Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-09-21 Leeward Exh B (USE 20-000083) LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT SEPTEMBER 21, 2020 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of SBA TOWERS V LLC (USE 20-000083) was called to order at 3:30 p.m. via live-stream online meeting, with Chairperson Nancy Carr Smith presiding. COMMISSIONERS IN ATTENDANCE: Nancy Carr Smith, Barbara DeFranco, Perry Kealoha, Max Newberg, Mark Van Pernis, Michael Vitousek and Faith"Faye" Yates ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: J Yoshimoto, Esq. (Counsel for the Commission), Michael Yee (Planning Director), John Mukai, Esq. (Counsel for the Planning Director), Christian Kay (Planner), Jeff Darrow (Planning Program Manager), Maija Jackson (Planner), Tracie-Lee Camero (Planner), Rachelle Ley (Secretary to the Planning Director), Kim Tanaka (Board and Commission Secretary) and Noriko Sauer (Leeward Planning Commission Secretary) APPLICANT: SBA TOWERS V LLC (USE 20-000083) Application for a Use Permit to allow the replacement of an existing 326-foot tall telecommunications tower with a new, non-manned telecommunication facility consisting of a 260-foot tall, self-supporting steel lattice tower with related equipment and improvements within a 2,025-square foot portion of a 3.585-acre property situated in the County's Agricultural-5 acre (A-5a) zoning district. The subject property is located at 81-1106 Nani Kupuna Place, approximately 1,165 feet east(mauka) of Hawaii Belt Road, Haleki`i-Kalukalu (Mauka), South Kona, Hawaii, TMK: (3) 8-1-001: Portion of 026. Secretary's Note: "- - -" indicates that there were technical and/or internet difficulties, which made the conversation inaudible. CARR SMITH: Moving on to Agenda Item number 2. The applicant is SBA Towers, LLC, USE 20-000083. This is an application for a Use Permit to allow the replacement of an existing 326-foot tall telecommunications tower with a new, non-manned telecommunication facility consisting of a 260-foot tall, self-supporting steel lattice tower with related equipment and improvements within a 2,025-square foot portion of a 3.585-acre property situated in the countysorry, I'm hearing, I'm hearing somebody here—situated in the county's Ag-5 zoning district. The subject property is located at 81-1106 Nani Kupuna Place, approximately 1,165 feet east of Hawaii Belt Road, Haleki`i-Kalukalu, Mauka, South Kona, Hawaii, TMK: (3) 8-1-001: Portion of Parcel 026. Christian, would you like to go ahead with your presentation? KAY: Yes, thank you Madam Chair. Welcome, Members of the commission. Thank you for sticking it out today. I'm going to share my screen here momentarily. All right. Can everybody see the screen? Okay. 1 EXHIBIT B As a, as the Chair said, this is a Use Permit application. The subject property is located in the South Kona district of Hawaii Island, more specifically, in the Kealakekua area. The parcel is 3.585 acres, and it's outlined here in red. For reference, we've got Hawaii Belt Road running north-south through the slide, and Nani Kupuna Place up here, this red line, and the property takes access from a 40-foot wide access easement across the intervening property to the subject property. The applicant is requesting a Use Permit to replace an existing 326-foot tall telecommunications tower with a new, non-manned telecommunication facility consisting of a self-supporting galvanized steel lattice structure situated approximately 30 feet to the northwest of the existing tower—sorry. Service providers on the existing tower, T-Mobile, Verizon Wireless, and Pacific Radio Group, will relocate to the new tower with the following components: First, T-Mobile consisting of three sectors with two antennas per sector for a total of six antennas, and nine remote radio units; and, second, Verizon Wireless consisting of nine antennas and 12 remote radio units. In addition to the tower and antennas, the 2,025-square foot, 45-foot by 45-foot project area, will be used for accessory ground facilities, including a new equipment cabinet shelter on an existing eight-foot by 16-foot concrete pad. The project area will be enclosed with an eight-foot high chain link fence with three strands of barbed wire at the top and a 12-foot wide locked access gate. I just want to point out that this is the proposed set up for the fence with the barbed wire. We did receive a comment letter from U.S. Fish and Wildlife and Department, or DLNR, indicating that to protect the Hawaiian hoary bat in the area, we should prohibit the use of barbed wire. So, there's a condition in the recommendation spelling that out, and I've spoken with the applicant, and they understand. Next, the