Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-01-07 Windward Exh C AT&T Mobility USE 20-000084 WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT JANUARY 7, 2021 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of AT & T MOBILITY (USE 20-000084)was called to order at 10:22 a.m. via live-stream online meeting, with Chair John Replogle presiding. VIRTUAL ATTENDANCE(COMMISSIONERS): Gilbert Aguinaldo, Dean Au, Joseph Clarkson, Thomas Raffipiy, John Replogle. VIRTUAL ATTENDANCE(STAFF): Malia Hall (Deputy Corporation Counsel for the Windward Planning Commission), Jeff Darrow (Deputy Planning Director), John Mukai (Deputy Corporation Counsel for the Planning Director); Maija Jackson (Temporary Assignment Planning Program Manager), Rachelle Ley (Department Secretary), and Melissa Dacayanan- Salvador (Windward Planning Commission Secretary). APPLICANT: AT & T MOBILITY (USE 20-000084) Application for a Use Permit to allow the construction a non-manned telecommunication facility consisting of a 100-foot tall monopole with related equipment within a 1,050-square foot portion of a 441-acre property situated in the County's Agricultural zoning district. The subject property is located at 13-3820 Pahoa-Kalapana Road (Highway 130) northwest(mauka) of the highway about 0.28 miles north of its intersection with Kam5'ili Road, Kam5'ili, Puna, Hawaii, TMK: (3) 1-3-001: portion of 007. Secretary's Note: "—"means that there were technical and/or internet difficulties which made the conversation inaudible. REPLOGLE: We are going to move on to Item Number Three and the Applicant is AT & T Mobility USE 20-000084. Application for a Use Permit to allow construction of a non-manned telecommunication facility of a one hundred(100)-foot tall — HALL: Sorry John one second. REPLOGLE: What. HALL: One second, Alex, can you please mute the Planning Department. Thank you. Go ahead the conference room wasn't muted. REPLOGLE: — a 100-foot monopole with related equipment within a one thousand fifty (1,050)-square foot portion of a four hundred forty-one (441)-acre property situated in the County's Agricultural zoning district. The subject property is located at 13-3820 Pahoa- Kalapana Road (Highway 130) northwest(mauka) of the highway about.28 miles north of its intersection on Kam5'ili Road, and Kam5'ili, Puna, TMK: (3) 1-3-001:portion of 007. Staff? EXHIBIT C 1 CLARKSON: Mr. Chair? JACKSON: Chair, if you could just give me a moment to share my screen. REPLOGLE: Okay. CLARKSON: Mr. Chair? REPLOGLE: Yes. CLARKSON: I would like to request a three (3) or four (4) minute recess please before staff presentation so, my bladder doesn't interfere with my concentration. REPLOGLE: I think we could arrange that and that will give staff time to get their stuff up. So, we are going to take a 3 minute well let's make it ten (10). We will be back here at 10:38 a.m. Chair Replogle called a recess at 10:25 a.m., and the meeting was reconvened at 10:38 a.m. REPLOGLE: We will now have the staff presentation on AT & T Mobile's request. JACKSON: Thank you, thank you. Can everybody see my screen? Can I get a thumbs up? REPLOGLE: Yes. JACKSON: Okay, so, the next item on the agenda is a request by AT &T Mobility for a Use Permit. The subject property is located in the Puna District, south of the Leilani Estates Subdivision. You can see the Pahoa-Kalapana Road running in a north-south direction through the middle of the slide and the property is on the mauka side of Pahoa-Kalapana Road. It's a large property about 441 acres and the general location of the proposed cell tower is shown by a red dot in the north-east corner of the property. The Applicant is requesting a Use Permit to construct a non-manned telecommunication facility consisting of— AU: Maija, Maija, excuse me this is Commissioner Au. JACKSON: Yes. AU: Just a point of order I noticed Mr. Replogle is off. Okay no and now his on. Oh no, now his off again. I just want to make sure because we want to make sure we have quorum yeah. JACKSON: Yes. AU: Before you move on with your presentation but, it looks like I could be wrong he's off. REPLOGLE: I can hear you and I can see you but, I don't know if I'm off. JACKSON: I can hear you John. Can you hear him Dean? EXHIBIT C 2 AU: Yes, I do. I just see a yellow arrow every now and then at the top of his screen. So, I just want to make sure that we have quorum when we are moving forward yeah. Thank you. JACKSON: So, there may be some communication errors like connectivity. Chair Replogle do you want to wait for Gilbert? LEY: Gilbert is back on. AGUINALDO: I'm here. REPLOGLE: I don't know where he went or what the story is. I can see and hear, and I can make some noise every minute or so you know I'm here. AGUINALDO: I'm here but I can't see you folks. JACKSON: Okay. AGUINALDO: Can you guys hear me? Hello? REPLOGLE: I hear you; I see everyone except Gilbert. AGUINALDO: Let me see. Let me get to this bad boy. JACKSON: I can hear Gilbert. CLARKSON: I have a question for John, is somebody in your household sharing your bandwidth now that they weren't before? REPLOGLE: Yes. That's a possibility. CLARKSON: Just a question. REPLOGLE: No, no, I don't know how that's affecting it, I see the, it shows my video is on green, oh and Gilbert's here. So, we can begin again. JACKSON: Okay, I'm going to start the presentation over again. Just so that everyone sees the location map once again. REPLOGLE: Okay, that's fine. JACKSON: Okay, so the location of the proposed cell tower is shown by a red dot. It's located in the north-east corner of the property. The property is about 441 acres and you see Leilani Estates is the closest large subdivision which is about a half a mile north of the proposed cell tower site. The Applicant is requesting a Use Permit to construct a non-manned telecommunication facility consisting of a one hundred (100)-foot tall monopole and related EXHIBIT C 3 equipment within a 1,050 square foot leased area on a 441-acre property situated in the County's Agricultural zoning district. The monopole tower will be designed to accommodate co-location of antennas for other wireless carriers, and will comply with all Federal, State and County rules and regulations. The project objective is to fill a gap in AT & T's 4G LTE network coverage experienced by customers in Kam5'ili Homesteads, Kalapana, and areas south of Pahoa and along Pahoa- Kalapana Road. The facility will also expand AT & T's 5G network and provide a site for the FirstNet program for emergency responders. This is a zoning map you can see Pahoa-Kalapana Road running through the middle of the slide. The subject four hundred(400) acre property is outlined in red and the proposed location of the cell tower is shown by a red dot. The property is currently zoned Agricultural twenty (20) acres as well as the majority of surrounding properties. The area that you can see at the very