The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPD Background Report (Petitioner: Brandy Camacho - Petition for a Declaratory Ruling) -1- BUSE15-056CamachoDecRuling.crk.2.4.26 COUNTY OF HAWAIʻI PLANNING DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND REPORT PETITIONER: BRANDY CAMACHO PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RULING REGARDING USE PERMIT NO. 15-000056 Request for a Declaratory Ruling on the applicability and legal effect of Condition No. 3 (access easement) of Use Permit No. 15-000056, which allowed the construction of a new telecommunication facility, including a 150-foot-tall steel monopole and related facilities within a 1,600 square-foot portion of a 2-acre parcel situated in the County’s Agricultural-1 acre (A-1a) zoning district. The project site is located between 31st Avenue and 32nd Avenue, about 2,160 feet southeast of the Paradise Drive intersection, Hawaiian Paradise Park Subdivision, Keaʻau, Puna, Hawaiʻi, TMKs: 1-5-017:084 and 1-5-017:118. APPLICABILITY 1. The Petitioner has filed this request for declaratory ruling pursuant to Planning Commission Rule No. 3 which states, in relevant part, that “On petition of an interested person, the Commission may issue a declaratory order as to the applicability of any statutory provision, ordinance, or of any rule or order of the Commission.” QUESTION OF RULE OR ORDER OF THE COMMISSION 2. According to the Petitioner, the rule or order in question is the applicability and legal effect of Condition No. 3 of Use Permit No. 15-000056, which states: “3. The applicant shall execute and record an easement over Parcel 84 to provide access to the telecommunication site on Parcel 118 for the duration of the life of the telecommunication facility. A copy of the recorded easement shall be provided to the Planning Department prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the telecommunication facility.” As stated by the Petitioner in her Petition for Declaratory Ruling received by the Planning Department on January 26, 2026 (Planning Department Exhibit 1), she -2- requests a determination as to whether the building permit issued for the telecommunications tower and related improvements is legally defective due to the applicant’s alleged failure to comply with the easement requirement set forth in Condition No. 3. Permit History 3. August 13, 2015 – Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless files a Use Permit application to allow the construction of a 150-foot-tall steel monopole telecommunication tower and related improvements on a 160-square foot portion of a two-acre property described as TMK 1-5-017:118 (Planning Department Exhibit 2). 4. November 5, 2015 – Windward Planning Commission approves Use Permit No. 15-000056 to allow the construction of a new telecommunication facility, including a 150-foot-tall steel monopole and related facilities within a 1,600 square-foot portion of a 2-acre parcel situated in the County’s Agricultural-1 acre (A-1a) zoning district, subject to conditions of approval (Planning Department Exhibit 3). 5. October 17, 2019 – The Planning Department accepts an amendment request from Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless to amend Use Permit No. 15-000056 to: (1) relocate access to the telecommunications facility from 32nd Avenue via TMK 1-5-017:118 to 31st Avenue via a portion of TMK 1-5-017:084, which is owned by the same landowner, Hawaiʻi Pacific Church of the Nazarene; and (2) request a five-year extension of Condition No. 2 (Time to Complete Construction) through November 5, 2020 (Planning Department Exhibit 4). 6. December 26, 2019 – Planning Director’s Background and Recommendation Reports for the amendment requests provided to Windward Planning Commission (Planning Department Exhibit 5). 7. January 7, 2020 –Revised Recommendation and additional conditions provided to the Windward Planning Commission (Planning Department Exhibit 6). 8. January 8, 2020 – Windward Planning Commission approves requested amendments to Use Permit No. 15-000056. Applicant complied with surrounding property owner notice -3- and sign posting requirements and there was no contested case petition filed (Planning Department Exhibit 7 – Hearing Transcript & Planning Department Exhibit 8 – Decision Letter). 9. January 15, 2021: Planning Director issued Final Plan Approval for a non-manned telecommunication facility (Planning Department Exhibit 9). 10. February 15, 2025: Applicant requests a 1-year administrative time extension to Condition No. 2 (Time to Complete Construction) (Planning Department Exhibit 10). 