proposed facility will be unmanned, and maintenance and repair activities will be performed by a technician typically once a month within normal working hours. The applicant will comply with all Federal Communications Commission and Federal Aviation Administration rules, including the installation of an LED beacon and tower side lights, as the proposed new tower is going to be over 200 feet in height. Additionally, the facility will not interfere with the county's public safety radio system. The applicant's stated reason for the request is the existing 326-foot tall tower is no longer structurally sound and must be replaced. However, due to the presence of several wireless carriers located on the existing tower, which help provide E911 coverage for the area, the applicant needs to wait until a new tower is constructed to demolish the existing tower. The new tower is anticipated to be constructed within six months of obtaining the necessary permits, and the existing tower will be demolished thereafter. Approval of the Use Permit to construct the new tower and demolish the existing tower, once the proposed tower is operational, will ensure the continuation of E911 coverage and maintain the cell service provided by the tower's existing wireless carrier tenants. Here is the applicant's submitted site plan. On the upper left is just a zoomed-out version showing the subject parcel. The dashed lines coming into it is the 40-foot wide easement. And on the lower right outlined in red, it shows the existing 326-foot tall tower that will eventually be demolished. and outlined in blue is the location of the proposed 260-foot tower, which is again approximately 30 feet to the northwest. Also outlined here, it may be a little difficult to see, is an existing building that will be demolished to make way for the new tower. On the actual property 2 EXHIBIT B itself the existing 326-foot tower is one of three existing telecommunication towers on the property. The existing 326-foot tall tower has been on the property since 1963. There is a second tower located roughly here, which has been on the property since 1997, and that's 150-foot, 152-foot tall tower . And then not shown on the site plan but roughly in this area is a third tower, 140-foot tall, 145-foot tall tower. And all were permitted in one form or another and have been on the property and in operation since 1963, '97, and 2000. Okay. Here is the applicant's proposed elevation plan, and actually, on the left-hand side here is just kind of a floorplan or the detail of the compound, the 45, the 45-by 45-foot project area, and on the right-hand side is the elevation plan for the new proposed 260-foot tower. The zoning for the subject property and some of the surrounding area is Agricultural as is indicated in the light green. Again, the subject property is outlined here in red. Makai of the property and closer to the highway here is Single-Family Residential zoning and Neighborhood and Village Commercial zoning. The State Land Use designation for the subject property is Agricultural as indicated in green, and makai of the property, and consistent with the Commercial and Residential zoning, is Urban as indicated in red. And the General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map designates the subject property and some of the surrounding area as Low Density Urban as indicated in the mustard color, and makai of that is Medium Density Urban as indicated in the orange color, and then some Important Agricultural Land on the bottom right-hand side. The Kona CDP designates the subject property as within a Rural TOD area. Subject property is generally in the location of this star, and the blue line indicates the Rural TOD area as designated by the CDP. Here are some aerial photos of the subject property. Again, the upper left-hand corner is more zoomed out showing the property in this case outlined in a light green color. And you can see some of the uses in the surrounding area—some commercial, multiple-family residential,pardon me, some commercial and single-family residential and other vacant uses surrounding. The closest dwelling is, by my measurement, roughly 190 feet to the northwest of the closest corner of the proposed tower. So that's generally this structure here. On the lower right you'll see a zoomed in portion of the subject property. Again, this is the existing 326-foot tall tower here, the other two tower structure's here, and in red here is the general location of the proposed 260-foot tower. Again, this existing structure on the property will be demolished and make way for the new tower. Here are a couple of photographs of the paved access road entering the property, and then within the property a view of the gravel access road, both between nine and 12 feet wide and in good drivable condition. Again, the use is not expected to generate much, if any, traffic other than maintenance use roughly once a month, or as needed. 