are aware of stories like that, and just by having a cell tower next to a property, a lot of people tend to buy elsewhere, as simple as that. On Exhibit 4, which is again the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order, on Page 14, Item 3, impacts on surrounding properties, it is also reasonable to conclude that the property value of the Pa residence would be adversely affected by the erection of a 104-foot tower across the street and largely visible from the residence. The Commission so finds. I just want to clarify, Mr. Pa was 200 feet away from that proposed tower. 31 EXHIBIT F Exhibit 9 is an article I found regarding another Verizon tower they’re proposing in Edison, New Jersey, and I feel like it’s very similar to mine. The subdivision is more established but the lot sizes are very similar with modest homes on them. And one of the property owners down on the bottom paragraph, he’s quoted saying, he’s “opposing the cell tower at an Edison Zoning Board Hearing on January 28, 2014 said the cell tower is too close to residential properties and further stated that cell towers next to residential housing always negatively impacts home values. He said that most people faced with the choice between buying a home next to a cell tower versus a home not next to a cell tower, would usually opt for the home not located to the cell tower. This, he argued, causes reduced demand for properties near cellular towers, and reduced demand always translates into lower property values.” My next Exhibit is a map of that proposed tower, and again, it’s not even in the subdivision. This is Exhibit 10. It’s not, it’s a Google map. The tower wasn’t even in the subdivision itself. It was in a buffer area between the subdivision and a shopping center, and it’s very similar to our situation I feel. Third reason, there are very real hazards of a potential tower failure. And there’s no protection from a possible tower fall mentioned in the application. On the previous Orchidland Subdivision—sorry, go back to Exhibit 4 again—Page 14 and—it also mentioned there’s no specific protection from a possible tower fall proposed in the application and similarly here. None was proposed again. Other structures could eventually be built within the fall radius or fall zone. Verizon may argue that towers are safe, but recent evidence is to the contrary. On Exhibit 11, is an article about a fatal tower collapse just when I started researching for this case here. This is in February. Two towers collapse while one was being worked on to permit additional tenant equipment to be added to one of the towers. You know, they may be designed to withstand strong winds, 100 miles per hour like they say, but there’s other reasons that towers may fall. And this one, all they were doing was adding other tenant equipment, just like they’re proposing to do for this tower, but it fell. And people died. MIYASATO: Mr. Inaba, excuse me, could we take a five-minute recess, please? INABA: Yeah, I need some water, too. MIYASATO: Okay, thank you. Chairman Pro Tem Miyasato called a recess at 1:41 p.m., and the meeting reconvened at 1:49 p.m. MIYASATO: Okay, I’d like to call our meeting back to order. Mr. Inaba, you may proceed. INABA: Thank you. I’m on Exhibit 12 now, and that’s another article I got from the Internet. This one is entitled “Telecommunications Towers Claim More Lives: Two Workers Dead in Kansas.” This is just dated March 27, 2014. I wanted to bring this article up because on the 32 EXHIBIT F second page, the collapse, in the middle, the collapse of these two towers resulted in deaths of two workers and a firefighter responding to the scene and sent two other employees to the hospital with serious injuries. In the next paragraph, Dr. David Michaels, his title says assistant secretary of labor for occupational safety and health, and the last sentence, he’s quoted, “in the past few months, tower workers have been injured and killed by falling objects, equipment failure, and the structural collapse of towers, he wrote. While these incidents are not as frequent as falls, they are very real hazards to protect against.” Exhibit 13 is just a list of catastrophic tower failures worldwide. You know, and there’s various reasons—storm, maintenance, hit by something—but to say there’s no real danger of a tower fall, I don’t believe that’s accurate. There are tower falls all over the world. I just want to reference Exhibit 4 once again. That was the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order. This is Item 4, sorry I’m trying to do it with one hand, on Page 14, Item 4, “The street would be well within the fall radius of the tower, posing potential risk of casualty to those walking or driving upon the road, as well as damage or blockage to the road.” And, the situation is identical where the tower, the currently proposed tower, could fall in the roadway. For the reason Verizon does not have to locate the tower at the proposed site, I feel Verizon has not explored and exhausted all potential alternative sites. Exhibit 14 is a letter to General Dynamics which I sent on 1/31/14. I thought it was a courteous letter to Ms. Martin which was very early in the process, and I was just asking for other sites considered, and my request was just ignored. Although Ms. Martin apologized during the initial 3/6/14 meeting, still no information was provided to me. She mentioned confidentiality as her reason, but the previous Verizon agent was more than willing to provide background information to the homeowners of Verizon’s Orchidland Subdivision. And, in turn, the Orchidland Community Association took it upon themselves to investigate three, three sites further, and they actually found three owners willing to work with Verizon once they took the effort upon themselves to contact them. Exhibit 15 is actually Orchidland’s letter dated 12/5/05, and in that, Page 3 and 4, I won’t go into detail but it explains the efforts that Orchidland took upon themselves. Without much effort, they verified three landowners were willing to work with Verizon. Copies of the actual communication are found at the end of Exhibit 15. Without a response or similar open communication with Ms. Martin, I wouldn’t know who to follow up with even if I tried to make an effort on my own. I also attempted to request Verizon to allow me to review their documentation leading up to the site selection but my Request for Production of Documents and Things dated 5/9/14, but that, too, was denied. Exhibit 16 is a tax map for plat 1-6-04, and it’s also related to the very next Exhibit 17 which is a Google map. And I tried to give you the colored one, you know, the blue rectangle is basically the blue rectangle on the Google map, and the green is basically the green on the Google map. th And on Page 4 of Exhibit 18 which is a hearing transcript from our March 6 meeting, on Page 4, Ms. Martin testified that there were miles and miles of small lots. That’s simply not true. 33 EXHIBIT F On the Tiki Gardens side, there’s huge open areas on both sides, on the east and the west. The green, I’m sorry the blue square, is made up of five parcels. They’re four 100-acre parcels, and one 200-acre parcel there. The green side, I believe is 12 parcels. There’s nine 20-acre parcels, two 5-acres, and a 10-acre which was subsequently subdivided. They used to all be 20-acre parcels there. So, to say there were miles and miles of small lots is simply not true. Ms. Martin also testified she called all the large property owners in the area. I don’t believe that was true. I personally called Osamu Kawabata, who is the owner of Kawabata Family Partners on 424, and Naoe Akagawa of Shellstone Realty and Ainaloa Development on 428, and both informed me that Verizon never contacted them. And these are the owners of the big blue rectangle. Second reason Verizon, there is already coverage at Tiki Gardens and my property by both Verizon and AT&T. I used my phone there when I went to visit. I even borrowed one of my co-worker’s phone just on Monday and made a call with Verizon and it worked. So I have coverage in front of my property for AT&T and Verizon. I just want to put that on the record, and I have no doubt about that. Exhibit 19 is just another Google map that I prepared, and you know, just to try and explain why I think I have coverage or why I know have coverage, and they don’t have coverage in Ainaloa, if you look at those white lines that kind of connect right below the Ainaloa word on the map, it’s basically about equidistance from the Sure Foundation tower to the middle of Ainaloa as well as from the Pāhoa tower to the middle of Ainaloa. It was roughly about 2.7-2.8 miles, and it’s pretty easy to just use common sense to see that it’s probably not reaching from both side towers there. But, to the middle of Tiki Gardens which is above Ainaloa Boulevard is only 2.25 miles, and again, this is not very accurate, cause I just used the measurement tool on Google, but I’m pretty sure I have coverage from the Sure Foundation