Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-04-04 Hearing Transcript - Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless USE 19-079WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT APRIL 4, 2019 A regularly advertised hearing on the application for CELLCO PARTNERSHIP DBA VERIZON WIRELESS (USE 19-000079) was called to order at 9:29 a.m. in the County of Hawaii Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii with Chairman Joseph Clarkson presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Gilbert Aguinaldo, Joseph Clarkson, Donn Dela Cruz, Donald Ikeda, Thomas Raffipiy, John Replogle. ALSO PRESENT: Michael Yee (Planning Director), Malia Hall (Deputy Corporation Counsel for the Windward Planning Commission), Jeff Darrow (Planning Program Manager), Christian Kay (Planner), Jessica Andrews (Planner), and Sarah Hata-Finley (Commission Secretary). And 15 members from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: CELLCO PARTNERSHIP DBA VERIZON WIRELESS (USE 19-000079) Application for a Use Permit to allow the construction of a non -manned telecommunication facility consisting of a 155 -foot tall monopine pole and auxiliary equipment within a 900 -square foot portion of a 3 -acre parcel of land situated in the County's Agricultural 3 -acre (A -3a) zoning district. The property is located on the north (mauka) side of Pahoa-Kalapana Road (Highway 130) about 1.2 miles south of Black Sand Beach subdivision, Kikala-Keokea Homesteads, Puna, Hawaii, TMK: (3) 1-2-007:081 por. At 9:29 a.m., Chairman Clarkson stated that the next item on the agenda was an application by Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless. He called a recess at 9:30 a.m. due to technical difficulties with the PowerPoint presentation, and the meeting was reconvened at 9:37 a.m. CLARKSON: Okay, we're back in session now. If Jessica Andrews could continue her presentation, please? ANDREWS: Okay, yes. All right, try this again. So, Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless. This is Use Permit Application No. 19-000079. Here we go. So, this is the location map. This is the subject property here in red, and Black Sands Subdivision is here. Seaview Estates is here. Pahoa-Kalapana Road runs this direction. The Applicant is requesting a Use Permit to construct a new 155 -foot tall steel monopine telecommunication tower and related facilities within a secured 900 -square foot portion of a 3 -acre parcel situated in the County's Agricultural — 3 acre (A -3a) zoning district. The monopine will be painted to resemble a real pine tree. The facility will be designed to accommodate the co -location of at least two other wireless service providers and will comply with all Federal, State, and County rules and regulations. The proposed project serves to expand wireless telephone and E-911 services to residents in Seaview Estates and Black Sands Beach Subdivision. EXHIBIT C This is the site plan here on the right. You can see the entry, the proposed entry drive and the actual pad where the tower will be, outlined in red, and this is the overall property line of the site. This is the, what they call the yard plan, where the actual concrete pad would be, and this is the location of the tower. Elevation is here of the monopine. The dimensions on the left side here show the 150 -foot plus a 5 -foot extension there so it's a total of 155 -foot height. Aerial photo showing the subject property outlined in blue. And the highway, Highway 130 or Pahoa-Kalapana Road is here, and there's an access road that runs right here. Zoning map shows that the property is zoned A -3a, Agricultural – 3 acres. The property is outlined in red as you can see, and nearby zoning is Ag -20, so Agricultural – 20 acres. The subject property again in red. It's designated on the LUPAG Map as Extensive Agriculture, and nearby designation is Important Agricultural Lands. The access road is Old Kalapana Road here. You would take a right to access the subject property. This is the access road from Highway 130. This is the property as viewed from Highway 130. You can see the sign here, and the property is immediately behind that berm. Oops, sorry about that, skipped a slide. This is the photo simulation of the proposed monopine. These photos were provided by the Applicant, and on the left is the existing view looking south on Highway 130. On the right is the proposed view looking south on Highway 130. And, you can see the monopine is rendered in the photo on the right. The Planning Director's recommendation is approval with conditions. That's the end of the presentation. CLARKSON: Are there any questions from the Commission for staff? ANDREWS: Yeah, so one more thing to add, we did draft revised recommendations and revised recommendation and conditions of approval based on the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service comments. Their comments—the conditions of approval addressed their comments regarding