left side of the slide with the little tree icons on it that is the Puna Forest Reserve. Its located about a little over two (2) miles west of the proposed tower site. The General Plan Designation for the property is extensive Agriculture which is shown in the white and lands nearby are designated as Important Agricultural Lands mostly near the Kam5'ili Homesteads. This is the Applicant's site plan. The larger image is the smaller version and on the left side there is a zoomed in version. You can see Pahoa-Kalapana Road on the right side of the slide and the proposed cell tower site is again outlined in red. The tower site would be set back about four hundred-twenty (420) feet from the highway and about seven hundred-thirty (730) to seven hundred-seventy (770) feet set back from the north and west property lines. The closest dwelling is located on a property to the north-west and its located about eleven hundred (1,100) feet away. This is the Compound Plan, so this is the 1,050 square foot leased area it would be enclosed by chain-link fence with the green privacy slats, double gate at the front entrance which leads to a twelve (12)-foot wide gravel access driveway. You can see the large equipment cabinet and then the proposed monopole 100-foot tall monopole with the dashed line showing the general radius of where the antennas would extend out to. This is 2 elevations to show you what the tower would look like East Elevation and West Elevation and then we also have the aerial photo the highway runs through the middle of the slide and you can see there is an existing gravel and dirt driveway extending from the highway it leads to the Sanford's quarry's site. Which is on the south west portion of the 441-acre property. So, the proposed cell tower site is shown by the red dot and you can see the closest dwelling is to the north west it's this white house I don't know if you can see the arrow. These are some photos provided by the Applicant the one on the top left shows the entrance from Highway 130 or Pahoa-Kalapana Road to the Sanford Quarry access driveway. Then the one on the top right shows the same view a little further back so that you can see the type of vegetation along the property highway frontage mostly consist of invasive trees and palms. The lower left image is a view towards the proposed site on the access road looking west and then the lower right image is the vegetation around where the proposed site is located to be from the access road. EXHIBIT C 4 These images show AT & T's existing coverage for their network. The left image you can see that there's 4 existing towers in the general lower Puna area and the image on the right shows what coverage would look like if this tower were approved. So, you can see it mostly provides coverage to the Kam5'ili Road area and extends a little bit towards Kalapana, Seaview, and primarily the coverage would be along the Pahoa-Kalapana Road. This is a map showing the alternative sites that the Applicant looked at. There are 2 existing towers shown with the orange triangles. There's a Verizon tower in Leilani Estates and in Nanawale Estates. It's not on this map but there are some towers also in Pahoa those maybe owned by other carriers. For this particular tower site, they looked at 2 other properties one (1)property to the north and 1 property a little bit further down the highway to the south. The Planning Director is recommending approval of this permit with conditions and before I take questions, I want to address one of the issues that came up in the testimony related to Section 106 review for the Historic Preservation Act. The Applicant can go into more detail about how they completed that process but, they did do a 106 review and one of the recommendations that was made by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) was to have an on-site archaeologist monitor any construction activities to ensure that any subsurface resources if they are encountered that they are handled correctly. So, we didn't actually looking through the conditions we didn't actually put that in but that is a condition that could be added if the Commission is open to that to have an archaeologist on-site monitoring construction activities. With that, that concludes my presentation and I'd be happy to answer any questions. CLARKSON: I have a question. REPLOGLE: Yes, Joe? CLARKSON: We recently not recently but sometime ago approved a Verizon tower along the same highway and I'm wondering where that tower would be in relation to this one? JACKSON: Okay, I'm sorry Joe. Did you say the one that was just approved in Hawaiian Paradise Park? CLARKSON: No, no, we approved one just off of Highway 130. JACKSON: Aw, okay. CLARKSON: Not maybe a year or 2 ago and I can't remember I tried to look on online maps there being no comprehensive database of cell phone towers for Hawaii County. All you could do is try and find it. I don't have the old documentation for that application. JACKSON: Okay. CLARKSON: It may have been a year or 2 ago. I should have forewarned you that I was going to wonder about this, but I just hope somebody would remember. EXHIBIT C 5 JACKSON: Yeah. CLARKSON: That tower was to be constructed and has it been constructed and was that considered by the Applicant? JACKSON: I can tell you where the tower was approved, and the Applicant can respond to whether they considered that site. So, if you look at this map it here the tower which was permitted for Verizon is actually located just off of the slide to the south off of Highway 130. So, it would be just off of the slide a little bit further towards Kalapana. CLARKSON: That's what I thought too. I'm just going to make a comment that as AT & T marches their coverage south, I would encourage them to co-locate on that tower if at all possible. JACKSON: My understanding also Commissioner Clarkson is that that tower has not yet been constructed they are still trying to work out some legal access issues before constructing. CLARKSON: Thank you. REPLOGLE: Any other comments or questions from the Commissioners? Okay, we will have the Applicant's presentation by Andrew Tomlinson, J5 Infrastructure Partners an agent for AT & T Mobility, Bryce Novak, J5 Infrastructure Partners agent for AT & T Mobility. Mr. Tomlinson you have the floor. TOMLINSON: Thank you, can everybody hear me? REPLOGLE: Yes. TOMLINSON: Great, thank you. Aloha and Happy New Year Mr. Chair and members of the Planning Commission. As you know I am representing AT & T and I'd like to thank you for considering our Use Permit application for development of the telecommunication facility in Puna. As Maija presented, AT & T is requesting a Use Permit for development of a 100-foot tower with a 1,050 square foot equipment area on the portion of the 41-acre property just off the Highway 130 on a private access dirt access road. I'd just like to reiterate