HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-10-28 Aaron and Tamara Wade TestimonyPL -USE -2024-000028 Written Testimony
Aloha Windward Planning Commission,
We are very concerned that the massive scope of the proposed cell tower at TMK 3-1-2-007-034 represents far too large of a
negative impact on the surrounding "Natural Beauty Area" and adjacent Keauohona Forest Reserve.
Cat PLANNING DEPT
OCT 28 2024 Pm3:5Q
REC') HAND DELIVERED
The proposed scope is also disproportionate to the need for additional coverage. With coverage from AT&T towers at
locations with colocation opportunities, there is already excellent cell service in all of the applicant's target areas.
The permit application asks the applicant to show evidence of diligent effort to colocate their antennas. They only said there
are no options available. They only provide Verizon's coverage maps as evidence of need. This doesn't appear to rise to the
standard of diligence and specific documentation requested. If the only standard for approval is that an applicant has to show
a single carrier's lack of coverage, then doesn't that open the door to unchecked tower proliferation?
It's important that the Windward Planning Commission is fully aware of the extraordinary resource that would be severely
damaged by this project, as proposed.
The picture below, taken frorn a 16 foot ladder facing due west, shows the impact this tower would have on a landscape that
is pristine all the way to the coast. The power lines evident near the tower base show how low the general tree canopy is.
This enormous tower, as proposed, would be an extreme and disproportionate blight that would ruin every future sunset (and
sunrise for those on the other side). There must be a better solution.
Below, the applicant's photo -simulation for an alternate location closer to the highway shows the scale of this tower and
represents how it would look from the new location next to the adjacent subdivision, also represented in the next photo.
PL -USE -2024-000028 Written Testimony
Such an extreme detraction from the area's obvious natural beauty will severely damage a resource that should be actively
protected by the Commission for a variety of reasons ranging from the natural beauty, to the active presence of several
endangered species, to the specific character of the local economy.
For example, an organization seeking to develop an eco -retreat wanted to buy an 11 acre parcel in the adjacent subdivision.
They immediately pulled out of the deal when they heard about the eel tower project. For this specific Lower Puna region,
these sorts of eco -retreats are the dominant players in bringing in significant tourist dollars which translates to regular local
employment and the introduction of new homebuyers and a stronger tax base. This has been the economic pattern here for
decades.
The cancelled deal is a direct expression of the values of the local economy, where cell service is definitely not the priority. It
also speaks to the fact that these parcels abutting both a Natural Forest Reserve and undeveloped state land are specifically
valued for their their peace and quiet and their incredible coastal views. The cancelled deal provides direct evidence that the
proposed tower would immediately devalue property in the area.
The unique character of the subject area is underscored by its historical use. On one adjacent parcel, there are remnants of a
World War II bunker used by the US military to monitor the entire coastline. It has extraordinary views up and down the
coast with line of sight down to the shore (no 150 foot tower required). There is also an historical Hawaiian trail that goes
through the subject parcel and the adjoining subdivision. It was the ala pi'i uka (mountain -ocean trail) used by the Kikala
Keokea ahupua'a for access to fishing and resources at various ecological zones at different elevations.
This area is also home to the Hawaiian Bat and the Hawaiian Hawk, among other endangered species. The Hawaiian Hawk
uses this area throughout the year as a nesting and mating ground. They only produce one egg every other year and multiple
studies show that their reproductive success in the area is highly dependent on habitat quality. (Ciriifin et al. 1989, Kawano
2007).
We simply ask, if the tower has to be here, that the project be brought more in line with the natural character of the location
so as not to disproportionately damage the beauty, the habitat and economic opportunities available here. Because the
applicant previously requested a `monopine' just across the road and AT&T already provides good service in the area with a
100' tower 2 miles away mauka and a 50' tower makai, we request that the tower be reduced to a 100 foot monopine.
Mahalo for your consideration.
Aaron and Tamara Wade
EP
410
c4.
C 3
ba CON PLANNING OrPT
OCT 23 2024 pH3:50
REC'D HAND DELIVERED