the protection of wildlife in the vicinity, so the Hawaiian hoary bats, seabirds, and Hawaiian hawks. So that Conditions 3, 4, and 5 would address the Hawaiian hoary bats, Hawaiian hawks, and seabirds, and Condition 6 is to prevent the spread of Rapid `Ohi`a Death. And, Condition 7 is to prevent the spread of harmful, invasive species, and so those should be with the Commissioners now. There is also additional testimony that the Commissioners should have received. CLARKSON: Thank you. Are there any questions from the Commission for staff? I just have one. All the surrounding property owners were notified of this application? All the ones within the fall radius of the tower? DARROW: [Nodded yes.] CLARKSON: Okay. EXHIBIT C 2 ANDREWS: Yes, that's correct. CLARKSON: Okay, they were. Thank you. At this time, will the Applicant or their representative come forward, please? Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter before the Planning Commission today? BEASONJOSUA: Yes. CLARKSON: Please introduce yourself, whichever one of you wishes to start, and tell us about your application and. BEASON: Can you hear me on the mic? Good morning, Chair, Commissioners. Thank you all for attending. It's always great to see a full, full group of people on the other side of the table here. It's really important for us and our application. My name is Mike Beason. I'm a consultant to Verizon Wireless, and do planning with, with Danette Mettler, who did the application here, and she wasn't able to attend. I've walked this site and looked at this site with her several times. I'm familiar with the area. This is just a couple points I wanted to make. This is the largest coverage objective in Hawaii and, of course, it's Big Island, right? This is a very, very important site to Verizon in trying to get coverage down to the area, and Verizon feels that it is one of the major roles is the ability for E-911, emergency services on the public side, not just on the private side, as being very important. This area was initially requested to be covered by Civil Defense because of the overlook and the people that were down in that area and that happened in 2008. So, we've been since 2008 working on this project trying to find an appropriate site, and have come up with this as the property that would be able to serve the area and cover as much area as we can. The height, the location is something that we really looked at several times to try to make an appropriate location. The—we understand views are important, and both Danette and I and Verizon have always, are promoting the tree pole as an idea to try to blend it as much as we can. As large of a facility as it is, we still feel it's appropriate because there are other Cook Pines that are in the area, that are in the background. So, that helps a little bit in trying to disguise it as whatever we can. We've reviewed the conditions of approval with Verizon and agree with all the conditions. We are already aware of Fish & Wildlife's concerns and that's not an issue. We're going to work with them to make sure that all of those elements are covered. If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them. CLARKSON: Please—yes, Commissioner Ikeda? IKEDA: Yes, I have a couple of questions. When I looked at the picture, I didn't see any residents around there. Where is the closest residence? EXHIBIT C 3 BEASON: I believe there's a house on the adjacent property at the end of that Old Government Road just before you get to the property, and that house is basically the same size property, and it's the opposite corner of that property is where that house is located. IKEDA: Okay. BEASON: So, it's physically as far away as it can be just be chance. IKEDA: Okay, and second question. You know, when I looked at the picture and the map, why is it that the tower is going to be so close to the road and not further in? BEASON: The access is part of it, bringing in facilities to the site. The—we're trying to remain, get as close toward Seaview as we can and not drop it back, in the back of the property. The—it's just a slight bit of ridgeline there that they're trying to maintain being as close to the Seaview side. IKEDA: Yeah, my question also is how the tower is 155 feet, how close is it to the road, because it looks like it could fall onto the road. CLARKSON: Could we have staff please show us the aerial photo again? IKEDA: There's a picture of the DARROW: This one here shows the actual site— IKEDA: Right, right, no, the one DARROW: Or here— IKEDA: Yeah, not, well that one, but the one after. There was the one that took pictures of comparison. DARROW: Okay. IKEDA: The comparison picture. One more, I think. There. You see, it's real close to the road. It seems like it could fall onto the road. Just a thought. IOSUA: Michael Iosua, local counsel for Verizon Wireless. This figure, I'm not sure if it's, if it's completely accurate in terms of the, where the monopole pine would be