3 EXHIBIT B The planning director is recommending approval of the Use Permit with conditions. We did receive, and you should have received, two pieces of testimony in opposition since you received the background and recommendation report from Naomi Melamed and Yoav Melamed, and then as of last Friday, we received about 26 submittals of testimony that were submitted to you and were marked as late. I'm going to get out of, sorry, I'm going to get out of the shared screen now, if I may, let me find out how to do that. Okay, and the reason I'm going to do that is because we also received two pieces of testimony on Friday that were entitled "Opposition to Towers in Kea`au and HPP,"because on our next Planning Commission hearing we've got another tower, but the pieces of testimony were actually meant for the, this particular application. Because you did not receive them, if it's okay with the Chair I'll just, they're very brief, I'll read them into the record so that the record is complete. CARR SMITH: Please do. KAY: Okay, the first is from Duane Vos. He lives at 83-5652 Middle Ke`ei Road, Captain Cook, Hawaii, 96704. He reads, or writes, "I am opposed to this tower upgrade for many reasons, most importantly the movement toward 5G. I understand there is a bill in place stopping the expansion of 5G on the Big Island, this is great. I do, however, believe there is not a significant gap in personal wireless service. Applicants are required to prove a significant gap in service, and there's no such thing. Kona is saturated with cell coverage. This facility is proposed by a site developer, not by a wireless carrier. The site developers do not provide personal cellular service. If there were a gap in coverage, the carriers themselves, Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, would be making this proposal but they are not. Kona has adequate cell coverage. There is no need for more. Thank you for your working on this matter. Mahalo, Duane Vos." And the second is from Laurie Bogart, and her address is 1091 Ewa Place, Kihei, Hawaii 96753. She writes, "I have studied many scientific research papers on the EMF's emitted by 5G towers, and it is alarming the threat they are to the health of all living things. Please do not bring this technology to the Hawaiian Islands. Especially with all the changes in the world right now. Sincerely, Laurie Bogart." So, with that, and the other 26 pieces of testimony you received, that should complete the record in terms of testimony received on this application. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions the commission may have. CARR SMITH: Thank you, Christian. Commissioners? Do you have any questions for Christian? KAY: I see Mike's hand up. CARR SMITH: Commissioner Vitousek. VITOUSEK: Okay, so looking at the submittal, it looks like Section 106 was, was initiated by the developer but the Historic Preservation Division's deadline to respond within a 30-day period 4 EXHIBIT B elapsed. So, they've cleared Section 106 as far as Historic Preservation review. But, has there been any review, Historic Preservation review, attempted under Hawaii Revised Statutes 6E-42? KAY: Yes, thank you for the question, Commissioner Vitousek. As part of this, the review process for this application, we did send a 6E review request to SHPD, and at the time, or at today's date, we have not heard any response. VITOUSEK: Okay. You know, it's unlikely that there's going to be any issues with archaeological sites, but, you know, on an absolute technicality, this tower itself is, is built in 1963 making it 50 years old, which would require review form the Historic Preservation Division's Architecture Branch prior to removal of the tower. I just, I just want to point that out and indicate that that could be a potential condition to be added to the recommended approval that the Historic Preservation Review pursuant to 6E-42 be completed to include a review by State Historic Preservation Division's Architecture Branch. KAY: Okay, I'm happy to entertain that possible condition at the time of a motion, if that's okay. VITOUSEK: I just, checking to see if that's something that you guys would be all right with. KAY: I think that I would have to check back into the requirements. I would defer to your, your knowledge on that, and if that's the case, there is kind of a catch-all requirement that the applicant comply with all federal, state, and county requirements, and I think that if that