tower because I can use both the Verizon and a AT&T phone from right in front of my property. Third reason, Verizon already has a viable site at the Ainaloa Community. On Exhibit 18, on Page 4, Ms. Martin stated—hold on, I have to use my one hand to get there—Exhibit 18, Page 4, right in the middle of that big paragraph, “Well, those are set aside by the homeowner’s association or the developer for the homeowner’s association for future parks. And so, they thought, well that would be perfect. Why don’t you put it someplace there because we really, really need the service. So, we tried that, and we actually got the go ahead from Verizon [Wireless] to do that. I pulled the title report, and I can [sic] see that there is an obstruction on that parcel, that they can’t, that this company paid Ainaloa Community Association a sum of money to purchase the, [the] rights for telecommunication on that tower that’s at their, [at their] community center. What they didn’t realize is that they were [also] signing away rights to all their other property. So, when we went to them, they said, well, you know, we’re going to charge you, you know, we’ll let you do it, but we’re going to charge you this huge amount of money.” She says that she went back to Verizon and they said no. So, the way I read that is they could put the tower there. They just don’t want to pay it. And according to the Use Permit application, Verizon is the largest mobile network operator in the United States with 98.9 million retail connections. They were a joint venture, Verizon Communication and UK based Vodafone 34 EXHIBIT F until Verizon purchased a 45 percent stake in Vodafone or Vodafone’s 45 percent stake for $130 billion in February of this year, 2014. And, I’m pretty sure they could afford to pay it. Five, I would like to offer a comparison of Tiki Gardens site to Verizon’s 2006 denial of a similar tower at Orchidland which was a 104-feet high. The current tower is 105 feet. And that’s the subject of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision & Order I have repeatedly referred to. Tiki Gardens as I mentioned is 105-foot tower. The Orchidland was 104 feet. The proposed site at Tiki Gardens is 8,100 square feet, and at Orchidland, they were all 2-acre lots. My estimate, if I were to build a house according to the existing setback, my house would be approximately 100 feet, 150 feet away from the tower, and that’s compared to 200 feet away for a Mr. Pa, and a Mr, Oskins at the Orchidland project site. Tax map, Exhibit 20, is a tax map for 1-6-10. Again, the red was their proposed subject tower, and the two yellows was Mr. Oskins and Mr. Pa located directly across the street just like we are now. Exhibit 21 is a letter from Mr. Pa to the previous Planning Director, Mr. Yuen. Exhibit 21, I’m sorry, Exhibit 22, is a letter from Mr. Oskins, and I’m not sure who he addressed to, again that was to the Planning Department. Mr. Pa was the owner of Parcel 40, and Mr. Oskins was the owner of Parcel 42. Exhibit 23 is a Position Statement from the Orchidland Community Association and the impacts that I’m trying to explain to you here today are almost identical to theirs. They mentioned adverse visual effect on properties and in their letter, it’s referred to as aesthetic impact. I feel like there’s a adverse effect on my property values. In their letter, it’s property value diminution. The tower fall zone affects multiple properties on the roadway, and they described there’s under the proximity to adjoining homes and property lines. And I feel like Verizon does not have to locate the tower at their proposed site, and they felt the same thing. They explained under their alternative sites area. If any difference, my family’s situation is th worse. Our parcels are 1/10 the size of the Orchidland 2-acre parcels. If we didn’t happen to own all four lots right across the street, I think there would be other families here with me today opposing the tower, but my family owns all four, that’s why I’m here by myself. In actuality, it’s hard to believe, but if you added the area of all four of my family’s four parcels, the four parcels Verizon is purchasing for the proposed tower and buffer area and the roadway, it wouldn’t even add up to the area of the 2-acre lot they were going to site the proposed tower in Orchidland. If I may, I just want to change directions a little bit and discuss discrepancies, specifically in Cellco Partnership’s Use Permit application which is Exhibit 24. I feel Verizon didn’t show diligence in preparing this Use Permit application, and by that I mean legal carefulness. At the first meeting, I mentioned how there was contradicting information between the application itself and the historical properties assessment. That was an exhibit in the back. I won’t go over that in detail again because it’s on the record, but this conflicting information prompted me to find out what this Bureau Veritas North America was all about. Exhibit 25 is a letter from Bureau Veritas to Mr. Kanuha, our Planning Director. They appear to be following curt protocol by investigating historic properties, religious, or cultural resources and seemed like T. S. Dye, who did the historical assessment was relying on Bureau Veritas, but on Page 2, the third heading under current land use, it says the subject parcel is vacant, undeveloped, and covered with heavy vegetation, and we all know that’s not true, because in the application, the realtor who was 35 EXHIBIT F selling the property said the property was recently grubbed. Of all the descriptions in the application which contradicted Bureau Veritas who apparently was the only one to inspect the property at that time was the most inaccurate. Exhibit 26 is a Planning Department letter from Mr. Kanuha sent to Bureau Veritas North America Inc. dated 9/26/13. On Page 2 of that Mr. Kanuha is informing them information on any Native Hawaiian cultural, religious, and/or burial sites, historical places, artifacts, and other related concerns may be obtained through the State Historical Preservation Division of the State Department of Land and Natural Resources. They were suggested to contact State Historic Preservation. The next Exhibit, okay now 27, that is an actual confirmation from State Historic Preservation regarding the previous application in 2005, so Verizon used to do that in the past. You know, it’s normal practice. They did it in the past, but as far as their application they submitted on 12/11/13, I don’t believe they did that. Exhibit 10, I’m sorry Exhibit 24, which was again their application, on Page 10, this is under the Exhibit C which is the historical assessment report--hold on, I’m trying to do this one handed—“A review of the archaeological literature historic maps, and information provided by Bureau Veritas North America show that the project site is unmodified and lava tube caves may be present. Caves may contain cultural resources. Based on this situation, it is recommended that an inspection by a qualified archaeologist be conducted for the entire parcel, TMK: (3) 1-6-102:056,” the subject site. So they were basically informed by the Planning Director to contact State Historic Preservation, and they were informed by the archaeologist they hired that it’s recommended that an inspection by a qualified archaeologist be conducted for the entire parcel, but based on the application submitted, neither was done. Based on review of the Use Permit file at Planning, the first week of April and the end of May, still neither was done. Unfortunately, Verizon denied my request to review their file documents, but assume still neither was done unless they want to introduce evidence at this time. On Exhibit twenty, same Exhibit 24, but Page 5 of the application itself, again it says Ainaloa Community Association could not rent to Verizon because of a deed restriction. I feel this is misleading. As I mentioned earlier, Ms. Martin testified on 3/6/14, they could have located it at Ainaloa but Verizon didn’t want to pay. I feel like my family shouldn’t have to suffer a loss because Ainaloa Board approved the telecommunication easement on their property, and now Verizon doesn’t want to pay the requested rent. The homeowners in Ainaloa were most likely fairly compensated when they entered the agreement with the company. If Ainaloa homeowners really want the service, and Verizon doesn’t want to pay the requested rent, Ainaloa could assess the difference amongst all their homeowners equally. In actuality, there are 3,632 parcels in Ainaloa. They could assess each owner as little as $2 a month and have over $7,200 a month to pay without Verizon paying anything. The highest rents that I’m aware of on the Island are probably at the Ka‘ūpūlehu tower where AT&T pays around eight thousand a month for four spots. If they just simply didn’t want to pay, a lot could be purchased in Ainaloa. There are currently lots available on the four closest streets in Ainaloa to the subject site. I really feel I shouldn’t suffer a loss