built, but, you know, in the application, it says it's 47 feet setback which was I think the setback requirement is a 30-, 31 -foot setback, so it's well beyond what the setback area would be required. IKEDA: No, I understand that, but what if by chance the tower should fall. It would fall on the road. EXHIBIT C 4 BEASON: So, the map is a map that was surveyed and the distance and its real rough because I've got a small drawing here, is over 70 feet to the road. The fall IKEDA: —Yeah, but it's BEASON: —The fall, the fallI know this question has come up with this Commission before— IKEDA: Because if it should fall, then 70 feet would fall on the road. BEASON: But that's not the way they—it doesn't fall as a unit typically, because that's not the way they're built. IKEDA: Maybe so, but just by chance it could happen. Nothing is impossible. BEASON: Right, but we're also building this to standards that are very specific to structural standards so IKEDA: No, I understand everything you're saying. BEASON: Okay. IKEDA: And, I think you're correct. It's not supposed to fall, but things do happen. So, that's all I'm getting at. So, when I see it kind of close to road, it kind of bothers me. It's a safety issue, not onlyI think it's for the people that live there. I think they would—if I lived there, I would be concerned about that, and that's all I'm saying. Okay, thank you. CLARKSON: Any further questions for? AGUINALDO: I have one. Based upon Commissioner Ikeda, is, I see you have an arch, but this whole parcel here is by that, it's one property, right? BEASON: Yes. AGUINALDO: You see how you guys made the access on the arch? BEASON: Yes. AGUINALDO: So, to his question, is there a problem, you know, pushing it back, because on your, you know, is there a problem of a 100 feet or so? Does that make a big difference to your coverage. Because you gotta make the road anyway, right? You gotta make the road, you gotta put the pad, you gotta have heavy equipment there anyway. To addressing his concern, is that a big deal to Verizon? That's the question. BEASON: Actually, the, there is—there is a concern about moving it back on the property. EXHIBIT C 5 AGUINALDO: Okay. BEASON: How far I don't know. AGUINALDO: Right. BEASON: But, I do—the location was at the request of the owner as well to not put it at the back of the property. AGUINALDO: No, I'm not saying at the back. BEASON: Yeah, I understand, but they wanted it forward as well, so the, at this point, our agreement is for this location, so we would need to go back and make sure that they would also agree to that. AGUINALDO: Right. BEASON: Which is a little tricky, but AGUINALDO: Shucks, you know, that hundred plus feet or so. You still gotta make the road, right? You gotta make the road, the pad, concrete trucks— BEASON: —The road is avoiding a large tree that's out there now, and you can see that in the plans, so that's why the curve in the road and the topography as well. AGUINALDO: Right, right, so that's why you're curving because in front of that curve, there's a big tree. BEASON: Right, right, to get to the site. AGUINALDO: You go more towards, you know, Ka`u way, I no think that's one big problem `cause you still gotta bring your utilities there, overhead utilities and so forth. So, maybe you can bring that back on the table because this panel here, it is a concern. Anybody can say it ain't gonna fall. If it does fall, then that's a concern. If it does fall, then it blocks the only road coming out from that lower section, and I like your guys idea. I live there. We lived through that lava flow, 2018, and it's very important, but it's the best interest not only for the client and Verizon, is the overall safety of all mankind. And, if that's not one issue, you know, I think that's his biggest concern right now is that just, you know, a little bit more in. IOSUA: The only thing I would add is that it has been determined for this site based on a number of factors including what the next door resident had requested, what the current landowner requested, and also determination by our radio-frequency engineer. AGUINALDO: Right. EXHIBIT C 6 IOSUA: So, even moving it 20 feet, 50 feet, makes a huge difference in the coverage area of what the two subdivision areas are, what homes could include. So, at this point, I don't think we would be able to say for certain whether or not if we moved it back, you know, say 50 feet, whether or not it could still provide the same coverage radius that, that is intended. You know, the balance is to be able to, because it's such a big area, to be able to provide the maximum amount of coverage for all the homes in the area in addition to providing the safety services for the Civil Defense as requested. So, you know, at this point, as Mike mentioned also, the license agreement would have to be terminated with the landowner, and we'd have to basically, you know, go back to the drawing board and renegotiate everything, so it would be