11. April 23, 2025: Planning Director grants a 5-year administrative time extension to Condition No. 2 until January 20, 2030 (Planning Department Exhibit 11). 12. May 24, 2025: Department of Public Works-Building Division issues Building Permit No. PW.B2024-000080 to construct the telecommunications facility (Planning Department Exhibit 12). 13. December 1, 2025 – Petitioner submits letter of formal complaint and request for stop- work order (Planning Department Exhibit 13). 14. December 2, 2025 – December 3, 2025 – Email string between petitioner and Planning Director related to concerns around the Use Permit and construction of the telecommunications facility (Planning Department Exhibit 14). 15. December 3, 2025 – Petitioner emails Planning Director and Windward Planning Commission regarding the proposed telecommunications tower (Planning Department Exhibit 15). 16. December 3, 2025 – Petitioner emails Planning Department and Department of Public Works alleging that a new power/utility pole that was illegally installed on her property (Planning Department Exhibit 16). 17. December 3, 2025 – Petitioner emails Hawaiʻi Electric Light Company (HELCO) alleging that a new power/utility pole that was illegally installed on her property (Planning Department Exhibit 17). -4- 18. December 3, 2025 – Petitioner submits letter to Planning Department alleging that a new power/utility pole that was illegally installed on her property and requesting an immediate stop work order (Planning Department Exhibit 18). 19. December 3, 2025 – Email string between Planning Director requesting the Applicant to respond to Petitioners concerns and Applicant’s response (Planning Department Exhibit 19). 20. December 3, 2025 – Petitioner emails Mayor and County Councilmember with her concerns and requested action (Planning Department Exhibit 20). 21. December 4, 2025 – Petitioner sends emails to Mayor, County Councilmember, Planning Department, and Department of Public Works updating them on continued work (Planning Department Exhibit 21). 22. December 4, 2025 – Petitioner emails Hawaiʻi County Office of the Corporation Counsel requesting legal review, record preservation, and formal request for action (Planning Department Exhibit 22). 23. December 5, 2025 – Petitioner emails County providing email correspondence to HELCO (Planning Department Exhibit 23). 24. December 8, 2025 – Petitioner emails Planning Director requesting County review and corrective action regarding Use Permit (Planning Department Exhibit 24). 25. December 8, 2025 – Planning Director responds to Petitioner email (Planning Department Exhibit 25). 26. December 9, 2025 – Petitioner emails Planning Director requesting a more complete response (Planning Department Exhibit 26). 27. December 12, 2025 – Petitioner files “Proposed Order Granting Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Re Preliminary Injunction” with the Third Circuit Court, naming both the Applicant and the County as defendants (Planning Department Exhibit 27). 28. February 13, 2026 – Third Circuit Court issues orders granting Applicant and County’s request to dismiss the complaint, citing the Petitioner’s failure to exhaust all -5- administrative remedies, including a declaratory ruling (Planning Department Exhibit 28). 29. February 3, 2025 – Applicant submits copy of Grant of Easement from Hawaii Pacific District Church of the Nazarene (landowner) to Horizon Tower Limited Partnership-III filed with Land Court on January 23, 2026 (Planning Department Exhibit 29). BEFORE THE WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI`I, STATE OF HAWAI'I PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RULING (RULE 3-1) RE: USE PERMIT NO. 15-000056 15-1839 32nd Ave) I. PETITIONER INFORMATION (Rule 3-1(b)(1)) Brandy Camacho Mailing: II. STATEMENT OF INTEREST (Rule 3-1(b)(2)) Petitioner is an "interested person" residing immediately adjacent (approx. 30 feet) to the proposed 150-foot monopole. Petitioner's interests are concrete and site-specific, involving the safety of Petitioner's family (including a newborn) and a K-6 school within the tower's fall radius. Petitioner's property rights have been directly impacted by unauthorized utility installation and criminal trespass connected to this project HPD Report 25-109032). III. PROVISION IN QUESTION (Rule 3-1(b)( 3)) Petitioner seeks a ruling on the applicability and legal effect of USE Permit 15-000056, Condition 3, which mandates: "Execution and recordation of an easement over TMK (3) 1-5-017:084 to provide access for the life of the facility... recorded prior to issuance of any building permit". IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS (Rule 3-1(b)( 4)) 1. Non-Compliance (Exhibit 2): Condition 3 requires a recorded easement as a condition precedent to a building permit. 