that the facility is not in the Puna Forest Reserve and is approximately about 2 miles away. This proposed facility would meet AT & T's service objectives by filling a significant gap in AT & T's 4G LTE network experienced by its customers and Kam5'ili Homesteads, Kalapana and areas south along Pahoa-Kalapana Road. The facility will provide an important public benefit by including equipment to support FirstNet and I think as you are aware FirstNet is the Country's first nationwide communications platform dedicated to public safety. It represents a giant leap in communication capabilities for public safety personnel and gives first responders access to a highly secured dedicated interoperable network and ecosystem supporting voice data, text, and video communications. Since early twenty-twenty (2020)we've all been impacted by COVID obviously and this hearing is an excellent example of again why we're you know how we're being affected. EXHIBIT C 6 So, access to the internet is even more critically important to Hawai`i's population particularly for rural areas like Puna. Cellular service is sometimes is the only available broadband internet service and is a vital lifeline during emergencies. In addition, there is an expanded demand for telehealth services on Hawaii island to fill the growing demand for remote community health care services caused by the pandemic. Telehealth bridges the gap in medical care for patients who may be unable to physically be present in doctor's offices or hospitals and they also can be reached by specialists that may be off island. Also, the twenty-eighteen (2018) eruption of Kilauea Volcano in lower Puna also highlights the dramatic need for expanded cellular communications in the area for both the general public and emergency response personnel. During this event that dramatically affected the Puna District as we all know AT & T placed a temporary Cellular on Wheels (COW) or a COW in Kalapana to provide basic cellular services to the local community. But AT & T has determined the need for this proposed facility in Puna through a combined analysis of the market demand, service requests, radio frequency engineering design, and input from public safety officials. The proposed facility will provide all AT & T FirstNet customers reliable wireless service in the area which would result in fewer dropped calls, improve quality, and access to emergency 911 calls. Enhance FirstNet coverage will allow for the utilization of priority and presumption of the priority and presumption feature by first responders and wireless applications as referenced by the Hawaii Fire Department earlier in their testimony. This is an example for the Hawaii County Fire Department that uses real time data for emergency conditions to be updated prior to their arrival onsite. Similarly, the Hawaii County Police Department utilizes FirstNet network in concert with County owned Land Mobile Radio (LMR) system to provide communications and rapid data access. Numerous agencies and community members have provided the Commission with letters of support that are included in the application for this proposed facility. The FirstNet authority provided a letter on January 4h, 2021 and in part stated this network has been a top priority for first responders and public safety agencies in Hawaii and throughout the County and throughout the Country, excuse me and has been designed based on their specific expressed needs with coverage and capacity being paramount for this area. The Hawaii County Police Department similarly sent in a letter of support on January 4, 2021 and stated in part that in concert with the County owned mobile land system the Department and its officers depend upon cellular to do their jobs efficiently. In the event of poor LMR reception cellular coverage may provide a vital means of communication which helps ensure officers safety and in turn increases public safety. The area of lower Puna in the area of Leilani Estates and beyond the Kalapana area has intermittent to poor LMR reception. Any improvements in community capabilities in that area would be welcomed by our department. Similarly, the State Department of Health Office of Primary Care and Rural Health submitted a letter on January 4th, 2021 emphasizing the need for expanded wireless infrastructure to support telemedicine as I mentioned earlier. Their letter stated in part that telehealth is being embraced by our organization and other providers on-island, across the State and the country, as a way to provide expanded access to community healthcare. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the EXHIBIT C 7 demand for expanded access to remote healthcare and improved technology is greater than ever. However, Hawaii Island lacks adequate wireless infrastructure to support these advances in healthcare island-wide. AT & T's proposed 4G LTE, 5G, FirstNet tower will provide the latest technology technological capabilities in support of several important public health and safety benefits to the community. Lastly, State Senator Joy A. San Buenaventura also submitted a letter in support of this tower on January 5, 2021. In her letter she explained that in twenty-seventeen (2017) her office conducted an informal community survey asking residents if they think homeowner associations should solicit cell tower or broadband internet towers. Two hundred ninety-two (292)responded that they were in favor of cell/broadband internet towers and with only one hundred thirty-five (135) opposed. She stated this survey is evidence that despite the vocal opposition to similar applications in the recent past, the majority of area residents are in favor of cell towers and increased connectivity. Continued investments toward the expansion of broadband infrastructure are essential for the economic development of the geographically isolated areas in our state. For many rural communities, the expansion of broadband services also facilitate improvements in emergency response capabilities, telehealth services, and quality of education. In underserved areas, the lack of broadband infrastructure has become an increasingly urgent problem, since the outbreak of COVID-19, as many measures designed to safeguard our health require reliable internet connectivity. As noted in the Conditional Use Permit(CUP) application AT & T is amenable to developing a stealth facility to accommodate the request of the adjacent property owners and other community members that have expressed concern about visual impacts. So, we would like to note that the Planning Department recommendation and conditions for approval reference various tower designs a monopole, monopine, and mono broadleaf. AT & T would like to recommend development of a monopine tower for the site as a condition of approval if the Planning Commission is going to require stealth facility and we would like to remove the