a AGUINALDO: —Just for the location, though. IOSUA: For the location. AGUINALDO: Just the location. IOSUA: Yeah. AGUINALDO: The drawing board is just the location, you know. I mean, it's just, you know, I just want to voice his concern. IOSUA: Sure. AGUINALDO: It was just the location. I mean, I know this place good. It's a dead zone. No tell me no more house or get house where. I have friends that live there. So, if that thing drops, you know, like the question was where is the closest residence? Is it 50 feet? You know, 200 feet? I think more than 200 feet. And, if it drops more Pahoa way, no more house there. I know this place good. IOSUA: Sure. AGUINALDO: Yeah, so, I mean, just that slight, you know, just that slight recommendation of pushing `em little bit more in. You know, is it a big deal? You know, that's the only thing, and I know its frequency. I like your guys' idea, and we're not telling to move it in the back of your property. It's one of the Commissioner's concern is it's close to the road. I like the idea it looks like a full tree versus just one tower. You guys bringing to the table good ideas, but his concern is just is that a final location or can that be adjusted. That's the only question he has, you know. His biggest concern right there. BEASON: Yeah, Mike Beason again. I did ask this question to our radio engineer, and that's why I hesitate, because this location is very important, and moving it in—I was definitely talking in larger leaps, and that was an issue, so I don't know where that fine tuning, if there is any from the radio engineer's perspective, but I did ask that question before the hearing to go over these EXHIBIT C 7 kinds of questions that happen. You know, it's a common concern, so I do know that this, this location was very important to the engineer. AGUINALDO: But, the topo, by the looks of it, 490 and 500, if you move `em more back, is the topo higher if you go further back or is it gonna drop? You see on—you see on overall site plan? You got 490 and 500 on your topo. For the elevation, are we talking elevation or are we talking distance, you know? BEASON: I think it's a combination. Generally, we're running, as you go down the road, you're running to the ocean, so it's almost parallel right in that area, but I do know it's an issue, but I don't know the details how much elevation gain it is. AGUINALDO: Right. Okay. CLARKSON: Any further questions? RAFFIPIY: I don't have a question, but I do have a comment in the same line of what they were talking about. I really like the idea of bringing down capability to communicate down there especially for E911 and all of that, considering what, you know, what just happened when we had the lava and all that. And, I was going to ask that question, but he asked, Mr. Ikeda asked that question, because we're going to solve a problem to bring communication to that area, and that could create another problem shutting down the road, you know, in a time that we really need E911. You call everybody to come up and then we do have that monopole far out on the road, and we cannot get traffic through. We're gonna stop the traffic, that would create another problem. We create a solution to create a problem, and that's the only reason why we're suggesting, you know, we're kind of implying it would be nice to kind of move it a little behind just so that we don't create that problem of shutting down the road when we don't need it. Thank you. IKEDA: Can I make a comment? CLARKSON: Please proceed. IKEDA: It's not that I'm against your tower. I do support the idea of the tower. It's just the location of the tower that bothers me, and so, I just hope that you guys can go and see if you guys can move it just a little, you know, so at least it'd be safe. To me, it's going to be safer. AGUINALDO: Yeah, I think, it's not one big request. Like I said, you guys are on the lower east rift zone, and lower east rift zone, if `Opihikao Road get shut D, now you only got one way in and one way out, is through this Highway 130, and, you know, it's that little things. We are nothing is, you know, impossible, and if the thing drops, you know, we can agree upon today, but if the thing drops, then what? We cannot go out there with chainsaws and cut the tree— CLARKSON: —Let's reserve general discussion. This is for questioning the Applicant, and I think the question on this topic was asked how difficult it would be to move the tower away from EXHIBIT C the road enough so that if it did fall, it wouldn't fall on the road. Other—we can discuss this further after public testimony. Any further questions for the Applicants? RAFFIPIY: One last question. Do you have the engineering study that shows the signal in the area? BEASON: Yeah, that's part of the application. There's one that shows existing and one that shows proposed. RAFFIPIY: All right, thank you. Oh yeah, I see it right here. IOSUA: Chair, can I ask just ask one clarification question? So, is the request to move it back how far from the road? IKEDA: I think it's, at least that it wouldn't fall on the road. IOSUA: Okay. IKEDA: We're talking REPLOGLE: If you take that white line. IOSUA: So, for IKEDA: —You know, you were talking about its hundred and what 55 feet, so we're saying move it back. I think the side of the road is about ten feet, so at least another 70 feet if possible. IOSUA: Okay, thank you. CLARKSON: A hundred and fifty-five feet from the pavement. IOSUA: Okay, thanks, Chair. CLARKSON: Any further questions? If not, thank you. At this time, we have four people signed up to testify on this application. Would Dwight Vicente, Fred New, Linda New, and Dwight Stevens please come forward? [Mr. Vicente was not present.] Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter before the Commission today? L. NEW/F. NEW: I do. CLARKSON: We'll start with this gentleman here. Please introduce yourself, and you'll have three minutes to present your testimony. STEVENS: Do I CLARKSON: Yes. EXHIBIT C 9 STEVENS: [Inaudible] Okay, thank you. My name is Dwight Stevens. Cellular service and the proposed location is a very needed and desired service. Kupono Group and association of over 450 residents from Kalapana to Kapoho rated obtaining cellular service as one of the most important priorities in surveys conducted by the association for emergencies, Civil Defense, evacuation, road closure, police reports, drowning rescue, and roadside assistance. Over a thousand people in the recent Hawaii lava evacuation disaster area have no cellular service, limited Internet, and no access to texting and email, and no access to notices from Civil Defense, USGS, Police Department, and emergency reports. Personally, I have experienced the fear and drama of losing cellular communication at most critical times during earthquakes, road closures, lava eruptions, and being unable to get Police and Civil Defense emergency announcements, including evacuation notices. And, not able to communicate with loved ones to inform them of my safety. Recently, my car broke down, and I had to walk 1-1/2 miles in the rain to a cell coverage area to call for help. What if I was a single mother with young children? Drag them a mile and a half in the rain or leave them alone vulnerable in the car? And, we're all, too, aware of the incidents of vandals and to vehicles stranded on the side of the road. In the 23 years I have lived in the Kalapana area, there have been five drownings that I know of at Kehena Beach. People at the beach expressed serious concerns that the drowning victims lives might have been saved if medical services could have been contacted sooner. Lower Puna needs cellular service for business and personal use. Approving cellular service will provide powerful economic support to a low income area with hundreds of vacation rental homes and rooms, independent contractors, and small businesses. The proposed site for the cell phone tower is an ideal location—that 3 -acre lot surrounded by 370 acres of State land on the north side over a 121 acres of vacant land on the west side; Highway 130 with needed power and utilities on the east side; on the south side, there is only one house on a 3 -acre lot. The average size of adjacent properties to the location is 98 acres, making the chosen site the most advantageous and least impactful location. The monopine design is designed to fit into nature. Very similar to the cell tower resembling a pine tree approved and installed in Volcanoes National Park. Work on positioning this cell tower on this proposed lot has been a five-year process. Environmental, engineering, and archaeological research have been successfully completed. Further delays in approving this location could result in five or more years of delay. How many lives will be lost because emergency assistance cannot be called in time? How many broken down cars with no way to call for help? Cars and children left vulnerable to vandalism or theft. How many more hurricanes or lava eruptions with no communications of emergency information? How much more lost revenue for rentals and mom & pop businesses in an economically harmed area? Lower Puna is way overdue for reliable cell service. I urge you to provide much needed economic support, create opportunities, and save lives in lower Puna by approving this permit. Thank you. EXHIBIT C 10 CLARKSON: Thank you. L. NEW: Hello, my name is Linda New. CLARKSON: Please L. NEW: Oh, I'm sorry. CLARKSON: To the mic. L. NEW: My name is Linda New, and I live next door to the proposed, where the proposed tower will be. My husband and I submitted a letter which I don't know if all of you have had time to read or not. If you haven't had a chance to read it, I would like to read it to you now. Have you read it or? I'm sorry. AGUINALDO: Go ahead. L. NEW: Okay. This letter is to express our opposition to the construction of a 155 -foot cell tower and base yard between mile markers 18 and 19 