because I have service at my property, Verizon and AT&T. On Page 5, I think its number 10, it says, “I attempted to meet [with] the adjacent landowners without success.” This is false. No one from Verizon ever tried to contact me before this 36 EXHIBIT F application was submitted. And, I mentioned earlier about the second to the last page of Cellco Partnership’s Use Permit application has an overall site plan showing a 20-foot side yard setback. That’s incorrect. On Page 4 of this application, the proposed free standing tower complies with the minimum setback required of 20 feet or one foot for every five foot of tower. That’s incorrect. Exhibit 18 which is the Planning Commission hearing transcript dated 3/6/14 just on Page 2, and I believe that’s Jeff Darrow’s testimony, he’s quoted: This is the applicant’s site plan. Just for reference, on your right side would be Silversword Court or Silversword Court Road, so access would be from the right side of the map. The actual location of the tower with the facilities will be located near the rear portion of the lot. For this particular tower, being 105 feet in size, the setback ratio for a freestanding tower is one foot for every five foot, for a freestanding tower, so being 105 feet in size, the setback would be 21 feet from any boundary line. According to the site plan, it appears to meet those setbacks. Jeff states that it appears to meet those setbacks because the overall site plan incorrectly shows the 20 feet. The plans should show the correct 21 feet. The tower height and setback is so critical, Mr. Kanuha clearly stated the two types of height calculations in his letter dated 9/26/13 to Bureau Veritas North America. That was on page, the first page of Exhibit 26. He clarified that for them. Another peculiarity that I found is one plan on the last page, the last two pages of their application. One shows a monopole which is just like I used in my Exhibit 6, and the next shows a fake pine tree. And if you go to the last page, you will notice the fake pine tree does not fit within the 20 foot setback even. It kind of encroaches outside of that. That’s on the last page of the Use Permit application. You know, one foot discrepancy causes plans to get returned and prevents people from building simple structures like sheds and garages. A one-foot discrepancy on a 105-foot tower can be catastrophic. Again, on Exhibit 24, Page 9, “Granting the proposed use will not be materially detrimental to [the] public welfare nor cause substantial adverse impact to the community’s character or to surrounding properties.” The application states, “The pole is designed to resemble a pine tree and be visible from [the] Ainaloa Blvd and a few residences.” There are no pine trees on the lots Verizon is purchasing. In fact, it’s been grubbed and is void of all trees. Many of the trees on the surrounding properties are smaller ‘Ōhi‘a trees. The tower will turn Silversword Court into an industrial looking zone. The fake pine will stick out as bad as an undisguised tower. Exhibit D of Cellco Partnership’s Use Permit application is misleading. That monopine looks like it’s only about 40 or 50 feet. I’m sure Verizon has a picture of a 105-foot tower somewhere. And I feel like it would be more like my Exhibit 6. Six, there’s no facility removal plan in the application. For leased properties, the landowner is protected because lease agreement will describe when, how the tower will be removed. Incentive for Verizon remove it is a fact that they would probably have to pay rent until it is removed. If they own the land, there’s nothing motivating them to remove it. Although, Planning Department Recommendations include removal within 120 days, an actual facility 37 EXHIBIT F removal plan needs to be articulated since Verizon will actually own the site. In Exhibit 29, this is a letter from the Land Use Commission when they were working on the previous site in Orchidland. Item 2, “We recommend that the Applicant articulate a facility removal plan in the event that [the] use of the facility is discontinued in the future.” All of this is stuff that Verizon has been aware of on previous applications, yet they chose not to, not to do it now. Seven, the Use Permit application process requires Verizon to post a sign at the property notifying the public of the nature of the application. Exhibit 30 is Hawai‘i County Code Section 25-2-12 (b), “The sign shall remain posted until the application has been granted, denied, or withdrawn. The applicant shall remove the sign promptly after such action.” Exhibit 31 is General Dynamics letter or affidavit to the Planning Director dated 12/23/13. This looks correctly done, but when I went to the site the first week of March, April, May, and June, the sign was not there. Planning Commission Rule 7-4(b) also states the same regarding posting of signs for public notification for Use Permits. It reads exactly the same. “The sign shall [be] remain posted until the application has been granted, denied, or withdrawn.” If the sign was there, maybe more people would be concerned, but we’ll never know. Also, the sign appears to be on the wrong lot. If you look at the picture, you’ll see that white fence in the background. If you see that white fence in the background, it’s in front of Parcel 54, not 56. They even posted it in the wrong location when they did. Eight, Planning Commission Rule 7, Use Permits, more specifically, 7-2(e), it states, “A certificate of clearance from the County [Finance] Director of Finance that the real property taxes and all [of the] [other] fees relating to the subject parcel have been paid, and [that] there are no outstanding delinquencies. Parcel 56 along with Parcel 54, 55, and 57 are all delinquent in th their taxes as of today. If they failed to make their February, I think it’s February 20 payment for all four parcels, I have the actual statement, if I can admit that later as evidence. Seven-three, Incomplete Application states that, “The Director, on behalf of the Commission, shall neither accept nor process an application which is incomplete as to form and content.” They’re currently delinquent on their taxes. Nine, Rule 4-5(c), I believe the applicant was to serve notice on the same people about this contested case like they do for the first and second notice. I’m not sure if that was done. In summary, the discrepancies I noted in Cellco Partnership doing business as Verizon Wireless as Use Permit application submitted on 12/11/13 includes the following. There was conflicting information regarding the condition of the site and lack of follow through with the historical properties, archaeological assessment. There was a misleading statement that the Ainaloa Community Association site was not usable. False statement about attempting to meet with adjacent landowners. There’s a definite discrepancy in the overall site plan setbacks. I felt they had a misleading monopine exhibit information. There’s lack of a facility removal plan. They failed to adhere to Hawai‘i County Code Section 25-2-12(b) and Planning Commission Rule 7-4(b), rules for sign posting. Property taxes are currently delinquent and should prevent Verizon from moving forward with the application. And Rule 4-5(c) writing, serving notice was not followed. 38 EXHIBIT F For these reasons, Verizon did not exhibit diligence in the application, and again defined as legal carefulness. There are also discrepancies on Cellco Partnership’s doing business as Verizon Wireless Statement of Issues. Exhibit 32, yeah Exhibit 32 was their Statement of Issues dated May 8, 2014. In everything I looked at, the application, Statement of Issues, it only states to improve coverage in Ainaloa where they state there’s a large coverage hole. There’s no mention of improving coverage in Tiki Gardens at all anywhere. The reason is we have both coverage, both Verizon and AT&T at our parcels, and I’m sure of that. On Page 2 in the middle of the second paragraph, it states,”the land may not be suitable for a tower if its location will not provide the required coverage, [that] the topography renders it unbuildable, or the subsurface is insufficient for the tower’s foundation.” T. S. Dye and Associates stated caves may be present. However, no archaeological inspection was ever conducted by a qualified archaeologist. I wasn’t able to review the expert reports but will assume no geotechnical, well I guess they said no geotechnical studies were done at the proposed sites. Page 3, the first paragraph, Again, she mentioned negotiations with that company were attempted, but it would only agree to allow the use of its property if Verizon paid a rent substantially above the market rent in that area. This is in regard to locating the, on one of the, locating the tower on one of the vacant parcels set aside for parks in Ainaloa community. There are no towers in the area. That’s the reason they are saying they need the tower, so I feel there’s no cell tower market data for Ainaloa. Rent for a cell tower, I feel depends