references to the monopole or broadleaf to maintain consistency. It is clear that public safety will be enhanced by the Commission's approval of the application as shown in AT & T's application package. This proposed project meets all applicable requirements of Hawaii County Code for citing new wireless communication facilities and complies with all applicable State and Federal laws and regulations. AT & T's proposal is also the least intrusive means of meeting its coverage objectives for this site. Accordingly, AT & T respectfully requests the Planning Commission to approve this project as proposed subject only to the County of Hawaii standard conditions of approval. In response to some of the questions brought earlier concerning Section 106 and 6E review of archaeological and historic preservation. A complete review and compliance process was completed in early to middle of 2020. This included consultation with OHA and public notification of request for comments in the local newspaper in March of 2020. The State Historic Preservation office concurred with the finding with the determination that no historic properties would be affected, and this was included in the application package of an attachment eleven (11) and the letter was dated July 2020. I'd also like to point out that as Maija indicated EXHIBIT C 8 that this tower will provide opportunities for co-location for other carriers. So, I just like to point out that AT & T would have available space in the future for other carriers if they desire to co- locate on the pole. In response to the questions about lava inundation as was pointed out the site was not inundated in the 2018 eruptions. This was confirmed by United States Geological Survey (USGS) maps. The area is still forested, and AT & T does in-depth technical study, geotechnical studies of its site prior to final design. The site will have a structural design and foundation built to Hawaii County Code and will be reviewed by the Planning Department and Plan Approval process as well as Department of Public Works (DPW). I think lastly, I'd just like to say consultation for this project was expanded beyond the five hundred (500) foot mandate because AT & T wanted to reach out to more community members. So, we expanded notification to property owners, adjacent property owners within point two-five (0.25) miles of the proposed site as opposed to the mandated 500-foot notification process. We had a communication with a few property owners, adjacent property owners and they are now expressed, they now have expressed support of the project after consultation with AT & T. Again, thank you for the opportunity to present to you folks and I'm available for questions. REPLOGLE: Thank you Mr. Tomlinson. Commissioners any questions for the Applicant? Mr. Au. AU: Thank you Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Tomlinson nice to see you, Happy New Year. TOMLINSON: Happy New Year. AU: So, I guess I had a question for one of the testifiers Ms. Kealoha about the lava situation. It's a fairly new issue that arise you know we've talked in the past with other towers not only AT & T. But we talked about health issues, we talked about fall radius, but I think this is the first- time lava is coming up. So, I think this is a valid point that I'd like to make, a valid question for you. You mentioned just a little while ago something about geometrics studies and that AT & T is willing to do that or if they've done that. I'm actually going through the documents I went through it 3 or 4 times already and I went through it again as you were speaking to see any indication of lava or lava studies. Could you just maybe elaborate that on AT & T's side, and I have a follow up question after that for Maija like if there is any lava requirements with the County. So, maybe if you could go first Andrew. TOMLINSON: Sure, sure. I was referring to geotechnical studies that we do, soils testing, borings prior to design or as part of our design process. So, at this point that is not included in the application process because we have not completed the geotechnical studies. That would be something we would follow up on after and those studies then go into our structural design depending on what it determines what the foundation, how deep it needs to be, how it needs to be, the site needs to be compacted and what not to accommodate the tower. This is all based on County Code. So, these are pretty in-depth studies and so this would be completed then reviewed under Plan Approval process as well as by DPW before construction. Does that answer your question, I'm sorry if you'd like me to elaborate? EXHIBIT C 9 AU: Yes, that answers my question I had for you and yeah Maija if you could just follow up with that and I think I know what the answer is but if you could just talk about if there's any lava requirements in our laws and the County laws. JACKSON: Thank you Commissioner Au. Currently there are not other than like Andrew said any building structural requirements. But I do know that the lava recovery effort is looking at implementing various strategies of whether or not to allow certain development in the area that was affected by the 2018 eruption. So far these are just ideas, strategies being discussed but nothing has been implemented. REPLOGLE: Mr. Clarkson? CLARKSON: Yes, I have a question for the Applicant. Regarding your recommendation for an on-site archaeologist. Do you have any knowledge of the land use history of the proposed site? Has it ever been in any kind of commercial cultivation or has it ever been bulldozed? In other words,just trying to get in my mind that the likelihood of the necessity for an on-site archaeologist. I mean if this is an area that has never had much human impact, I might consider attaching that as a condition. But otherwise, could you expand on what you know of the history of the site. TOMLINSON: Sure. The parcel has had quite a bit of development on it with the quarry down in the area the southern part of the parcel the large quarry operations. This specific piece one thousand (1,000) about 1,050 square foot has not been developed. Its right off the dirt road, access road that comes through the property. Right now, it's still forested with a mix of invasive trees, some ohia in the area so it is not a complete native forest, but it has had some disruption probably because of the road development. But I don't think it's been in agriculture. CLARKSON: Thank you. RAFFIPIY: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. REPLOGLE: Yes, Mr. Raffipiy please. RAFFIPIY: Alright, kind of a two-part question. This is about a co-location off antennas. I appreciate that. The provision in the application to allow co-location. I'm looking at the exhibits to the application attachment number six (6)photos site photos and photo stimulations. I'm particularly looking at the photos of the