on the Pahoa-Kalapana Road by Cellco Verizon Partnership. We are homeowner residents on the adjacent property. We've lived in lower Puna for 13 years and are familiar with the needs of the area including that of telecommunications. There are literally hundreds of suitable acres on State property in this area where the cell tower could be placed and would not infringe upon the well-being of the folks that have homes there. The State owns numerous suitable acres in the area including a parcel with approximately 300, 3000 feet of frontage road right next to the proposed location. The State has approved cell towers in other areas on Hawaii Island and has issued easements on their property. Since this is a project for the good of the public, it should and could be placed on public land and let all of us earn the generated monthly income. In addition, the owner who gave permission for the cell tower to be built on this property, on his property, where he does not live and is a vacant lot, also owns an 80 -acre parcel adjacent to this proposed site, parcel. If it were to be built on that parcel, it could allow a much greater distance from any home, including ours, be out of sight, and he would still receive his income. Down, oh, coming down the Pahoa-Kalapana Road, past `Opihikao offers some very nice ocean and horizon views. One of these ocean views is just past mile marker 17. It would be a stretch of the imagination to believe that the faux tree tower at 155 feet would blend in with surrounding `ohi`a and not intrude on the view, particularly since there's nothing else in the area over 60 feet tall. The tower should be concealed from public view when possible and not be placed on the highway to greet all locals and tourists. This should not represent [sic] a great obstacle for Verion [sic]. I'm sorry, for Verizon, as there are many other locations. In addition, we were told by the Verizon representative, Danette Martin, that their engineer thought the proposed site was not the best location for the intended purpose. EXHIBIT C 11 Every time we sit on our front lanai, we will have this faux tree tower in full view. Will the cell tower reduce the value of nearby properties? We've asked three local realtors, and they all say yes. There are numerous studies that confirm this with the percent reduction to be as much as 20 percent or more. One study, such study, conducted in June 2014, by the National Institute for Science, Law, and Public Policy in Washington, D. C. titled, "Neighborhood Cell Towers & Antennas—Do They Impact a Property's Desirability?" shows some home buyers and renters are less interested in the properties located near cell towers and antennas as well as in properties where cell towers or a group of antennas are placed on top, or attached CLARKSON: Please L. NEW: to a building. CLARKSON: Please wrap up your testimony now if you would. L. NEW: All right. CLARKSON: If you have any L. NEW: My husband could continue for his three minutes. F. NEW: Hi, my name is Fred. I'm Linda's husband. Thank you very much, good morning, for this opportunity to say a few words. Is it possible to put the tmk map up there? It might be. Thank you very much. [Mr. New stood up to go to the presentation screen.] HALL: Oh, you have to keepsorry, you have to sit at the table because we need to record. Yeah. F. NEW: Oh, okay. So, our property is just makai of Dwight's property that's in the red, yeah, so right where that laser is, is where our house is. [Mr. Kay assisted Mr. New with the laser pointer.] And, I'm really not interested in being a neighbor of a cell tower. Dwight has given permission for CellcoNerizon to build this thing, and he doesn't seem like he has much regard for us as his neighbor. In regards to what Mr. Aguinaldo said, if we move that tower further back, any, if any place else on that lot, will bring it closer to our house. So, I mean, there are so many other places that this tower could be put. I realize the need for it. We want it. We ourselves would like to have it. But, I don't want to live next to this thing. Every day I'm sitting on my house, I'm going to have to look at this thing. Now, this is at 400 -feet elevation and why build this tower at 400 -feet elevation when you can build it at 800 -foot elevation, or maybe a 1,000 -foot elevation further, further mauka up the hill, and away from anybody's residence. There are hundreds of acres up there where you could put this thing. I believe Verizon has tried higher up the hill to build this, but I don't know what the problem is with that. But, there's so much State land there. Most of what I had to say is in our letter and you'll read our letter, finish reading our letter that Linda has started. But, I'm really not interested in having a cell tower as my neighbor. EXHIBIT C 12 The other thing I wanted to bring up that we didn't address in our letter is these pictures that they provided. Now, they are accurate pictures and it's the way