on, or depends on a number of things first. There happens to be a correlation between the amount of rent and the date of the original lease. The older the initial date of the lease, the lower the rent tends to be. Height used to be a determinant of rent. The higher on the tower you are, the higher the rent tended to be. Now towers are shorter and of fewer users. But the greatest factor determining rental values on the mainland is zoning acceptability. In other words, in a strict anti-tower environment, rental rates on existing towers are very high. Obviously, Verizon feels this Island has a loose tower environment and must feel they are not limited and have other options to the Ainaloa community site. The use of comparables is inadequate in judging rental value. Carriers want to site for that site’s capability which depends on height, both elevation from sea level and above the ground, the amount of equipment they can attach, and the band width. These are the factors that set rents. Verizon also stated they considered locating a tower on Tax Map Key: 1-6-78:025. That makes a total of three sites they investigated according to their—I forget the title of that—their Statement of Issues. All sites were considered south of Ainaloa Boulevard, yet they chose to locate the tower in the end, north of Ainaloa Boulevard, in Tiki Gardens. I was not allowed to review any information from Verizon regarding alternate sites so will assume no investigation was done on the north side. You know, there are 100- and 200-acre parcels to the west of Tiki Gardens. There are 5-, 10-, and 20-acre parcels to the east of Tiki Gardens. In total, these parcels consisted of 800 acres of open area, large acreage parcels, yet they chose to site the tower on an 8,100-square foot parcel within the subdivision with the highest density. 39 EXHIBIT F Page 7 of their Statement of Issues, 11.3 under Telecommunications. It just states, that’s the General Plan, “develop standards for the construction of wireless telecommunications facilities.” I realize this is not for Verizon but I included examples of detailed ordinances and standards for other counties at the end of my Exhibits. You know, if this contested case doesn’t go my way, I hope this Commission and Planning Department will develop something similar. I just wanted to point out that in all these examples of fall zone and the setback is never less than the tower height itself. And, in one case, it was up to 500 feet from a property boundary line. On Page 10, same Statement of Issues, again I’m sorry to keep mentioning this, but “the project does not adversely affect the surrounding property.” That’s number two. In the third sentence, their primary rationalization states, “Nothing in the Commission Rules describes the impacts that must be considered in determining whether a proposed use adversely affects surrounding property.” I agree with that, that’s true. However, going back to Exhibit 4, which is the Cellco Partnership Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order, that document did in fact determine that these types of impacts adversely affect surrounding properties. The issues were identical except that I feel our situation is worse in all regards. Verizon had to be aware because this was their own denied application. On Page 11, Verizon under Visual Impacts, Verizon references a case involving Hawaiian Electric Company’s PUC docket item regarding their decision to string a pole line versus installing their lines underground. This is not applicable because the option for Verizon to choose another site may not cost any more. They simply have not done the research and due diligence to find a more suitable location. Most people on the Big Island know that being next to a pole line is often desirable in rural areas. The last time I checked HELCO was charging $3,500 for each pole that would span only 250 feet. In other words, if your lot was a 1,000 feet away, you would be looking at fourteen thousand just to bring power to your property. In the HELCO [sic] case, everyone along the route, there could be hundreds, thousands of properties, would be affected equally. No one is hurt more than the next guy. In our situation, my family’s four parcels are adversely affected in comparison to the general public. Our interest is clearly distinguishable from that of the general public, and that is why I believe you granted me status today in this contested case hearing. Verizon having nothing else to rely on but this case is unconvincing. On Page 12, the fourth paragraph, it says, “Although section 25-4-22(c) of the Zoning Code permits a telecommunication tower up to a height of 500 feet, at 105 feet, the proposed Project is at the lowest height to also provide the desired coverage for Ainaloa. There are numerous, tall trees on the surrounding properties. The proposed single tower that is designed to resemble a pine tree to help blend with the surrounding foliage does not represent a significant intrusion into public views. Further, Verizon has offered to mitigate any visual impacts by planting trees on the Property that do not interfere with the antenna signal.” Mention of the Zoning Code permits a telecommunications tower up to 500 feet is nonsense for this parcel. A 500-foot tower would require setbacks from all boundaries of 100 feet because you have to calculate one foot for every five foot of tower height. The parcel is only 60 feet wide. They mentioned a pine tree would blend with the surrounding foliage, but the parcel has been grubbed and is void of all trees. 40 EXHIBIT F Verizon chose not to include an illustration of a tower on the subject site in their application, their Statement of Issues, or their List of Exhibits. Any trees Verizon intends to plant will not mask the tower anymore than the mature trees that already existed surrounding the proposed Verizon Orchidland tower that was denied. Page 13 are the two illustrations. We kind of discussed that earlier. I feel that they are very unreliable because it doesn’t even make sense. The tower should be located further below because the parcel lines all line up. One thing I know for sure is if Verizon is confirming it falls into Parcel 49, although it doesn’t land on a structure, the fall zone will include nine different parcels all together. And the tower could also fall in the roadway. I never said it would fall on my property but I felt it would fall in the roadway. And Exhibit 33 is their own overall site plan, but the distances that they show on their map, you can’t really figure it out so I had somebody figure out how far a 105-foot would be on this map, and it clearly shows that it falls into the roadway so I believe both my assertions regarding the tower falling on the roadway as well as into neighboring properties is accurate. On Page 14, the middle of the last paragraph, it states Verizon’s agent also attempted to meet with the residents of the homes located on lots TMK 1-6-102:52 and 1-6-102:99 but was unable to obtain responses. I wasn’t allowed to verify what efforts were made but Verizon agent did not attempt to meet myself, the owner of Parcels 97 and 98 or Shari Shinsato, owner of Parcels 95 and 96. I’m not sure if Verizon’s agent attempted to meet the owner of Parcel 49 where the tower fall would reach according to their own illustration. Why not have the courtesy to inform or meet the people most affected by this tower. Just to clarify for the record, I called Verizon’s agent after receipt of the first notice to inform her I strongly objected to this proposed tower. No attempt to contact me was made by Verizon prior to the application being submitted. In summary, the discrepancies I noted in Cellco Partnership doing business as Verizon Wireless Statement of Issues dated May 8, 2014, includes the following. There is no large coverage hole in Tiki Gardens, at least where the subject parcel is located. Verizon’s problems seem to be in Ainaloa. Although Verizon states land may not be suitable for a tower if the subsurface is insufficient for a tower’s foundation, they chose not to hire a qualified archaeologist or conduct any geotechnical studies after being notified that caves may be present on the subject parcel. Verizon implies there’s some market rent established in the Ainaloa area when in fact there are no monopine towers to have established a market rate. Verizon did not do a thorough investigation of other parcels on the north side of Ainaloa Boulevard. Yet to choose, yet—chose to site the tower in Tiki Gardens. Verizon uses the contention that nothing in the Commission’s rules describes impact and must be considered in determining whether a proposed use adversely affects surrounding property and disregards the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order from their own previous tower denial at Orchidland. Verizon prided the two illustrations to discredit information provided by me and Shari Shinsato yet ironically I feel it helps verify the tower’s fall zone reaches Parcel 49 and the adjacent roadway. And Verizon did not attempt to contact the owners most affected by this proposed tower. 