is a requirement of state law, then, yes, we would be okay with that. CARR SMITH: Anyone else? Maybe this is for the applicant, but, Christian, is this a 5G tower? KAY: I will let the applicant address that. Just my own editorializing here is, to my knowledge, 5G is intended to be more kind of shorter point-to-point communication technology, so on lamp posts, on buildings, and those types of things, whereas towers, these higher towers are more meant for more traditional cell service. Again, I'm not an engineer, and maybe Mr. Myrick can address that a little bit better than me. CARR SMITH: Very good. MYRICK: Yes, sure, Christian, you're on the right path. Normally, you see 5G as more of a small cell development and deployment, more, shorter light pole type utilities, usually under 30 feet. With this particular tower, we looked at the antenna array, and none of the antennas are, support 5G currently. So the, the current antennas on the tower would just be, if this is approved, transferred over to the new tower. And right now, with the information that we have, we do not have any 5G antennas to, that will be transferred to the new tower. CARR SMITH: Okay, very good. Any other questions for staff? (Pause) All right. Thank you, Christian. KAY: Thank you. 5 EXHIBIT B CARR SMITH: Let's move along to the applicant's presentation. Mr. Myrick, would you like to raise your right hand,please? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth before the Leeward Planning Commission today? MYRICK: Yes, I do. CARR SMITH: Thank you. You can tell us whether or not you have read the background report and the recommendation, whether you have any issues or concerns with that, and you can go ahead and start by letting us know your name and where you're from, and who you're representing. Go ahead. MYRICK: Okay. My name is Shamaury Myrick and I'm with Tower Engineering Professionals, and we are representing SBA Towers, LLC for this application, and we are located in Charlotte, North Carolina. I have read the staff's recommendation and I, me and Christian kind of went over it earlier last week, and we have no problems with the recommendation from staff, or the conditions from staff to remove the barbed wire from the compound, and we're okay with everything that staff is recommending. CARR SMITH: Very good. Thank you. MYRICK: And the only thing that I would like to emphasize that again, this is a, we're trying to replace an existing tower that is becoming structurally unsound, so, with, in doing that, RF was able to design the new tower to be lower, to not, to be lower than the current tower and still work at an optimum level, as well asI know there was some concerns about 5G and the health concerns and all of that. Like I said before, we have no knowledge of any 5G antenna to be on this, this tower. And 5G deployment usually is consistent with more of a small cell deployment as opposed to locating antennas or towers. So, that's pretty much what I want to bring to the board. CARR SMITH: So, is there any reason, Christian, that that wouldn't be a condition? They are not aware of any 5G going on the tower, but, should that be something that we need to make sure is what actually happens? KAY: I'm not sure that we have the authority to determine what type of technology goes on towers. I might defer to our corporation counsel on that. We are guided by federal statute from Federal Communications Commission on what we can and can't approve or deny permits for towers or telecommunication facilities for. So, I guess the non-answer to your question is, is I'm not aware that we have the ability to place such a condition on a permit, but I would defer possibly to J on that. CARR SMITH: Very good, thank you. All right, so, does that finish your presentation, Mr. Myrick? MYRICK: Yes, and I'm, I'm here to answer any, any additional questions that the commission may have. 6 EXHIBIT B CARR SMITH: Very good. Commissioners, do you have any questions for the applicant? (Pause) None? Wow, okay. Very good. With that, we will move on to public testimony. The written testimony was mentioned and—hold on, wait,just give me a second here. All right, I know that we have Debra Greene on the line. Rachelle, Mark Hudak, do you know who that is? LEY: No, I don't. HUDAK: Sorry, I'm spectating this with Tower Engineering Professionals. I'm with Shamaury. CARR SMITH: Oh, I'm sorry. Okay, very good. Thank you. Welcome. LEY: So, right now I believe we only have Debra, and she, I think, is going to also speak on behalf of Naomi. CARR SMITH: Okay. LEY: Yeah, the other ones, yeah, I don't think the other ones are available at this time already. CARR SMITH: All right. Debra would you like to—do you have a camera or you're on the phone? GREENE: I am in the online meeting, but I don't have my camera CARR SMITH: Okay. GREENE: hooked up, so I hope CARR SMITH: No problem, no problem. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth before the Planning Commission? GREENE: Yes, I do. CARR SMITH: All right, thank you. GREENE: The noise in the background is not coming from me. KAY: Rachelle, I think maybe you need to mute your phone? Thank you. CARR SMITH: I see, it looks like Tracie-Lee is also not muted. That's the only other one that I see. Okay, Debra, you can go ahead with your three-minute testimony, please. GREENE: All right, thank you. The first thing I want to say is that this represents commercial use of agricultural land, and, you know, there was a lot of sentiments expressed today,just earlier today, about that very thing. And so, here we are. So we're going to see if it ends up being, you 7 EXHIBIT B know, that corporations can do this, no problem, or, you know, and residents and small businesses can't, we will see. The current tower serves the community well, whereas this new facility is well beyond a cell tower replacement. It is a massive steel lattice structure that would take up over 2,000 square feet of agricultural land, soaring 260 feet into the slcy, and it's designed to house multiple cell antennas and microwave dishes. Once this thing is built, they can add to it with more and more antennas, and more and more microwave dishes, and you have no control over that. They don't need permits to add to it, they can add to it till their heart's content. The visual blight caused by this huge structure would devastate the region. They can say that it's currently not 5G, but it will be changed to 5G with a simple software update. That is a fact. So, you know,please be aware of that because the, you know—people have spoken, we don't want more wireless infrastructure. Resolution 278-20 passed almost unanimously by the Hawaii County Council. Please honor the will of the people and our elected officials. This huge massive lattice structure is unnecessary and unneeded. Kona enjoys adequate cell service, so the construction of this is unwarranted. Please review records of dropped calls in the area. These records can be produced with a click of a mouse. The chances are you'll find that there is adequate phone coverage, which is all that is required by the FCC. There is no requirement for data coverage. There is no requirement for any cell carrier to have to provide for people to stream movies on their smart phones,play games on their smart phones, scroll Facebook on their smart phones, which is what this new structure, this new facility, not a tower, this new facility is all about. There's plenty of coverage and no need to build this behemoth. It is not a replacement. This is a completely different animal. So, it's being proposed by a site developer. They're notorious for installing unneeded and unnecessary cell facilities because they build them fast and cheap, and they make money for the life of the facility by collecting rent from their tenants, the carriers. So please ask for proof of dropped calls and coverage gaps. That's all, that's the only way that you will be required to approve this, if there are dropped calls and coverage gaps. And we believe those do not exist. And that means this facility is unnecessary. Replace it with a tower that is the same as the one that needs to be removed. Replace it with the same one. CARR SMITH: Thank you, Debra. Thank you. Okay, does anyone have any questions for Debra? Commissioners? (Pause) No? Okay. I believe, Debra, you're going to provide testimonysorry, my timer is going off—testimony on behalf of Naomi Melamed? GREENE: Yes. CARR SMITH: Okay, go ahead. GREENE: So, Naomi says, "Aloha, and my apologies as I had not anticipated the length of the first item on the agenda and did not make childcare arrangements. I would like to discuss a couple of points in relation - - - I have seen through antennasearch.com, that there are other tower options for service in the area, which are used by the same providers. If needed, it makes sense for another tower to be constructed, but taking up 2,000 square feet of agricultural land and constructing a lattice tower and large facility, which will allow major increase of antenna densification lower to the ground, thus closer to life on the ground nearby, as this structure is not as tall as the one they want to take down, that seems excessive for the area. The FCC is currently 8 EXHIBIT B the plaintiff of numerous cases in court. One of these cases is the Environmental Health Trust, NRDC versus the FCC in which the Hawaii County Council recently passed