it is. But, it's close to this, it's close to where the cell tower would be. This is not the optimal view. The optimal view coming down [Highway] 130 is just past mile marker 17-1/2. You come around mile marker 17. You come around the curve. As you come around the curve, it's a downslope. You're going downhill, so there's a very nice view there from like 17-1/2 to 18. This is after that. So, when you come around that bend, and they don't show the horizon view. There's a horizon view here. You come around this bend, you see a horizon view. Now, there are the telephone poles there, and sure, that's an eyesore, but it's not a reason to put another eyesore there. Now, we all know what that, the full tree looks like up the hill there in Hilo. I mean, it's an ugly thing. It's better than probably just the electronic facility itself, but, I mean, there's nothing tall around there. It's going to rise above everything else that's there. And, not wanting to be a neighbor to this thing, I'm just really asking you to have them put it someplace else where it's not going to impact anyone else. Thank you. CLARKSON: Thank you. Any questions for this testifier? AGUINALDO: Yes, I do. So, your property is makai to that, yeah? F. NEW: Our house is right there. [Mr. New went to the presentation screen.] AGUINALDO: Right there. F. NEW: Right here. AGUINALDO: Where you're pointing is way in the back of your property. F. NEW: It is. AGUINALDO: Yeah. F. NEW: That's why if you put this anywhere else, it's going to be closer to my house. AGUINALDO: Right, you just answered my question. CLARKSON: Any further questions for these testifiers? Please be seated then. Are there any other people who wish to testify on this matter? If not, I'm going to ask thatI'm going to have some questions for you, but I'll ask for a motion that we close public testimony. IKEDA: We didn't close on the last one. CLARKSON: Hm? IKEDA: You're talking about public testimony? EXHIBIT C 13 CLARKSON: Mr. Vicente is not here to testify. REPLOGLE: I move that we close public testimony. AGUINALDO: I second. CLARKSON: Do you have some objections to closing public testimony? REPLOGLE: Who me? CLARKSON: No, Donald. IKEDA: No, no. CLARKSON: All those in favor? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. CLARKSON: Opposed? Public testimony is closed. At this point, I have a couple of follow-up questions, if nobody else does, for the Applicant. If you could come forward, please. And, my question is just if you could review the process that you went through to site this facility, where it is, what other locations were considered, why if any were considered they weren't suitable BEASON: Sorry, Chair. [Mr. Beason was having an inaudible conversation with Mr. Stevens in the audience.] CLARKSON: Let me repeat my question. I'm just asking for review of your siting history. What investigations, what other possible sites you considered, and why this site became the preferred site. BEASON: In the couple times that I've gone just looking for alternate sites, I feel like we canvassed both sides of the road, up and down the road, all the way down to the water, and all the way below. We even went up into the subdivision, Black Sands Subdivision. The site is limited also by the acceptance of people. Some people don't want to encumber their land, and that includes the State. We went to the State and DLNR, and it's put in the application that the State did not want to encumber their land, so we did attempt that based on the input we got from the neighbors, and we withdrew our application at one point and went back out in the field because of that input, trying to accommodate the site location. So, I feel we've done a really good job of trying to find a spot that works that would be appropriate. CLARKSON: So, you're saying the State would not allow you to erect a cell tower on State land? BEASON: They—what's in the application and Danette spoke to them directly is that they did not want to encumber their land, yes. EXHIBIT C 14 IOSUA: Chair, Mike Iosua. Page 6 of the application sort of outlines some of the properties that were suitable to provide a location for the monopine tower. Again, there was a limited number of locations that will provide the right balance to provide the needs of the Hawaii County Civil Defense and to provide coverage to the Black Sands and the Seaview Estates Subdivisions. So, that kind of highlights the top locations that were reviewed. My understanding was that the State DLNR didn't reject us because there is actually an application process for the lease, but we were discouraged because they didn't know what was going to go there, and they didn't want to limit future development plans for the State, so they were, we were strongly discouraged not to seek a lease over there. CLARKSON: Thank you very much for reviewing and pointing it out. Any further questions from the Applicant or to the Applicant? If not, thank you. IOSUA: Chair, can I