41 EXHIBIT F Just a couple comments on Verizon’s Exhibits. Exhibit C—I don’t know where that is, I, because I think the top picture is a transmission line somewhere in Ainaloa Boulevard. It’s not near Silversword Court, and their Exhibit D, I don’t know why they don’t prepare an illustration of a 105-foot tower at the subject site. The second supplemental picture—hold on, let me get that in front of me—on their Exhibit D, but this is part of the Supplement that they gave subsequent to their original Exhibits. One of the pictures, this is the one on Page 2, if you look at that Exhibit, you can clearly see the bottom of the tower, those branches are way wider than the top, so I don’t know how they would fit that into a 21-foot setback when their plan, current plan shows the branches going outside of a 20-foot setback on the Use Permit application. Just a couple comments on Danette Martin’s written testimony. On Page 3 of the, let’s see, the fourth paragraph, Ms. Martin states, “The area marked as ‘State Land’ is controlled by Civil Defense and is not available to lease.” The State land she mentions is Tax Map Key: 1-5- 008:001. That’s an over 5,000-acre parcel and actually could be available for lease. I contacted DLNR, Land Division, on 5/28 and was told, no one from Verizon contacted them regarding this parcel and a portion could be utilized as a tower. I also contacted the County Civil Defense and was informed that the caves have never been utilized. There’s, there’s caves that are shown on the tax map. In fact, HELCO has an easement for a pole line. The County has an Executive Order for a well site. DHHL has an Executive Order for the Maku‘u Ag Lots. All of these uses affect 1-5-008:001. I did my own research and found information that the Pāhoa Cave is located .8 miles toward Kea‘au from Pāhoa town on the main highway which is completely across the way on a 5,000-acre parcel. The caves are no longer part of any evacuation plans. Hurricane evacuation sites are now school gyms, and that includes Pāhoa High Gym, Kea‘au High, Intermediate, and Elementary Gyms. Geothermal emergencies are now directed to the Pāhoa Neighborhood Facility located near the Bank of Hawai‘i and the County pool. On Page 3, the second to the last paragraph, the annotated, this is Ms. Martin’s written testimony, “The annotated Google Earth photograph shown in [Verizon’s] Exhibit B depicts the proposed tower’s proximity to existing residences in the Ainaloa area to which it is intended to provide wireless service.” Again, this confirms what I believe. The coverage gap existing in Ainaloa but they are locating the tower in Tiki Gardens. On Page 4, second paragraph, Ms. Martin mentions “the large parcel outlined in blue.” It’s actually made up of five parcels owned by three different owners. On Page 5, the last sentence states, “The location and height of the proposed tower also complies with the minimal setbacks required for telecommunications towers under Section 25-4-12 of the County of Hawai‘i Zoning Code, which only requires freestanding antennas and towers to be set back from every property line ‘one foot for every five feet of antenna or tower height.’” Again, they acknowledge that it doesn’t comply. The setback must be 21 feet for a 105-foot tower. On Page 7, the last sentence states “As noted in the letter being submitted concurrently with my testimony, the Ainaloa Community Association also supports this application for a Use Permit to provide better service to the residents and guests of Ainaloa.” Again, they’re mentioning just Ainaloa. If the Association president is signing on behalf of the Association, why not purchase a lot in Ainaloa and build the tower there. They should have absolutely no opposition. 42 EXHIBIT F In summary, I discussed my family’s concerns and numerous discrepancies and lack of diligence on the part of Verizon’s Use Permit application. Verizon is purchasing the subject parcel and three other surrounding parcels from the current owner. Verizon is keenly aware that there was a problem with locating a tower in a subdivision with such small parcels. Any person of reasonable mind can guess that the owner may have also wanted to sell his adjacent parcels for the same concerns I now have. Exhibit 34, hold on, Exhibit 34 is a General Dynamics letter to the Planning Director dated 1/6/14 [sic-1/16/14]. In the second paragraph, Ms. Martin is explaining that Verizon is purchasing additional parcels to provide a buffer zone to surrounding landowners. She states, “Verizon Wireless is in the process of purchasing Lots 54, 55 [and] 57, as well as parcel 6 [sic- 56]. These lots will not be developed and will provide a buffer zone to surrounding landowners.” I don’t have an exhibit of the Planning Department’s Recommendation but I can quote from there because it’s part of the record, right? Yeah, in the Planning Department’s Recommendation, Page 6, it states, “Although the applicant states that the purchased lots will not be developed and will provide a [sic-an additional] buffer zone, there is no mechanism to protect [sic-prevent] the applicant,” oh no, “there is no mechanism to prevent the applicant from selling the lots or [sic-and/or] constructing dwellings on them.” This was all in response to Exhibit 35 which was a Police Department letter to our Planning Director dated 1/8/14. Second paragraph, the Police Department states, “Staff has concerns with granting this Special Use Permit due to the proposed location being situated on a small lot within a residential zone with other small lots directly next to it. Telecommunication facilities and poles have usually been located on large isolated parcels of land. Although adjoining lots to this proposed location may currently be vacant, future issues may arise as surrounding lots are developed and houses constructed.” In the fourth paragraph, they go on to state, “Staff strongly recommends that the surrounding landowners’ input be obtained and considered before the decision is made to grant this application.” As I mentioned earlier, no one contacted me, and my letter was ignored, and I’m here now. I’m very pleased that the Police Department was looking to protect Island residents in more ways than I thought they would. I really need to emphasize that three of my family’s parcels are closer to Parcel 56 than Parcel 54, one of the lots Verizon is purchasing as a buffer. Three of our lots are closer than Parcel 54. Exhibit 36 is just a, again I just found this on the Internet, it’s a resolution from the International Association of Fire Fighters dated August 2004. On Page 7, the last resolved, “the IAFF opposes the use of fire stations as base stations for antennas and towers for the conduction of cell phone transmissions until such installations are proven not to be hazardous to the health of our members.” I just want to clarify that this is an international association and not our Hawai‘i Firefighter Association; however, all of our men and women in the Fire Department are members of both the F--HFFA and IAFF. This was adopted in August 2004 and the IAFF opposes the use of fire stations for towers and antennas. I’m not including this to say the application should be denied for health reasons. I’m referencing this to show that it’s not just disgruntled homeowner’s raising concerns. Police has concerns about locating a tower in a small lot within a residential area. The International Association of Fire Fighters opposes the use of fire stations as tower sites to protect its own membership. A lot of what police and fire does is planning, 43 EXHIBIT F identification of risks, and elimination of avoidable risks. They would much rather prevent a problem than be forced to react to a situation that is avoidable. There was minimal planning and lack of diligent effort put into this Use Permit application. Lack of follow through was exhibited by more than one agency representing Verizon. Bureau Veritas ignored the Planning Director’s letter to contact the State Historic Preservation Division as was previously done by Verizon on another application. Bureau Veritas ignored their own archaeologist’s recommendation to complete an inspection of the entire parcel by a qualified archaeologist. Ms. Martin ignored the Police Department’s recommendation to the Planning Director to obtain input from surrounding land owners. Ms. Martin ignored my letter requesting information on alternative sites. Verizon relocated their Orchidland tower to a site approximately 2,000 feet away yet failed to investigate large parcels only 300 feet away from the proposed Tiki Gardens subject parcel. In fact, there are 15 different owners on either side of Tiki Gardens. Maybe someone is willing to work with Verizon if some effort were put into it. Cades, Schutte prevent, prepared additional illustrations and didn’t bother to verify the accuracy before attempting to use them to discredit us. There is, it comes