Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTestimony from Donna Durgin Given at WPC 12-07-23 Hearing Current towers serving OV area - MM86 — mono AT&T - Mac Farms — 150' mono 8 air miles to OV Ocean View — Palm Pkwy — 150' lattice less than 3 m to proposed South Point — 200' mono 8 miles OV to SP Pahala — Ka'akaiki Rd — 150' mono Coverage of cell signal 25 to 45 miles — well within these towers — The most demonstrative opposition to this application is that there is no need for additional service in the Ocean View neighborhood. Our current service is fully sufficient and functional. Many times, signals are blocked do to materials and partitions within the home and improvements need to be made within the home as opposed to outside the home. Additionally, we are overlapping coverage if another tower were to be placed in OV subdivision. If coverage is needed for highway and Ranchos — why not put it on a 3 acre parcel in Ranchos and the omni-directional antennas would cover the bottom of OV and the Ranchos area. I have had cell coverage since 2004 and never had a problem. T-Mobile works excellent! New application will overlap coverage in Ocean View and 1 acre parcel is not the responsible site for a cell tower. Close to county park — church (which one website states — The distance needed to reduce exposures down to the General Precautionary Level is often around a quarter of a mile (1320 feet or 400 meters) or more.) So the church would be in this area .... proposed skate park (which is noted in the Kau CDP) — and the surrounding property owners. The area is a bus stop and for community events such as food pantry, distribution of pet food, and many events at the park and church. 'd at a$by Just a note — Federal law and FCC rules are so aligned with the industry that state and local governments are barred from taking action to block cell towers to protect the health of their citizens. These limits are based on known biological effects and are primarily related to tissue heating. The FCC maximum permissible exposure limits were issued in 1996 — thirty years ago and the cell phone industry has made considerable upgrades and frequency changes — so the standards should be upgraded and reported to the public. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 states you cannot deny a tower based on health concerns. The Palm Pkwy tower was installed around 2008 with very little homes in the area. Parcels were sold with the knowledge that the tower was already installed. There are currently only 2 homes in the 500 foot area of notification. Current cell tower on Palm was noted in the application as a 100 foot tower. It has been replaced with a 150 foot tower without input from the community as it was already in place. (page 3 application) Multiple errors are noted in the application. Some were caught by the planning dept and corrections were made. Others are still being made in the applicants paperwork to the property owners. 1- Placement of sign on wrong lot — 2- Page 12 — extending coverage on Daniel K Inouye Highway to cover Ranchos — wrong area 3- Page 14 — AT&T anchor tenant, but requested minimum 2 tenants 4- Photos were of 100 foot tower — had to be revised to 150 feet 5- Our packet to the owners on page 1 referenced a 180 foot tower... Plus many others errors The new application affects 40 landowners including 14 homes — all have been here prior to the application. We can clean up the neighborhood, but cannot hide a 150 foot tower in our backyard. A survey by the National Institute for Science, Law and Public Policy found that 94 percent of homebuyers are "less interested and would pay less" for a property located near a cell tower or antenna. Proximity to a tower is negative. Generally, the closer a property is to a tower, the greater the decrease in price — reduces price by 5-20% (15% average). Valuation of our houses are dependent on the homes condition and replacement costs, but HUD classifies the tower a nuisance. Our land and home purchases are our investment. We are competing with mainland companies who come in and spend money but have very little stake in the results of their changes. Yes, we do need the towers, but WPC should listen to our concerns and suggestions. Also, surveys could rank mobile service as essential — but typical NIMBY. Also, the tower brings negative impact as you can see from abandonment of vehicles, trash and vandalism, as the batteries have been stolen multiple times. Palm tower is also enclosed by a fence. There are 2 towers — 1- Railroad Ave, HPP — 1 acre — USE-17-000074 permit closed 2- 1 acre — Eden Roc Estates — USE-17-000067 also legacy closed These are one acre parcels in which multiple concerns were voiced over the placement of the proposed tower. WPC listened and voted to deny these applications. There was an application in Hawaiian Acres with no opposition and tower was approved. This is what the planning commission should favor is — a community who either wants or does not want the placement. Our petition has over 100 signatures (currently 120) of homeowners who live or people who work in the area, who do not wish to destroy our current way of life. The current cell tower on Palm Pkwy services Ocean View and was just upgraded. If Ranchos and the highway need additional coverage for their area — I think that Ranchos should be the site of the application — especially considering that they have industrial zoning which would accommodate that use without a special use permit. I would suggest some updates - 1- Encourage placement of towers in industrial and commercial zones 2- Require a setback— one foot for every foot height of tower (not 1 'for every 5 foot of height—fire — earthquake —3 acre minimum) 3- Require tower to be built for minimum 2 wireless carriers 5 cell towers have been reviewed by WPC in last 2 years 1- Kurtistown — very vocal opposition — denied then approved — 180' 2- HPP — very vocal opposition — nearby playground — court order AT&T - application revised and then approved 105' (3 acre?) 3- Leilani Estates — little opposition — approved 5G tower on 441 acre property — 100 foot - 2021 4- Saddle Road — close to girl scout camp but little opposition — 6.875 acre property — 5G monopine 105 foot - 2021 5- Kaumana Dr, Hilo — 180 foot monopine on 14.62 acre — neighborhood concerns — 2021 To the County Planning Commission : We ask you to support us in preventing this cell installation near our parks, church and homes. We ask for your help to put a end to this community threat, distracting us from caring for ourselves and our children. We ask for help to keep away from our neighborhood community public space. Thank you for your consideration and attention to this important matter. Mahalo, -- m rn z rn -Z-� D rn C �.. m :gym = O C w m z rn O z 'o V� � nz 0 om cn � zn � C) 0 -I =D '- z C = 0 0 rn pv c 0 M;o rn Ln m > vrn � v�im N ` z = Q n z C � Z _ rn Lzn D—� = DN Q 2 m D p Z N _ z m c D zN „ O D ° moo ' - D ;o D � z+ z = ` Czm m N r F I �; rn _ n -Q__ 1 r) _ A � ~ � mv � �- Z CGzm { � p ZDma m ZG1Z = O � m0Z s � mgo o , N O 'V m t { ° mrn v ! > f R c a = z O to : � bZo o r m o r © r (17 sF