2. Intent of Perpetuity (Exhibit 3): During the Jan 8, 2020 hearing, Planning staff confirmed Condition 3 ensures access "in perpetuity," protecting the facility regardless of property ownership changes. 3. License vs. Easement: The applicant recorded only a Memorandum of Land License Doc T-11439181), which is revocable and term-limited, failing the "life of the facility" requirement. 4. Proof of Breach (Exhibit 1): On Dec 8, 2025, HELCO confirmed in writing that no recorded utility easement existed, proving the Building Permit (PW.B2024-000080) was issued in violation of a condition precedent. V. PETITIONER'S CONTENTIONS (Rule 3-1(b)(5)) Void Ab lnitio: Because Condition 3 was not met, the permit never vested and the Building Permit is legally defective. No Waiver: The 2020 hearing record contains no formal waiver or deletion of Condition 3; it remains binding as written. Public Safety: The 2025 Telecom Amendments (Bill 24) reflect a current County policy that 30-foot setbacks for a 150-foot tower are unsafe near homes and schools. 1 VI. REQUESTED RELIEF Petitioner requests the Commission declare USE Permit 15-000056 void and issue an immediate Stay of Construction to preserve the status quo, as construction is currently paused and machinery has been removed. D Hawaii Jar3Uary,26, 2026. Breindy Camacho 2 F- .z 1J2 I2o2 No. 46932 o RECEIPT DATET cip jr and a hti G = c7, RECEIVED FROM C 'o L DOLLARS g ZE0- o ZU o s OFORR RENT`. o IeC UYa^I R n ( Ru1e 3 1 (Ze,1 S oo;pnl .ISO DOS o 1 CASH IT.ACCOUNT O CHECK FROM TO_______________ 4 Jn 3-11 BAL.DUEMEI IT gaut XY,f h ) r y r8181111.14 BY- EXHIBIT 1 Dec.8 HELCO Email MG ma i I No recorded easement Ref. Dkt. IS Exh.C Brandy Camacho< Im iate Notice — No Utility Easement Exists for TMK 3-1-5-017-084 gr 118 r(HELCF' CannotElEnIzeTowerFacilities) ectro Ica y Iled THIRD CIRCUIT 3eals, Leila < 3CC14fea,63oO t99at 1 24 Pk ro: Brandy Camacho < 09-JAN-2026 08:10 AM Aloha Ms. Camacho. Dkt. 58 EXH Please direct your questions to the County of Hawaii. they regulate land use. review and approve the building permits and can better assist you HELCO is in the process of recording an easement with the landowner and regardless of its absence. has no effect on what is currently going on at the property now: I also don't have any additional updates for you. Thank you, La BEALS M: 08.896-8497 EXHIBIT 2 Use Permit 15-000056 Condition 3 Ref.Dkt. 15 Exh.C Ms. Danette Martin General Dynamics Electronically FiledPage2 THIRD CIRCUIT 3CCV-25-0000499 09-JAN-2026 3. The applicant shall execute and record an easement over Parcel 84 to Bey*ass to the telecommunication site on Parcel 118 for the duration of the life of th cs§tnekation facility.A copy ofthe recorded easement shall be provided to the Planning epartment prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the telecommunication facility. 4. All earthwork activity, including grading, grubbing and stockpiling, shall conform to Chapter 10, Erosion and Sedimentary Control,of the Hawaii County Code. 5. To protect any Hawaiian hoary bats in the vicinity ofthe property,barbed wire fencing shall not be used in the permit area and woody vegetation over 15 feet in height shall not be disturbed, trimmed or removed during bat birthing and pup rearing season of June 1st to September 15th without first conducting surveys for bat nests and coordinating with US Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS)if nests are found. Surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. 6. To protect any Hawaiian hawks in the vicinity of the property, ground clearing, grubbing activities and construction shall not occur in the permit area during hawk breeding season of March 1st to September 30th without first conducting surveys for hawk nests and coordinating with USFWS if nests are found. Surveys shall be conducted by a qualified ornithologist and are only valid for 14 days. Ground clearing or construction shall not occur within 1,600 feet of any active Hawaiian hawk nest during the breeding season. Regardless of the time of year,trimming or cutting trees containing a hawk nest is prohibited. 