down to there is significant, visual impact caused by a 105-foot tower located across the street that will transform our surrounding into an industrial setting. This will adversely affect my family’s property values. There are real hazards of a potential tower failure. Verizon does not have to locate the tower at the proposed site and has not explored and exhausted all alternatives. Our situation is even worse than Verizon’s previous denial for their proposed Orchidland Estate Subdivision tower. These key issues support my opposition and request to deny this Use Permit. Again, Hawai‘i County Code, Section 25-2-65(2), granting of the proposed use shall not be materially detrimental to the public welfare nor cause substantial adverse impact to the community’s character to surrounding properties. For the aggregate of the reasons I’ve tried to explain today, this will cause adverse impact to the character of the street and the surrounding properties. The closest four parcels happen to be owned by my family. This application does not satisfy this criteria. Final thing, going back to Exhibit 4, under Conclusions of Law, Page 19. This document is entitled Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Decision and Order, so Page 19, Item 8. The proposed uses created substantial adverse impacts upon the surrounding properties, and that’s their conclusion of law. Exhibit 37 is just Hawai‘i Revised Statutes 205-6 and states, “subject to this section, the county planning commission may permit certain unusual and reasonable uses within agricultural and rural districts.” I only brought it up because in their own Statement of Impacts, they refer to section, I mean HRS Chapter 205. The definition of reasonable is in accord with common sense, acceptable and according to common sense or normal practice, and I just had a copy of that in Exhibit 39. I’m sorry that was Exhibit 38. Exhibit 39 is, this was the application that you all just recently approved for the AT&T Mobility Use Permit application dated 3/14/14. Reasonable was defined as recent as 3/14/14 for AT&T Mobility. The subject parcel was 783-[sic-785] acres. The project site was 10,000 square feet. The tower setback, the closest setback was 44 EXHIBIT F approximately 800 feet from the nearest boundary. Other boundaries were 1,500 feet, 3,500 feet and over 6,000 feet away. Unreasonable has been defined by the previous Commission on 3/3/06 at Orchidland. The subject parcel was two acres. The project site was only 1,100 square feet, and the tower was within 200 feet of a structure located across the street. The fall zone of the proposed tower was not contained within the subject property and could fall onto the roadway and adjacent parcel. The current Verizon Use Permit Application No. 14-046 is even further to the side of unreasonable. The subject parcel is only 8,100 square feet. The project site is 1,050 square feet of leased area. The tower would be approximately 135 feet away from our property line or 150 feet away from a future structure. The tower does appear to reach an existing structure nearby. The fall zone of the proposed tower is not contained within the subject property and could fall onto the roadway and as many as nine adjacent parcels. I have one exhibit that I want to show everyone, and what I tried to do was, when you look at the tax maps, all the scales are different, so I just tried to prepare one exhibit that shows everything on the same scale, so I’m just going to go over there and grab it real quick. So, this is basically some of the zoning drawings from AT&T’s— MASUNAGA: You need the mic. INABA: This is some of the zoning drawings from AT&T’s application that you recently approved in March. MIYASATO: Excuse me, excuse me, Mr. Inaba, can you identify your exhibit? INABA: This would be Exhibit 40, and it’s a zoning, zoning and drawings from the Use Permit application for AT&T Mobility. My Exhibit 40. All I did was blow it up. This here is a 783- [sic-785] acre parcel, and we’re gonna be looking at this area right here which I have on the other side. This is basically an access road, and where they sited their tower. So, again, this is a 780 –[sic] acre parcel. This is the same, main Volcano Road here. The 800-foot setback to the tower site. And I think it was 1,500 feet on this side, 3,500 feet, and you know, way far on this side, 6,000 feet. And I made a couple of, this is Exhibit 20, which is the Tax Map for 1-6-010, and all I did was enlarge it to the same scale here. This is actually the tax map. The red is the subject that was denied back in 2005 or six and the yellow are the Oskin’s and Mr. Pa’s parcels. Can you see? Hold this for me, okay? I’ll just put it down. I’ll just put it down—so, this is a 694-foot parcel, and as you can see , it’s about 800 feet to the subject. I’ll just tape it up. Okay, so, this is the subject that was denied. They put a, they were proposing here and it was 200 feet away from the structures on these two parcels here. This is again Exhibit 40. The next Exhibit I have is—this is back to Exhibit 3 which is a Tax Map for 1-6-102, and this has the subject parcel. The yellow parcels which are the other parcels Verizon is purchasing, and the blue, which are my parcels. And all I wanted to show was how our situation is a lot worse than this, this that was denied. This is the subject—we wouldn’t even be off of the 2-acre parcel from all of our four acre parcels, no matter which way you looked at it. That’s how close we are, so I’ll just put this on here. All I’m saying is our situation was worse than that previous tower denial. These guys were about a hundred feet away which is roughly about over here. Our entire parcels 45 EXHIBIT F are within that area. I just feel our situation is a lot worse. You’ve already denied Verizon’s tower application for something for very similar and I’m just asking, I’m humbling asking that you would deny this application request for Verizon’s Use Permit. Thank you. MIYASATO: Ms. Nishiyama [sic], do you have cross examination? NISHIMOTO: Yes, I do, and I want to call them as rebuttal witnesses. Should I cross first? MIYASATO: You can cross. NISHIMOTO: Okay. Mr. Inaba, you mentioned many times, the 2005 Orchidland application for a Special Use Permit. Wasn’t there a distinction between that application and the current application for Use Permit? INABA: I don’t know what legal distinctions there are, but I just know that, I feel like my situation is a lot worse. The parcels involved are all smaller. The tower is actually closer than, to our parcels than they were for Mr. Oskins and Mr. Pa, and our tower is actually higher, too, so I feel like we’re impacted more. NISHIMOTO: Well, for example, that was for a Special Use Permit when these types of towers were not permitted, expressly permitted uses. Is that correct? INABA: Say that again. NISHIMOTO: The Orchidland application was at a time when telecommunication towers and antennas were not expressly permitted uses in the zoning, in this zoned district. INABA: Well, they’re not expressly permitted now. You need a Use Permit to put it up. NISHIMOTO: And, if you go to Exhibit 15, your Exhibit 15, another distinction is that it was almost unanimous among the residents of the Orchidland Community Association to oppose the proposed tower. Is that correct? Based on that Exhibit. INABA: That’s correct, but I don’t have a homeowner’s association to support me. I’m doing this by myself. NISHIMOTO: Okay, and if you go to Exhibit 12, which is your list of catastrophic tower failure, actually, I’m sorry, strike that, Exhibit 13. INABA: Yes. NISHIMOTO: Do any of those towers, are any of those towers monopole or monopine towers? INABA: They’re telecommunication towers. 46 EXHIBIT F NISHIMOTO: And what years are they dated—these failures. INABA: Dated back from early 1900’s to 2013 probably. NISHIMOTO: And what does, what does the mode of construction state? INABA: I don’t know how they were constructed. They’re just telecommunications towers that could fall, just like the tower that you’re proposing now. NISHIMOTO: If you look on the first page, many of those state that the mode of construction were lattice, is that correct? INABA: Yeah, I see lattice on there. NISHIMOTO: Which is not the same type of structure that we’re talking about in the current proposed project. INABA: What do the ones that were built closer to the present day made out of? NISHIMOTO: Still lattice masts, okay. If you go to Exhibit 12, the type of tower depicted in that article is a lattice tower, not a monopole, monopine. Is that correct? INABA: If that’s what a lattice tower looks like. NISHIMOTO: Yes. INABA: Yeah. NISHIMOTO: Today, did, were there any residents from either the Tiki Gardens Subdivision or the Ainaloa area who came to oppose the proposed tower? INABA: No, I don’t believe so. NISHIMOTO: And, it’s true that you do not reside in Ainaloa or Tiki, or the Tiki Garden Subdivision? INABA: No. NISHIMOTO: Where do you reside? INABA: Waimea. 