Resolution 714 in support of the case, stating that they support the claim that the FCC may be in violation of the American's with Disabilities Act, because they do not recognize or make any provision for those who have or will contract radiation sickness from the electromagnetic radiation exposure, establish some process to resolve case-by-case accommodations under the ADA and/or the Fair Housing Act. My condolences go out to all the neighbors of this facility and their decreased property values. I would hope that as unobstructed as reasonably possible, unquote, is indeed honored. Although I read the writeup that this is not a concern, I believe that as the area is heavily vegetated, and there are residential, residences nearby, the concern for fire caused by this facility, which uses high voltage, is increased. A simple search of cell tower fires recorded on the news in the U.S. will yield several results." CARR SMITH: Very good. Thank you, Debra. GREENE: Thank you. CARR SMITH: I appreciate your testimony and thank you for hanging in there with us today. GREENE: It's been a long day. I'm surprised you guys don't have to eat or something. CARR SMITH: We are still, we are still standing. Okay, thank you very much. All right, Commissioners, can I have a motion to close public testimony, please? VITOUSEK: So moved. CARR SMITH: Who was that? VITOUSEK: Mike. CARR SMITH: Thank you. Thank you, I couldn't see you. Is there a second? NEWBERG: Second. CARR SMITH: So, we have a motion by Mr. Vitousek and second by Mr. Newberg to close public testimony. All in favor? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. CARR SMITH: Anybody opposed? (Pause) Okay, public testimony is closed. And, we will move forward. Is anybody ready to make a motion on this? Commissioner Yates, go ahead. YATES: I have a question. Is this something new? Is it a new tower or something totally different- - - CARR - -CARR SMITH: I'm sorry, what, Faye? 9 EXHIBIT B YATES: Is it a totally new tower than what it is there now? Is it going to be sitting - - - CARR - -CARR SMITH: - - -hard to hear you. VITOUSEK: It seemed to me like she asked if this is a new tower. CARR SMITH: Okay. So, go ahead, Christian. KAY: Sure, I can address that. Yes, this is a Use Permit for a new tower that will be replacing an existing tower that has been on the property since 1963. As was represented by the applicant, when the new tower is constructed, the existing service providers that are on the new tower, pardon me, on the existing tower will move to the new tower, at which time the existing tower will be demolished. There is a condition of approval that says within 180 days of operation of the new tower, the old tower, or the existing tower, will need to be demolished. So, yes, to answer your first question, yes, this will be a new structure, new facility from, a shorter facility than what is existing and has been existing on the property since 1963. CARR SMITH: Go ahead, Faye. YATES: - - - CARR - -CARR SMITH: Now we don't hear you at all. YATES: - - - KAY: - -KAY: Would you like to come in here and use this camera? CARR SMITH: You have both of them on your desk? Mark's isn't over there, okay. KAY: Yeah. CARR SMITH: Go ahead, Mr. Vitousek. VITOUSEK: Question for Shamaury. Is it just as possible that the existing cell tower facility could be retrofitted as 5G as the new tower? MYRICK: Yes, they could come back, the applicant could come and update the antennas on the tower. I know the current tenants on the tower right now, as Christian stated, are Verizon Wireless and T-Mobile. If, if say T-Mobile wanted to come back and upgrade their antennas, and I haven't looked at this to see what the county's process is for an antenna mod, but they could apply to the county to, to have that antenna upgraded to 4, uh, 5G technology. VITOUSEK: Got you. MYRICK: But the current antennas on the tower always support LTE, 4G. 10 EXHIBIT B VITOUSEK: Got you. So, I mean, basically, it's just a replacement of the tower. Whether it's a new tower or the old tower, the same technologies could be used. MYRICK: The technolo- - -the antenna. The tower is just the structure that holds the antennas, so the tower has nothing to do with VITOUSEK: Yeah, it's, it's just trying to replace an older tower, and then all the antennas that will be attached to the tower are the area of the carriers, who will be doing what they're going to do with it, correct? MYRICK: That's correct. That's the technology part, yep. VITOUSEK: Yep. CARR SMITH: Go ahead, Christian. KAY: I just wanted to address, some of the testifiers and the testimony that I read indicated about there being sufficient coverage. I did have a coverage map in my presentation, and