7. To protect any seabirds (Hawaiian petrels,Newell's shearwaters and band-rumped storm petrel)in the vicinity ofthe property,any lighting shall be fully shielded so that the bulb can only be seen from below bulb height.The lights shall be turned off when human activity is not occurring in the lighted area. 8. To prevent the spread of Rapid `bhi`a Death, a survey of the proposed site shall be conducted two weeks prior to any tree cutting to determine if there are any infected `ohi`a trees. If infected `ohi`a are suspected at the site,the applicant shall contact the appropriate agencies at UH-Hilo and USDA for further guidance. If`ohi`a trees will be cut during construction,the applicant shall follow procedures as described in the comment letter from US Fish and Wildlife Service,dated January 6,2020. 9. To prevent the spread of harmful invasive species, the applicant shall follow biosecurity protocols as described in the comments letter from US Fish and Wildlife Service, dated January 6,2020. 10. Co-location of antennas upon the existing tower and expansion of related support equipment within the project site may be allowed within the parameters ofthe tower height as approved by the Planning Commission, provided that ground lease areas of co-locating carriers are adjacent to the existing ground lease area and not located within the open yard setback areas. EXHIBIT 3 Transcript of Jan 8,2020 Hearing Admissions regarding Condition 3) i°.• Ref. Dkt.48 pg 46-49 AU: Okay, so where are you at with the construction part? Because you've already acquired the land; you got your permit; you're just waiting for this access. So,just share withEragnthically Filed where you are. THIRD CIRCUIT C 25-0000499MARTIN: We already have the tower foundation designed. I plan on coming in ar5'Approval as soon as I get, as soon as I get the written approval from the Commis iSn - 0 6 could probably have this permitted by mid-year, and then we'll have to start appl P AMiities and ordering the tower. It has to come by boat. So, really, realistically, I've bee W el only need a one-year extension. GRODZIN: So, we spent the past year, literally the past year, working on this access revision. That's how long it's taken us to work to design new plans to go through the process to get to today. So, I mean, five years doesn't seem like a long time,but almost a quarter of that was spent just working on revising access. But, like Danette is saying, we do want to build this structure,but now we have to go through plan review, if we get approved today, we still have to go through the plan review process. We have to go through a Building Permit process which, I mean, we'll do the best we can to get through those processes,but some of it is, you know, on the reviewers and sometimes that takes longer than you want. So,I mean, we want to build this thing in the next year, but we can't really, really we can't—we're not confident that we could get it built under today's timeline. AU: One more question. This is for staff or for Mr. Yee and Maija. So,can you just clarify this with me as far as process. So,the Applicant is coming in for a time extension and amendment, but now we're adding on another parcel, so from my understanding,the original special use permit was for one TMK. So,now the amendment is for another TMK. So, is it more appropriate for a new application or is it fine to just do an amendment to add on another TMK for the access road? JACKSON: Typically, whenever we add a new TMK, it can be done through an amendment process. The same public notification to surrounding property owners is done and it includes the additional parcel,so more neighbors are notified. But, it's essentially the same process. AU: Okay,thank you. CLARKSON: Any further questions? REPLOGLE: I have a question, and I don't know if you can answer this,but one of the earlier testifiers mentioned how within their subdivision, there's an AT&T tower, and you're going to put up a Verizon tower. Are you both separate— MARTIN: —Let me address this— REPLOGLE: —or do those overlap? Do we have to have a tower—if I'm Verizon,we got to put up a hundred towers and then we got to put up a hundred for AT&T—? EXHIBIT A 17 MARTIN: Absolutely not. As a matter of fact, each carrier prefersthe Planning Department policy requires us to co-locate, and so if AT&T or some other carrier came in after us, after we got our permit in 2015, they would have need to, they would have needed to show that this tower that Verizon is building couldn't meet their coverage objective. So,that doesn't happen. REPLOGLE: Thank you. CLARKSON: Any further questions? I have one last follow-up question. It relates to the difference between 5G and 4G. My understanding is that the effective coverage range for 5G is not as large as for 4G. Is that a—. MARTIN: Five G is basically an overlay, an overlay to an existing system to