47 EXHIBIT F NISHIMOTO: And you do not have any residences constructed on your property in the Tiki Gardens Subdivision? INABA: No. NISHIMOTO: So, even if a tower was constructed, the benefits of any 4G LTE service would not be felt by you in Waimea. Is that correct? INABA: Say that again? NISHIMOTO: Even if a tower was constructed, you would not receive any of the benefits from the 4G service as you do not reside in the Tiki Gardens and/or Ainaloa? INABA: No, but I go to Pāhoa for work, so I would use it then. NISHIMOTO: So, you would benefit in that regard. INABA: If I went there, yeah. NISHIMOTO: You also mentioned that you know for sure that you have cell phone service on your property, but you just mentioned that you do not have a residence constructed on your property. Is that correct? INABA: Can you say that one more time? NISHIMOTO: You just said you were sure that had cell phone service on your property. INABA: In Tiki Gardens? NISHIMOTO: Uh huh. INABA: Yep. NISHIMOTO: And you’re sure of that? INABA: Yes. NISHIMOTO: But you do not have any residence constructed there? INABA: No. NISHIMOTO: So, you wouldn’t know for sure whether that service would still be available if you had a home built on that property without-- 48 EXHIBIT F INABA: I tested it over there, at the site. NISHIMOTO: Indoors. If you had built a residence on that property. INABA: I wouldn’t be able to answer that until I build a house. NISHIMOTO: So you don’t know that for sure. INABA: I know when I go there, I have service. NISHIMOTO: But that’s not inside of a house. INABA: No, I wasn’t in a house, no. NISHIMOTO: I would like to call as a rebuttal witness, Corey Shaffer. MIYASATO: Go ahead. NISHIMOTO: Okay, Corey, if you turn to Exhibit D, Mr. Inaba stated that the tower would be, this depiction of a monopine would be least, appears less intrusive because it was 40 to 50 feet tall. Is that a—how tall is this monopine? SHAFFER: The monopine depicted here in Volcano Estates is 90 feet tall, not 40 feet as Mr. Inaba noted. NISHIMOTO: Okay, and if you go to Exhibits 17—where is it—Exhibit 17 and 19, the areas marked north of Ainaloa, more visibly seen in Exhibit 19 then it is in Exhibit 17, Mr. Inaba had commented that there was no proper search done in those areas to select an optimal site. Can you explain why those would not have worked? SHAFFER: Right, as I referenced times in my testimony earlier, basically, if were to go this, you know, to this northern most, excuse me, this eastern block that he identified, we’d have to build another tower. We’d end up with two towers in the neighborhood anyways. So, we’d still have to pursue a tower in the location Mr. Inaba lives. NISHIMOTO: Thank you. I’d next like to call Danette Martin as another rebuttal witness. MIYASATO: Go ahead. NISHIMOTO: Mr. Inaba mentioned that you did not contact him personally about this selection site process. Can you explain why, what you did to contact him? MARTIN: I sent him a notice, to the surrounding property owners. I did attempt to meet with the people that live there. I tried to meet with the house on the corner of Silversword and 49 EXHIBIT F Ainaloa. There’s, there were dogs there. I tried to yell to the person to come out, but it looked pretty sketchy, so I was kind of afraid. And then the, right on Ainaloa Boulevard, there’s another house that’s, that’s shown and I left a card on their chain link fence that was locked and asked them, told them what I was coming by about and left my card and asked him to call me, and they didn’t respond. But then, after that, I sent notice out to 78 of the surrounding property owners, and like I had mentioned before, you know, there was a lot of people that was in favor of it, and Mr. Inaba, to my knowledge, is the only one across the street, and he doesn’t live there, so he doesn’t get the benefit from the, from the service. NISHIMOTO: And what are, what can you say to rebut Mr. Inaba’s testimony that Verizon failed to comply with the National Environment Protection Act? MARTIN: Okay, Verizon Wireless is regulated by the FCC which is a Federal agency, and they’re required to comply with the National Environment Protection Act. They have consulted with the State Historic Preservation. As far as the NEPA process, Bureau Veritas, whose their environmental consultant, consults with many agencies to comply with the National Environmental Protection Act. And, goes to great lengths to protect endangered species and things like that. NISHIMOTO: And, okay, I actually have one more question for Corey, if I may. MIYASATO: Go ahead. NISHIMOTO: Corey, just because Mr. Inaba says he’s sure he has adequate cell reception on his property in Tiki Gardens, does that guarantee that he would have the adequate service necessary for day-to-day interactions if he were to construct a home or residence? SHAFFER: Yeah, definitely not. I was on the property earlier today and had the opportunity to measure the signal level that’s currently there today. And, basically the signal level today is negative 110 dBm, which is about 10 dBm from our service floor, and the typical house loss is 10 to 20 dB, so inside the building you would have either dropped calls or no service if you were to construct a building. So, when we build our cell towers, we found that our customers like to use their phones in their houses so we design not for coverage outdoors. We design for coverage that can be used inside a residence. NISHIMOTO: So, if any residence were to be constructed in that area— SHAFFER: They would, they would likely have very poor to no service in building. NISHIMOTO: As it stands currently— SHAFFER: As it stands today. NISHIMOTO: But what about with the implementation of a monopine? 50 EXHIBIT F SHAFFER: They would have excellent service in this area. NISHIMOTO: Okay, thank you. MIYAMOTO: Does the Director have any cross examination? NG: No cross for Mr. Inaba. MIYAMOTO: Thank you. Commissioners have any questions? ONO: Yes, I do. I wanted to ask you— MASUNAGA: You gotta use the microphone. ONO: Oh, sorry. Mr. Inaba, I didn’t realize until today, you have four parcels, property in that area? INABA: My wife and I have two parcels, and my sister and her husband have two. ONO: I see. Was that through an estate or was that through the purchase on your part. INABA: No, how we got them was my mom passed away when I was young, when I was ten, so these four parcels were put in trusts for us. ONO: Okay. INABA: And this is back in the early seventies. And when I turned 21, my sister’s older than me, so when I turned 21, it came out of the trust, and two went to her, two went to me, and we’ve both been paying the taxes on it ever since then. ONO: Okay, so— INABA: --So, I’m 49 now, so when I got ‘em at 21, so I’ve been paying taxes on ‘em for 28 years now. ONO: Okay, again my question’s really looking to, for the idea that you’re aesthetically looking at the value of your property in terms of the pole as well as the—if the pole were constructed that your, the value of the property would drop. It’s been quite a while. Do you really plan to build a home there? INABA: You know, I was lucky to go to college cause my father had enough money to send me I guess, so I went to UH for couple years, then I went to school on the mainland, and I never had to sell them to go away to college. I have a 7-year old now, and you know, I’m not—I’m 51 EXHIBIT F working for the County. I’m not saving a whole lot. I’m trying to do my best to save, but these two lots represent to me one year of his college education, and if, you know, the value goes way down because the tower’s built, nobody wants to buy them, that sets me back. That hurts my son, I feel. ONO: Thank you. INABA: You’re welcome. MIYASATO: Any further questions? If not, would the Department present their case? NG: The Department, the Planning Department will submit on its two Exhibits, and we have no witnesses to present. Thank you. MIYASATO: Okay, Commissioners— ONO: Mr. Chairman? MIYASATO: --have any questions for the Department? ONO: May I ask a question of the—he made several comments about, and I’m sorry, I didn’t quite understand your response, but the concern about the archaeological studies being recommended and not being followed through? Is there some response to that? MARTIN: No, I’m not really quite sure what he’s talking about. There was an archaeological study that was done, and what they recommended that we do is if we run into a cave or something like that, we’re to stop work immediately, and to call State Preservation Office. That’s typical protocol. So, they didn’t do an inventory. There was too much brush there. That’s also standard, so I’m not really sure what he’s thinking is, wasn’t done properly, but it was done properly. I just don’t understand. Maybe we should, could ask him to clarify. I don’t know. ONO: Well, maybe I should have my, what I heard, he said that there was a recommendation that there be some exploration of some caves? MARTIN: Oh, right. ONO: And that’s— MARTIN: --but that’s not, that’s not really what it