monopole picture on the sheet 2 of 3 and 3 of 3 where it says the proposed equipment on monopole. So, if this is the picture if this picture here depicts what the actual layout of the antennas is going to be. How would an additional antenna be co- located with that area so crowded? There's going to be an attachment on the bottom of it or will it be extended up and allow the co-location antenna co-located antennas to be installed above it? The second part of the question is if we are going to allow co-location which I would highly recommend that we allow co-location antennas. Will the new provider be coming into Commission to get a permit for to be co-located on that antenna? EXHIBIT C 10 So, first one would be the physical how could they be physically be co-located with the way that they look here and the second is will the second provider be coming in to get a permit? Thank you. TOMLINSON: Yeah, thank you for your question. Typically, what happens in a co-location process would be that they would mount their antennas below the top antennas and there is a buffer space between the lower portion of the antenna and the upper tips of the second what they would call rad center antennas below it about ten (10) feet. So, it would be below the AT & T antennas and in terms of your question about permitting actually there is a discussion of that in recommendations I believe that Jeff and Maija put together. I'll defer to them because I know Jeff has mentioned to me that this is new language that they are including with all Use permit applications for co-locations. Jeff or Maija? JACKSON: Hi, so Commissioner Raffipy if I can direct your attention to Condition six (6). That condition discusses co-location of the antennas on the existing tower and basically it lays out the parameters for AT & T to provide co-location to your carriers. It says that those things can be done within certain parameters without needing to amend this permit They would just need to get an additional Plan Approval but then if they go outside of those parameters of a substantial change as defined by Federal Communication Commission (FCC) then they have to amend the permit before the Planning Commission. RAFFIPIY: Thank you I guess that is what I was trying to get that the definition of substantial change. JACKSON: Okay. I can look that up and get back to you if you'd like? RAFFIPIY: No, not necessarily I just want to make sure that the substantial change would mean extending the monopole which I think that's what it is and a follow up question to that is I would imagine that when the engineer designed this monopole or monopine however it is going to be they already designed it considering the co-location having other antennas installed on here. The load factor and all that's already been included in the calculation for the design for this pole. JACKSON: Yeah, I think Andrew can speak to that a little more but what he did share with me the other day was that the reason AT & T was hoping to design the tower as a pine tree instead of the broad leaf was because the tolerance of wind is higher with the pine design then it is with the broad leaf design. Andrew do you want to add anything to that. TOMLINSON: Sure, the definition of substantial pursuant to Federal Law would be that would be 20 feet and from a structural design standpoint before any co-location is done there is a structural review of every tower that's been in existence. Typically, newer towers yes have capacity to host co-location equipment. In the case let's say an older tower, what typically happens is there's a structural review of the tower and what's proposed for equipment and then in some cases actual modification to the foundation or the structure of the tower is completed prior to any co-location. Making sure the structural integrity is up to code. RAFFIPIY: Thank you very much. EXHIBIT C 11 REPLOGLE: Yes, Jeff? DARROW: Thank you Chair. Just to expound on that so to answer Commissioner Raffipiy's question a little bit more detail. What happens is we are trying to promote co-location and to do that we are trying to make the process a little simpler. When the tower first comes in, they go through a Plan Approval process which looks at the conditions of approval on the permit, it looks at landscaping requirements, setback requirements, height requirements, and make sure that they are in compliance with that. Once that's been established then if they co-locate on the tower without increasing height or width or anything it doesn't make any sense to go through that review again. So, they can go straight to building permit. But now the FCC has added this additional allowance to go from what the permit allows to 20 feet above the height of the tower without what they consider a substantial change. So, if they come in for that then they have to come in back for Plan Approval because they are going beyond the original height that was approved and we have to look at setbacks again. If they go beyond that 20 feet, then they have to come back before the Commission. So, that kind of just spells it out in a nutshell as to the 3 steps that are added now. RAFFIPIY: Thank you very much appreciate it. AGUINALDO: Commissioner Replogle, I have a question. REPLOGLE: Yes. AGUINALDO: For Andrew. REPLOGLE: Mr. Aguinaldo? AGUINALDO: Happy New Year Andrew. TOMLINSON: Happy New Year Mr. Aguinaldo. AGUINALDO: Hi, how are you. Hey, I have some questions to ask. I am very familiar where this cell tower is. Its on the gravel road access to the quarry. Now, are you aware across the street that that was the famous steam vent that you know born and raised in that area for forty- eight(48)years. That was the famous steam vent until it got entirely overgrown right. TOMLINSON: I couldn't hear which is the famous? AGUINALDO: It was a steam vent where people— TOMLINSON: Oh, steam vent. Okay, yes, yes. Sorry, I couldn't hear you. AGUINALDO: So,just making all my Commissioners as well understand that that is where it was located. I know your intention is great a cell service is needed, and I thank you for EXHIBIT C 12 expanding from 300 feet to the 500 feet that is also awesome. Always concerns by the community is location number one. Second is frequency a lot of things with(Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is beyond our knowledge its in your guys expertise. I would like to suggest in the near future that to, you know a lot of people when come to cell tower it's a hot topic a lot of controversy is a lot of things about 4G, 5G, and yes, we always rely on data access and this and that. But is basically nobody is speaking on that behalf to any cell tower provider. One question I have is Commissioner Clarkson indicated we did approve a cell tower going towards Kalapana but they're just working on their access to getting access to it. Now are you guys willing to do a co-location in that