I apologize I didn't share, but if we need it, I can show it. It's essentially showing what the coverage in the Kealakelcua area would be, at least Verizon coverage, if the tower wasn't there versus if the tower was there. And if you'd like, I can show that and that way you can see kind of the coverage differences as, as to address some of the concerns of the, the testifiers. CARR SMITH: Might as well since you brought it up. VITOUSEK: Now if KAY: Mike, did you want to say something before that? VITOUSEK: Yeah, I just wanted to, to ask for clarification on that. Is that if there was no tower there at all? Or if the new tower was there versus the current tower? KAY: I'd have the applicant confirm, but I think what it's saying is if, if there was no service there, there was no coverage there, without the, without any, any tower, then it would be without any tower versus - - - so probably showing the existing coverage because of the existing tower. But also, when they do those types of studies, they take into account the height of the tower and things like that, so they probably take into account the new 260-foot tall tower. I'll just share this quickly. MYRICK: Yeah, that's correct. KAY: And so what you see here—can you see the screen everyone? CARR SMITH: Yes. II EXHIBIT B KAY: Okay. On the left-hand side, or let me show you on the right-hand side very quickly, this is the rough location of the existing and proposed tower here, again, mauka of the Hawaii Belt Road. On the left-hand side you'll see what the coverage would be without the proposed tower. The purple, the white area is no coverage, the purple area shows poor, and the yellow area shows good, and green would indicate excellent. With the proposed tower, you'll see most of the area is, is in that green color. So, I think that the point that I want to make here is the, the idea that there's enough coverage as it is right now is true, because there's an existing tower there; if that tower was to have to be demolished because of its structural deficiencies, and nothing replaced it, then there would be, it appears there would be a gap in coverage. I just wanted to bring that point up. CARR SMITH: Thank you. Commissioner Faye, go ahead. YATES: Okay, can you hear me now? KAY: Yes. CARR SMITH: Yes, we can. YATES: Okay. Okay, thank you. I'm just wanting to make sure that I understood. This new tower that's coming in is not replacing the old tower. It's a totally different tower. KAY: This new tower will be replacing the existing tower. So the existing tower's been there since 1963. It's at a point where structurally it's unsafe, as I understand it. So, the applicant is proposing to build the new tower first, move all of the service providers' antennas over, and then demolish the existing tower. It's on the same property, about 30 feet to the northwest of the existing tower. YATES: Okay, so the tower that is there now will be taken away, and it will be replaced with the tower that they're proposing now. KAY: Yes, at the end of the day that's how it will work. The new tower will be built first so that there's no interruption in cell coverage, or the emergency 911 system that the existing tower supports. Once the antennas are moved over and the new tower's operational, the applicant has represented that they will demolish the tower, and there is a condition of approval that requires the demolition of that tower within six months of the beginning of operation of the new tower. YATES: So, so in other words, if you don't have this new tower, and they took down the old tower, we'd have no cell coverages or any of that kind of coverage. KAY: At least, yeah, at least with what the applicant supplied us in terms of the Verizon Wireless coverage comparison, it appears as though there would be a gap in coverage in the Kealakelcua area, yeah. YATES: So, is this for Verizon? 12 EXHIBIT B KAY: There, the two service providers right now are Verizon and T-Mobile. What was submitted with the application showing a comparison between the two was just for Verizon. So I didn't see a comparison of the T-Mobile existing versus proposed, but I just brought the Verizon one up as, as an example. YATES: So, the lady who testified, her concern is, was about what? I'm not understanding. KAY: I, 1- GREENE: May I please speak to that? I'm the testifier. YATES: Okay. GREENE: Do I have permission? CARR SMITH: Sure. I didn't know you were still there, Debra. GREENE: I'm here. CARR SMITH: Yeah, if you could briefly respond. GREENE: Yes. Could we please stop the screen share? KAY: Sure, hold on one moment. GREENE: So, what, what I'm saying is that, what is existing there right now is a cell tower, and the proposal, as I