said. ONO: That’s not what he said. MARTIN: No, that’s not what the letter, that’s not what the recommendation was. 52 EXHIBIT F ONO: Oh okay, thank you. MARTIN: I’m trying to find a copy of that. The recommendation was by the, that we avoid a certain time in grubbing so that the hoary bats, they do their mating and nesting seasons, and also the Hawaiian Hawk. Those two endangered species frequent that area so we’re supposed to avoid grubbing the lot or taking trees down between March and September, and the other recommendation was, if you run into, if you run into caves, then you’re to stop, and then they have State Preservation and they have archaeologists come out. Sometimes, I don’t believe it was recommended for this. Sometimes, they require that we hire archaeologist, be on-site in case there is anything that they see that we need to stop construction for. But, the point that I’m trying to say is that Verizon Wireless is regulated by the FCC and they have strict, strict guidelines on file following NEPA regulations, and so we have the environmental consultant that consults with everybody, gets everybody comments—U.S. Fish & Wildlife, State Preservation Office, Hawaiian groups, many others—and everybody puts their input in it, and then at the very end, it gets wrapped out and those recommendations are what we follow. MIYASATO: Any further questions? ONO: No, thank you. MIYASATO: Ms. Nishimoto, do you have a closing statement? NISHIMOTO: Sure. Yes. First, I’d like to thank everyone for staying with us for the last 3-1/2, almost 3-1/2 hours. I really appreciate it. Verizon, while we understand and recognize the concerns of Mr. Inaba, we also have to balance it with the needs of the residents of the Ainaloa area. The implementation, the construction of this monopine will help to facilitate and enhance the lives of the residents in both the Tiki Gardens Subdivision and in the Ainaloa in general. Our application for a Use Permit should be granted because it meets the requirements under the Zoning Code. Specifically, it’s consistent with the General Plan and the general purpose of the zoning district, the Zoning Code, the General Plan, and is not materially detrimental to the social welfare. It does not cause a substantial detriment to the community’s character and the surrounding properties, and it will not unreasonably burden public agencies to provide things such as streets and roads, sewage, sewer water drainage, and other related infrastructure. And lastly, I would like to just repeat the only person that is objecting to the application for the Use Permit is someone who does not even reside in the area. Thank you. MIYASATO: Mr. Inaba, do you have a closing argument? INABA: Thank you also for letting me present my side of the story today. You know, I don’t have any closing argument prepared. I just feel that this tower, if it’s constructed across the street from us, will really hinder us trying to sell it in the future. I don’t know what my son’s plans may be. He’s grown up on this Island. He likes outdoors. He may want to move there at some point in time. As for me, I’m hoping it’s there, the value is there, so I can use it to, you 53 EXHIBIT F know, further his education when the time comes. I feel that if the tower is constructed, it will really hinder our ability to sell it. I brought up a lot of information which I felt was substantial evidence against putting the tower up here, and I just ask for your fair evaluation. You know, Ms. Nishimoto presents her case very well, too. I just leave it up to you, and whatever you decide, I will respect. Thank you. MIYASATO: Department, do you have a closing argument? NG: No, we’ll submit. Thank you. MIYASATO: I’d like to call a close to this hearing, and at this time, the Commissioners to, you have a motion? HENKEL: I live in the Puna District, and one of the big problems we have there is lack of cell coverage, and I’ve even, I’ve been in an ambulance where I had to get to the top of the rift zone before the EMT could telephone the emergency room doctor so that I could get medication, and it was because we didn’t have any, you know, communications. One of the other problems we have are, you know, small houselots there. I think that Verizon did make an effort to find you know a more appropriate place, and couldn’t. And, I really am in awe of Mr. Inaba. The effort that you put into your presentation, the research, and the work that you did, but I feel the greater good you know, it compels me to support the project, and so I would move that we approve the Use Permit 14-046. MIYASATO: Do I have a second? MOSES: Can I make couple comments, Chair? Is that possible? Is this open for discussion or not now that’s he made a--? MIYASATO: I will open discussion after I have a second? MOSES: After a second? Okay. Second. MIYASATO: Okay, it is moved by Commissioner Henkel and seconded by Commissioner Moses. Any discussion? MOSES: So, there’s couple things that Mr. Inaba mentioned, and I too have to commend you for the amount of effort and thoroughness in presenting your presentation and understand your feeling. But there, I do not understand when you brought the concern of the Police Department and why the Director has proposed to approve with that concern and consideration. I can’t answer that, but I do like the consideration of having a removal plan with these type of cell towers. Moving forward, I don’t know if we’re going to require it here, but that would be something that we as a Commission or the Planning Department should put in place when something, projects like this come about, and the, with advancement, with technology and 54 EXHIBIT F everything that it should not be needed in this area. There should be a removal plan in place as well, so I like that you brought that to our attention. And that’s all I have to say. ONO: Mr. Chair, may I? MIYASATO: Commissioner Ono. ONO: I am, this is about my fifth year here, and I must say that you’d make a very good teacher, your thorough work, and I really appreciated your presentation today. However, I want to think in terms of the general good of the community as a whole, so while I sympathize with your comments, I tend to lean towards the development of the tower. MIYASATO: Any further discussion? Commissioner Henkel, your motion to approve includes all— HENKEL: I’m sorry, I don’t have the original motion or the conditions so—the Recommendation. Now, I’ve got it. Okay, I’d like to clarify my motion that it’s based on the findings presented by the Planning Department in January. MOSES: Second. MIYASATO: Any further discussion? DARROW: For clarification, if I could ask a question. That—Commissioner Henkel, that includes the findings and conclusions as well as the conditions of the Planning Department’s Recommendation? HENKEL: The simple answer would be yes, but I don’t, in scanning this, I don’t see any conditions. It’s just based on all of this information, right? I mean, the Recommendations, there aren’t any Recommendations by the Director? Oh that’s right. To minimize the impact of the seabirds and stuff, okay. Yes, to clarify, yes, I move to approve based on, along with the Recommendations by the Planning Director— DARROW: --thank you— HENKEL: --as stated in January. DARROW: Okay, thank you, Commissioner. HENKEL: Sorry. DARROW: Okay. MOSES: Second. 55 EXHIBIT F DARROW: Okay, with that, we’ll take the roll. Commissioner Henkel? HENKEL: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Moses? MOSES: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Ono? ONO: Aye. DARROW: Mr. Chairman? MIYASATO: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes four to zero. ONO: Mr. Chairman, can I ask for a five minute recess? No? NISHIMOTO: I have to prepare the Findings based on that? MIYASATO: The applicant, yeah, will prepare Findings, Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order. NISHIMOTO: Yeah, okay. I’ll get it. Do you know when you want that by? MASUNAGA: Couple weeks? MOSES: Is this on the record? MASUNAGA: Usually, yeah. MOSES: You need to speak in the—you need to speak in the mic. MASUNAGA: You could do it based on this. NISHIMOTO: Okay. ARAI: Have them to serve it on all the parties. MASUNAGA: Ask her to serve it on all the parties. 56 EXHIBIT F MIYASATO: Oh yeah, okay. ARAI: Maybe I should speak. Excuse me, hi, excuse me. Just to clarify, when you prepare the draft Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for the Commission, if you could upon transmittal to the Department, make sure all the parties are served with a copy of the draft. And, at that point, I think it would be proper, and Margaret maybe you can chime in, that maybe we afford an opportunity for any Exceptions by the parties, if necessary, because— MASUNAGA: Yeah, you mean by the Planning Director or— ARAI: Or Mr. Inaba, right. MASUNAGA: Yeah, sure. ARAI: Okay? NISHIMOTO: Thank you. The discussion ended at 3:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sarah Y. Hata-Finley, Secretary Windward Planning Commission 57 EXHIBIT F