2018-01-04 Hearing Transcript - Verizon Wireless USE 17-067

Home

This is the Applicant's site plan. You can see `Ohi`a Avenue running straight up and down through the left side of the slide and then Alapua Street on the bottom of the slide and the monopine proposed tower is located in this area here. A driveway to the tower and leased area would be off of `Ohi`a Avenue in this general location here. And, these are elevations showing what the tower will look like. You see the equipment cabinets down below and the fencing and then the monopine tower with the antennas at the top. This is a view of the property standing at the `Ohi`a Avenue-Alapua Street intersection. So, the proposed tower would generally be right in this corner area here. And, this is a view of `Ohi`a Avenue looking north mauka, and the property is on the right. The proposed driveway to the tower would generally be in this location here. And, this is a view of the leased area from Alapua Street, so we're kind of looking in a northwest direction here. The `Ohi`a Avenue, you can just see the corner of it going behind these trees, so the tower would be located in this general area here and here. The Planning Director is still recommending approval of the request with conditions, and that concludes my presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions you have. RAFFIPIY: I have a question. In the August meeting, I asked a question about considering moving that antenna where it provides—the closest residence is 150 feet. The height of the tower is 167 feet, and there was, I know there was some issue about the distance between the, you know, from the distance from the residence, the closest residence. And, I was asking questions about if there's, if the Applicant would consider relocating or kind of move that away to at least to provide a buffer or, you know, if it falls down and falls towards the house, at least it clears the house. Was that even addressed? JACKSON: As far as I know, the Applicant has not submitted any revisions to their proposal so we could ask that question of the Applicant's representative when he comes up. CLARKSON: Yes, I have a question. I think the, and correct me if I'm wrong which I may well be, but I think I read in this and another application that was continued that the setback for a guyed tower is one foot per foot of tower height, but the setback for a monopole tower is one foot for every five feet of height, so in this case, the setback would be 33 feet. Can you explain the difference between those setbacks and why there is a difference? Is it due to the relative risks of the towers falling over? JACKSON: That's a very good question. I don't know why whoever created the Code way back when came up with those two differences. I can guess that it would be because of the structural integrity of the tower. I've heard information that the guyed wire towers aren't as stable as the monopole towers and so that could be one explanation for the different setbacks for the monopole towers. I've also heard that the monopole towers fall or collapse downward rather than outward, so that could be another reason, but I'm not an expert at this, so perhaps the Applicant can explain why that might be. EXHIBIT D 3