understand it, is not for a cell tower; it is for a steel lattice cell, cellular telecommunications facility. And there is a difference between the two. Cell towers are much more slender, and they are pretty much singular poles, whereas this facility takes up way much more space, 2,000 square feet of agricultural lands to be exact, and is designed, by design, the steel lattice structure is designed to continue to have multiple antennas and multiple microwave dishes added to it over time. So you guys will lose control over what happens here, if you approve this. And it is not true, what Mr. Myrick said, that they will have to come back to apply to upgrade to 5G, that is absolutely not true. CARR SMITH: Okay, thank you, Debra. GREENE: I hope that answers the question. CARR SMITH: Go ahead, Christian. KAY: Thank you, Madam Chair. I believe there might be a semantic issue going on here. The existing tower, as I understand it is a 326-foot tall steel lattice tower. So, the new tower is, from a structural standpoint, will be the same type of structure,just a shorter height. GREENE: But it will have a bigger footprint. Why the bigger footprint? 13 EXHIBIT B KAY: Maybe I'll have Mr. Myrick address this, but I believe the 40, I believe the existing tower has a 50-foot by 50-foot footprint, whereas the new tower's going to have a 45-foot by 45-foot footprint. Is that correct, Mr. Myrick? MYRICK: Yes, that is correct. This one will only have a 45 by 45 footprint for the compound for the tower. And just to go into the semantics a little bit, anytime you get above 200 feet, then that's when we deploy a lattice tower. Just from a structural standpoint, it makes more sense. Anything below 200 feet, we call a monopole, and that's when you get the, the one slender pole for the tower design. So, that's, that's the variable, or the threshold when you discern between two different towers, or different tower types, per se. CARR SMITH: Thank you for that clarification. Anyone else have any comments or questions, Commissioners? (Pause) No? Okay. Looking for a motion here,please. I didn't see your hand, Mike. Are you guys pointing at each other? You are pointing the wrong direction, though, from what I see. Okay, Commissioner Newberg, your hand is still up so you go for it. NEWBERG: Thank you, Chair. I would like to make a motion to submit a favorable recommendation for the Use Permit application 20-000083, with the amendments agreed upon and proposed by the Planning Commission. CARR SMITH: Very good. Motion by Commissioner Newberg. Is there a second? VITOUSEK: I'll second, but I just want to clarify that I don't think we're making a recommendation here; I think we are the approving body. Is that correct? KAY: That's correct, so the appropriate motion would be approve as recommended. NEWBERG: My apologies. I would like to make a motion to approve as amended the Use Permit application 20-000083. VITOUSEK: Second. CARR SMITH: Thank you. Is there any discussion? VITOUSEK: The only,just to reclarify, the proposed amendment would be to, potentially, Condition 11 indicating that the Historic Preservation review pursuant to 6E-42 will be conducted. CARR SMITH: Are you in agreement with that, Mr. Myrick? MYRICK: Yes, that's fine. CARR SMITH: Okay. And then the amendment on the barbed wire. Okay, is that clear, Christian? 14 EXHIBIT B KAY: Yeah,just to clarify, Madam Chair, no need for an amendment on the barbed wire, there is a condition prohibiting barbed wire already laid out in the director's recommendation. CARR SMITH: Okay. I think we're ready for a voice, or a vote, Christian, when you're ready. KAY: Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner Newberg? NEWBERG: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Vitousek? VITOUSEK: Aye. KAY: Commissioner DeFranco? DEFRANCO: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Kealoha? KEALOHA: (No audible response) CARR SMITH: Perry? It looked like an aye. Was that an aye? We couldn't hear you. Perry, could you - - - KEALOHA: Aye, aye, aye. CARR SMITH: Thank you. KAY: Got it, thank you. Commissioner Van Pernis? VAN PERNIS: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Yates? YATES: Abstain. KAY: And Chair Carr Smith? CARR SMITH: Aye. KAY: Thank you, Madam Chair. Motion carried with six aye votes and one abstention. CARR SMITH: Very good. Thank you very much. Mr. Myrick, you folks will be provided with a, something in writing from us based on our decision. KAY: Thanks for staying up late. 15 EXHIBIT B CARR SMITH: That's right. Thank you very much. MYRICK: Thank you. The hearing was adjourned at 4:18 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, Secretary Leeward Planning Commission 16 EXHIBIT B