area? The reason why I highly stress is we do not want to see a lot of toothpicks, I call them toothpicks cell towers popping up left and right because of that. It would be in the best interest someone step up to the plate and say hey let's be partners. So, we don't see a lot of cell towers. Another one is I wasn't aware that AT & T had a COW. I'm very down during the lava flow how I learned about a COW is my property T-Mobile put a COW and I thought they were joking. What you mean a COW because my grass is tall. COW is Cell on Wheels. So, I wasn't aware, and I'd like to know where was your COW located because the past lava flows Verizon had a COW way down the lava viewing area. So, I wasn't aware that you guys had a COW. Now, the question that I have what made you pick this location? I just looked there is 2 areas Bishop Estates owns slightly close to that area when we're talking about to Leilani half mile. There is 2 properties that Bishop Estates owns and that is fairly a large parcel, it's over two hundred (200) acres and there is no other houses near in sight and there's another one that they own that is the one I'm talking about Andrew TMK: 1-3-009:001. That is one and they also have another one right across the street. Another one where there is no houses nearby and TMK: 1-3-009:002. So, what made you guys pick that location when you can hop on with Verizon down towards Kalapana. I'm sure you are aware of your competitors as well where cell towers are popping up. What made you pick that location versus what I've just indicated. There's another one next to that TMK: 1-3-009:003. Now T-Mobile has a I guess a COW there; I think there's still a COW that they got approval and that is almost over a 100 acres that is right across Leilani. I'm just sharing those areas because I'm familiar with that area. What made you guys pick that area the proposed site versus what I've just indicated. Now is it going to affect signal service, you folks are the experts on that. Have you guys looked in other options because for me as a Commissioner number one important thing is serving our community. That's our job. That's what we vouchered for. HALL: Sorry, Chair,point of order. REPLOGLE: Yes. HALL: If Commissioner, sorry Gilbert if you could let him answer one question before you go to the next question. That would and be a lot easier for us to keep track of what we are on, so. AGUINALDO: Okay. EXHIBIT C 13 HALL: Thank you. REPLOGLE: That's a great idea. TOMLINSON: I think I get where you are coming from in general with your line of questioning. So, I'll answer the first part about the COW location, its down in Kalapana and to be honest I don't know the precise location but it's very much south towards the water. In terms of COW's there they are temporary facilities that don't provide the bandwidth level of service that this permanent facility would provide. So, it's again a temporary solution as would be I would imagine T-Mobile's and Verizon's and so we wouldn't be able to co-locate on those. In terms of the Verizon tower my understanding is as Maija pointed out it's much further south down the road from our location and it's also not built. It being south is a significant factor because we identified these particular areas where we need to cover more north up the road. So, that's why this particular location is chosen, it got the elevation, and exposure to the road as well as pointing down towards Kalapana and gives us connectivity back up closer to our other towers towards Pahoa. If in the future Verizon builds their tower down towards the south and there's a need for coverage down, there those are always considered co-location areas are always considered as part of the process in development. So, this particular location was chosen because it fills the significant gap that's been identified for the area and meets the objectives that AT & T is really specifically trying to identify particularly for FirstNet. FirstNet has requirements that these facilities get built in a timely fashion in the very near future here. So, there's a need to fill this demand from FirstNet in particular as well as other coverage in the area for the general public. That's why we are moving on this location. AGUINALDO: Another one Andrew, would it be, why build it right away? Why don't we like you just said the COW and I'm pretty sure your COW is right behind the old Catholic painted church. We call them by the water spigot down there. So, I'm very familiar with where your COW is located that's why I asked the questions if you knew where your — TOMLINSON: Sure. AGUINALDO: — COW was. How come AT & T doesn't put a temporary COW for now, see if it works the signal or whatever because it's temporary versus just putting up a permanent COW. Not a permanent COW but a permanent cell tower. TOMLINSON: Facility. AGUINALDO: Yeah. TOMLINSON: Because the COW's do not provide the bandwidths and the frequencies for LTE as well as FirstNet. Their basic phone services only so they won't fulfill the requirements that EXHIBIT C 14 AT & T has for the area. So, in essence this facility would be providing permanent service for the area whereas the COW is really a temporary, was design as a temporary facility during the emergency. AGUINALDO: Right, during that time like emergency like lava flow. Now, the 2 sites I indicated with Bishop Estates, Kamehameha Schools. Have you folks looked into that site as well? TOMLINSON: So, we do a very thorough examination of the area and I can't specifically say that because I'm not exactly familiar with the parcel you're speaking of with Kamehameha Schools. But so, we do a thorough examination based off of demand, and our radio frequency (RF) requirements for the network. In this particular case as we have in our RF kind of justification package which are attachments 3 in the application. It shows kind of a, it gives a more in-depth explanation of that process and shows how coverages would be affected. So, we looked at some various properties in the area and Sanford's Service Center was amenable to developing on this site. It is already being used as a quarry site and it is essentially almost about a quarter mile away to the nearest household. So, there was that consideration was taken into account during the process. AGUINALDO: Okay. TOMLINSON: Go ahead, I'm sorry. AGUINALDO: Okay, are you aware from the statement from State of Hawaii Department of land and Natural Resources (DLNR) a document dated July 9h, 2020. The State listed Hawaiian Goose or Nene has a potential to occur in the vicinity of the proposed project site. I do frequently you know when we used to get aggregate up there. They do hang around the area. TOMLINSON: Sure. AGUINALDO: That's something you very very cannot take it lightly Andrew. TOMLINSON: Oh, absolutely. AGUINALDO: It is against State Law to harm or harass these species and if any of these