just say one more thing? We did, in the meantime—try and get a hold of our radio frequency engineer to answer Mr. Aguinaldo and Ikeda's question. It seems that there, it is a possibility within the coverage area to move back slightly, but we would need a little bit additional time to see how much further back we could move it. So, if perhaps the Chair would indulge us, maybe give us a little bit extra time to review that? CLARKSON: Well, that would be I think very welcome. So, that would mean that we would continue? IKEDA: I'm not going to be here. CLARKSON: Hm? IKEDA: I'm not going to be here. CLARKSON: Oh. IKEDA: [Inaudible.] HALL: Are they requesting a continuance? CLARKSON: We'rewe're, we would be granting them a continuance. HALL: Are they requesting one? CLARKSON: Yes. HALL: Yes? Okay IOSUA: Yes. HALL: That's just how I wanted to hear it. EXHIBIT C 15 BEASON: Can I, can I add something? The point that was trying to be made in testimony is that the moving a site is a little more complicated and, of course, the testimony also you heard was that the further we move it back, the closer it is to the neighbor which is something I forgot about, and I think is important, I think. The fall zone I understand, but I also feel like the setback is the primary code that we need to follow, and it's made on purpose the code that the distance they are set back. It's not just visual. It's also for all the other reasons that are out there. We change the location, we change a lot of aspects all the way through our environmental and FAA, FCCit, there is just a little bit of latitude we have with those, but it could significantly impact the project, and that is part of the concern here as we look forward to trying to work with you on that. So, that's—that's the concern, and if we go into a continuance, we can address that better at the next hearing. YEE: So I wanted—Michael Yee Planning Director, I want to add that in previous cell phone applications, the question of failure of the tower has come up as you mentioned, and previous technical folks and some reports were given to us around how these things fail. I think what you're hearing from the Commission is, you know, there's one opinion about how they fail and then there is belief that it could fail a different way. And, so, I would highly suggest you refresh everybody's memory around failure of these kinds of towers. Second would be cell signal. Very often, the Applicants come in and say we need this for this, you know, for a cell phone signal, and without the right information and comparison that you are basically asking the Commission to take it on, on your word that you can't move it or there's degradation if you move it. And, so, I think again if you want to be able to show the Commission that, what are the effects to the signal, why moving it from one location to another and, yes, there could be a degradation signal, but really how much is it significant or not, and I think it's upon you to be able to show that. IOSUA: Thank you. RAFFIPIY: Yeah, can I make a comment? A follow-up on my, what I said earlier, I saw, I read your, you know, that frequency or the signal strength, but I'd kind of like to—oh, where did it go now—you know, that there's a picture that shows the signal strength. What I would, what I would need to see is—yeah, that one. HALL: This one? RAFFIPIY: That one. IOSUA: Sure. RAFFIPIY: With the nearby towers and how they overlap, that was the signal that I was asking for or that kind of picture, diagram. Thank you. EXHIBIT C 16 BEASON: So, are you asking for a larger or a simplified or—because that is a very, you know, it's a very accurate, I think, program that's attempting to show you the information that's directly from Verizon. Yes, right. RAFFIPIY: Right, yeah, this picture. Yeah, I kind of need, I need to know for meI cannot really read all the numbers. I cannot jam numbers and try to figure out how they represent, but pictures kind of show me a lot because I can see that the nearby towers and how their signals are overlapped, and I can see the signal strengthoh, disappeared again—in red colors, that's what I need to know, so I can see how we're going to move the tower around. Thank you very much. CLARKSON: At this time, the Applicant has asked for a little more time to consider possibly moving the tower away from the road. We need a motion for action to grant the Applicant's request from some Commissioner. REPLOGLE: I would move for a continuance to allow Cellco Partners to reassess and re - approach the Commission next month. CLARKSON: Is there a second? AGUINALDO: I second. CLARKSON: Any further discussion? All those in favor? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. CLARKSON: Opposed? Motion carries. IOSUA: Thank you, Chair. CLARKSON: We'll see you next month. The discussion ended at 10:27 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sarah Y. Hata-Finley, Secretary Windward Planning Commission EXHIBIT C 17