species are present during construction activity then all activity within a 100-feet, thirty (30) meters should cease, and the bird should not be approached. Now, the question is to that is how are you guys going to mitigate that? Are you guys going to hire somebody to make sure? Now if they fly there who's to be accountable to say hey, we got to move away. The Nene goose around the area we got to go away. So, that is kind of like my biggest concern is that. How are you guys going to mitigate that? TOMLINSON: So, as part of our National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA) compliance process or environmental compliance process we do consult with DLNR as you referenced as well as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to determine if there are critical habitats, endangered species in the area as well as historic preservation resources. So, as part of this EXHIBIT C 15 process they identify as you mentioned they identify if there's endangered species like let's say the Nene or in another case there is concerns about`Ohi`a virus. So, we hire biologists prior to any activities, we survey the area again, as per recommendations from the USFWS and DLNR Division of Forestry and Wildlife (DOFAW) for construction work and this is completed prior to our geotechnical work or any other time we're talking trees. Then, as part of the construction process the crews are required per condition to have a briefing on biological security awareness. So that if a Nene is spotted in the area during construction, construction will stop, and they will notify biologists and will notify appropriate agencies and stop work if that occurs. Because yes of course nobody wants to have an interaction with the Nene that's in the area. It would be typical of any other construction projects in that area. AGUINALDO: Okay, thank you. TOMLINSON: You're welcome. REPLOGLE: Are there any further questions for Andrew? CLARKSON: Yes, I have a couple of questions for Mr. Tomlinson. I know that co-location is the second choice of every of a cell company because they always have to prepare, and the co- locator has to put their antennas typically below the original builders' antennas. Therefore, they get considerably less coverage and so if we are going to promote co-location, we need to make these towers as high as possible without being extremely obtrusive. I know that coverage goes exponentially with height. So, my first question is why only a 100 feet rather than say a hundred-forty (140) or a hundred-twenty (120) and well I'll stop there that's the first question. TOMLINSON: So, as part of our analysis for the site it was determined that this was the height that would fill our coverage objectives for target area. Is the short answer so that we look at our coverage objectives from a RF perspective and what's demanded, and this is what would be the height that is needed for AT & T. CLARKSON: What would be your reaction be if we asked you to locate your antennas at exactly the same height, they are not to be located but build a tower 20 feet higher so a co-locator could build above you and also get good broadcast area. TOMLINSON: In terms of design for future co-locations it's difficult to ascertain what a co- locator would require at this point. So, they quite frequently actually carriers co-locate at the second level and sometimes the third level below towers and as Jeff mentioned and we discussed earlier a tower extension could be added on this tower without having to go at approximately 20 feet without having to go through the Use permit amendment. So, there is capability to expand the tower 20 feet if it was required by a co-locator but that is yet to be determined because we wouldn't know exactly what their requirements are at this point. CLARKSON: Thank you. REPLOGLE: Any other questions? Thank you, Andrew. EXHIBIT C 16 CLARKSON: I'll let Dean go first. AU: Chair, I have one more. REPLOGLE: Oh, there is one? Yes, go ahead. AU: I have one more question so, really quick Mr. Tomlinson you guys are aware or AT & T your client is aware the property is in Lava Zone 1 right. You know everybody that buys in it just make sure that you guys know— TOMLINSON: Yes. AU: — it's in there. TOMLINSON: Yes. AU: And just like any other home builder there is a potential that your facility could get damaged. So just wanted to make that clear. TOMLINSON: Oh, absolutely and it's actually one of the reasons why we need to go in the areas cause emergency response because there are eruption events. So, yeah, we are very aware of it. Thank you. REPLOGLE: Any other questions from the Commission? CLARKSON: I just have one. Through the co-location condition in the conditions from the Planning Department and there is no requirement that the structure be built sufficiently strong to allow co-location. I'm going to want to make that a condition of approval that the tower structure be built sufficiently strong in both foundation and mass. That it allows an equivalent an antenna structure to the proposed structure below the Applicant's antennas. So, that should some other company come along and say hey we want to co-locate below your antennas we don't get into a situation that says oh, sorry. This tower can't support more antennas on this site. So, I think one suggestion would be to the Department to include some kind of structural requirement for co-location and then I'll ask Mr. Tomlinson if he has any objection to that condition. TOMLINSON: I think we're fine with that in terms of our design again it's difficult to know exactly what a co-locator would be required to have but the tower will be built to structural to the Code. So, in general it will be fine. CLARKSON: I'm being very specific here. Basically, to duplicate your existing antenna structure at an elevation below the proposed antennas that would be suitable that would not interfere with your antennas but as high as possible without interfering and design the tower to at least to accommodate the duplication of your antennas assuming that other companies would have similar antennas that they would need if they co-located. That's the only way I can think of to have a condition that would be specific enough to be given to an engineer and say yeah, yeah, we can do that. We'll just double the number of antennas and design the tower accordingly. EXHIBIT C 17 TOMLINSON: Okay, I think we can agree to that condition. CLARKSON: Okay, thank you. I'm sorry to say this but, I just have to ask this one more question. It has to do with your call eight-hundred fifty (850) megahertz frequencies 5G in your application. I mean 5G is a very emotionally laden word with a lot of people and I for one can't see how you can get 5G bandwidth without what's essentially low 4G frequencies and yet you are still saying you're going to call it 5G. Can you explain that please? TOMLINSON: In terms of using well the low band 850 frequency would be use for the 5G New Radio (NR) in this particular case and a lot of it is done with software in the radios in the backend which improves the efficiency and the capacity for data throughput in that bandwidth. In more urban areas there are different bandwidths used which covers a smaller distance but has a higher capacity for data throughput whereas in this it would be the low band 850 which is a longer distance but doesn't have as great capacity for data. But the software is in the radio and helped manage the network demand and improve the level of service to 5G. CLARKSON: Okay, you are calling it 5G even though basically its just, okay, I guess. Okay, thank you. REPLOGLE: Are there any other questions, comments from the Commission? Commissioners I will entertain a motion for action. CLARKSON: I'd like to move that the application for Use Permit Docket No. 20-000084 be approved based on the Planning Director's recommendation plus adding a condition that the structural design of the tower be referred to be sufficient to accommodate an additional antenna structure equal to the Applicant's antenna structure which shall be adopted. RAFFIPIY: I second the motion. REPLOGLE: It was moved by Commissioner Clarkson and seconded by Commissioner Raffipiy that the project be allowed to go forward with conditions stated and that an additional condition be placed on it that would require the strength or the construction of the tower to be able to withstand co-locating and equal antenna to the one that AT & T is proposing to place on the tower at this point structurally. Is my understanding correct? Yes, Mr. Darrow? DARROW: Thank you Mr. Chairman,just for clarification and for the record. I know there was discussion about a broad leaf tower and to convert it to a monopine. Just want to clarify that still the direction of the Commission and the Applicant. That it be a monopine tower. Is that correct in my understanding? TOMLINSON: That's what AT & T would prefer if the Commission would be requiring stealth, we would prefer it being a monopine. CLARKSON: Does that need to be added as an additional condition, I somehow assumed that monopine was already part of the application. Please add that as a condition. EXHIBIT C 18 DARROW: Yeah. CLARKSON: I think the monopipe would certainly look better from the road I know the tower is not visible for any residents that's the existence now as far as I know but from the Pahoa- Kalapana Highway would be — DARROW: So, this would be a minor change to Condition 3 that identifies the broad leaf tree, and we would just change it to a monopine. TOMLINSON: Okay. DARROW: Thank you. TOMLINSON: That's fine, thank you. REPLOGLE: Okay, again, it was moved by Commissioner Clarkson and seconded by Commissioner Raffipiy that the project be allowed to proceed that the tower structurally be able to accommodate an equal antenna system to the one that AT & T is placing on the tower and that this tower will be a monopine tower. Any discussion on that motion? AU: Yes. REPLOGLE: Yes, go ahead Mr. Au. AU: I have a slight discussion that I'd like to talk about. You know lava, lava is a question I had for Mr. Tomlinson and I'm not sure if I support this motion and the reason why is because one of the purpose is that the Applicant is pushing this cell tower is for first responders. Okay, what's the point of having this tower if there is another lava eruption and the tower goes down. It's not going to help any of the first responders in the area so, that's why I'm not sure if I support this motion or not. It is Lava Zone One as I explained, and I'd like to hear from Commissioner Aguinaldo because that his district. So, it's just a comment and again I'm on the fence I don't know where I'm going to stand on this motion. CLARKSON: I'd like to add my concern to that, I thought about the same thing when all the discussion of cracks, and steam vents and I remembered our discussions with other cell companies that had had towers fall over because of lava from the 2018 eruption. But, on the other hand I'll say this to Commissioner Au the Lava Zone One is a gigantic area and if we were to say no telecommunication companies should be allowed to take the risk of erecting their towers in Lava Zone One that entire area will never get coverage. I mean, it could fall over from a fissure eruption next month but then again could be a 100 years so, my view what I was thinking when I heard all of this well, if they want to put it there and take the risk that it's going to get knocked over by a lava flow that's on them. We'll let it go until that happen. REPLOGLE: Mr. Raffipiy? EXHIBIT C 19 RAFFIPIY: Yeah, along with Mr. Clarkson his comments. I was thinking about that, but I thought that perhaps that would be addressed in the permit process or plan review process by the Building Department. I would think that Building will be addressing that issue but, I think our concern at this time is whether to allow them to even proceed with a plan to construct this tower. So, whatever that is our concern as far as building and the structurally sound facility and if the foundation is strong, what is underneath there, there's a cavity underneath there, there's a fissure underneath there. I think that would be addressed in the plan review by the Building Department. So, I would be in support of this motion because I think they need it down there. They need communications down that area, and it became very prevalent during this time when there's a lot of kids that I know that the parents have to drive up the road in their van for their kids to have their online classes in their van on the side of the road using the telephone or using their I-Pad or what have you. But I think they need the communication system down there but as far as where they are located at, I think it's going to be up to the Building Department to review that plan and make their comment appropriately. Thank you. REPLOGLE: I would also comment that the Civil Defense is going to be well aware that if that cell tower does go down because of lava the people in the area better be thinking about evacuating immediately and the tower could serve a purpose even going down. Anyway, is there anymore comments? Are there anymore? Okay, if the staff would take a roll call vote please. JACKSON: Thank Chair Replogle. Commissioner Clarkson? CLARKSON: Aye. JACKSON: Commissioner Raffipiy? RAFFIPIY: Aye. JACKSON: Commissioner Au? AU: Aye. JACKSON: Commissioner Aguinaldo? AGUINALDO: Aye. JACKSON: And Chair Replogle? REPLOGLE: Aye. JACKSON: Okay, the motion carries 5-0. REPLOGLE: Thank you Andrew for your time. TOMLINSON: Thank you for your time, appreciate it. Thanks very much. EXHIBIT C 20 The discussion ended at 11:57 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Melissa Dacayanan-Salvador, Secretary Windward Planning Commission EXHIBIT C 21