reduce capacity. So, it's more like a wifi, so with all the smart phones eating up all ofthe service, they add these smaller antennas and they don't go on towers because we obviously have coverage there,but they usually go on buildings or utility poles, and they're just a wifi overlay. CLARKSON: Well, the— GRODZIN: —You are correct. The 5G— CLARKSON: —The questions I have is as cell companies migrate to 5G, does that mean, meaning more new towers are going to be required because their effective range isn't as far as the old 4G technology, and you're going to have to keep adding new towers? GRODZIN: Not necessarily. So,I mean,this is a different type of conversation, but like I said, I was talking about before solutions, coverage solutions. So, 5G is just a newer—so first of all, the G stands for"Generation"all right so we went from 3G to 4G. It's just a generation of technology. So 5G is a smaller frequency area, but it provides for like higher speeds or higher bandwidth. So,the need for more towers? Not necessarily. So,one ofthe things with 5G that people are looking at or that companies are looking at are just smaller stations, smaller locations where a small 5G antenna would go like on a utility pole or something like that. Not necessarily a-5G does not require, necessitate more new cell towers. CLARKSON: Okay, thank you. But, it would have a lot more smaller transmitters, much more frequently,throughout a community, on buildings on poles. I mean, that's what I've read. I just wanted to see how it affected tower applications, but you're saying 5G will not require more towers than 4G. MARTIN: It actually does the opposite. The way I see it, is it does the opposite because it's, it's creating capacity, more capacity. So,you're adding these smaller antennas so that you don't need more towers. GRODZIN: I guess ultimately, what requires more towers or more locations is more users and more usage of anyone's network. MARTIN: That's right. EXHIBIT A 18 e i GRODZIN: But I can't speak to everyone like AT&T, Sprint,T-Mobile. I can't speak to all their coverage objectives and plans and stuff like that, but that's what really drives the need, is using it. CLARKSON: Thank you. MARTIN: One more thing I wanted to,you know,I want the public to feel safe. So, I wanted to point them to the American Cancer Society's website. They have done their own review of safety, and they have information on that website for their information. CLARKSON: Okay, thank you. AU: Mr. Chair? CLARKSON: Did the audience get that? American Cancer Society website has information on cell technology. MARTIN: That's right. AU: Mr. Chair, I have a question for staff. So,there's, if this access, if this road access is granted for this second parcel, my concern is what limitations does the church have for that property, because it seems like that property is only going to have a road in it, and can you just tell us what's going to happen with that property? Can they sell it? And, if they do sell it, what's going to happen to the cell tower? Do they have to come in for another amendment for a new access road? Can you just kind of explain what could happen or what's going to happen with that piece of property. That's just my concern. JACKSON: So, I also don't know what the church's plans are for the property. It could be used for a house. It could be used for any other agricultural purpose. The property could be sold by the church in the future,and if that does occur,we added a condition, Condition No. 3 requiring _ that the Applicant execute and record an easement over Parcel 84 so that access to the cell tower site can be provided in perpetuity by a future owner. If a future owner purchases Parcel 84,they still have to allow access to the tower. As far as how the church could use that driveway,they also received a Special Permit for the church and so, if their intention is to move some of the church traffic through that property, they would need to amend that Special Permit to add that driveway onto the church Special Permit. Does that answer your question? AU: Yes, it does. Thank you. MARTIN: And, I just wanted to confirm that we already do have a recorded license for this access, for that property, so if it was ever sold,the easement would go with the property. It wouldn't just end. EXHIBIT A 19 N• JACKSON: Could you provide a copy ofthat to the Department, please? For the file? MARTIN: I can provide a redacted copy,yes. JACKSON: Thank you. CLARKSON: There being no further questions and public testimony has been closed. Thank you both. You may be seated. At this time, the Chair will call for a motion for action. DELA CRUZ: Chair, I move that the Commission enter into executive session to consult with its attorney regarding questions and issues. REPLOGLE: Second. CLARKSON: It's been moved and seconded that we go into executive session to consult with the Corporation Counsel. All those in favor? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. CLARKSON: Opposed? Motion carried. So,the Commission will now go into executive session. Everybody is to leave the room except for the Commissioners and their attorney. HALL: And Sarah. At 10:08 a.m., it was moved by Commissioner Dela Cruz andseconded by Commissioner Replogle that the Commission go into executive session to consult with its attorney regarding questions and issues pertaining to the Commission's powers, duties,privileges, immunities, and liabilities, pursuant to Hawai`i Revised Statutes Section 92-5. A voice vote was taken ofall Commissioners present, and motion carried with five aye votes. The room was cleared, and at 10:10 a.m., the Commission went into executive session. At J0:17 a.m., it was moved by Commissioner Replogle and seconded by Commissioner Au that the Commission go out ofexecutive session. A voice vote was taken ofall Commissioners present, and motion carried withfive aye votes. The hearing reconvenedfor regular session at 10:19 a.m. CLARKSON: The regular meeting is back is session, and at this time,the Chair will ask for a motion for action. C'mon guys we gotta take an action. AU: Mr. Chair, I'm prepared to make a motion. I move that the application to amend Use Permit No. 15-000056 be approved based on the Planning Director's recommendation which shall be adopted. EXHIBIT A 20 IasTec Network Solutions August 1, 2015 Duane Kanuha, Director Department of Planning and Permitting Aupuni Center 101 Pauahi Street Suite 3 Hilo, Hawai'i 96720 Subject: Verizon Wireless Telecommunications Facility Use Permit Application for 15-1839 32nd Avenue Kea'au, Hawai'i 96749 TMK: (3) 1-5-017-118 Dear Director Kanuha, Verizon Wireless has constructed a wireless services network on the Big Island and continues to improve service as new customers are added to the system.A new Verizon Wireless tower is being proposed on a property along 15-1839 32nd Avenue Kea'au, Hawai'i 96749 (TMK: (3) 1-5-107- 118). The applicant herein respectfully requests a Use Permit for the proposed new wireless facility per the attached Application and supporting documents. County of Hawaii Use Permit Application Propagation Maps 2 x 3 foot scale drawn plot maps(Sheets A001&A002) Use Permit Written Request with Supporting Documents&Check($500) Note: An environmental report will be submitted shortly after as part of the submittal requirements. The antennas will be painted to blend in, the installation will not alter the character of the surrounding area, and will have insignificant aesthetic effect on surrounding properties. Efficient, reliable, and affordable wireless service to business and residential users is an essential need for people in the Puna community and Verizon Wireless continues to add and upgrade its system for long term customer growth and service quality for this region. If there are any questions please contact us via phone at 808-936-0372 or e-mail at . Respectfully, MasTec Network Solutions 100354 100 Kahelu Avenue, Suite 230, Mililani, Hawaii 96789 COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING COMMISSION USE PERMIT APPLICATION Type or legibly print the requested information) E : 21 APPLICANT: CELLCO PARTNERSHIP,A Delaware General Partnership, d/b/a Verizon Wireless APPLICANTS SIGNATURE: See attached. DATE: 7/27/2015 ADDRESS: do Mastec Network Solutions 100 Kahelu Avenue, Suite#208 Mililani, Hawaii 96789 LIST APPLICANTS INTEREST IF NOT OWNER: Lessee TELEPHONE:(Bus.)(808) 345-3915 Res.) Fax) LANDOWNER(S): Hawaii Pacific Dist Church of Nazarene LANDOWNER SIGNATURE(S): 9+- Gue416 DATE: 08/12/15 May be by letter) ADDRESS: 15-1839 32nd Avenue Kea'au, Hawai'i 96749 TAX MAP KEY: (3) 1-5-017-118 STREET ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 15-1839 32nd Avenue Kea'au, Hawai'i 96749 REQUESTED USE: INSTALLATION OF A NEW TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY ZONING: Al a SIZE OF PROPERTY: 2.00 Acres AGENT: Mastec Network Solutions ADDRESS: Go 123 Terrace Drive Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Attn: David M Lyman TELEPHONE:(Bus.) 808-936-0372 Res.) Fax) Please indicate to whom original correspondence andcoP ies should be sent. ORIGINAL: Agent COPIES: Landowner and Applicant 100354 Planning Department County of Hawai'i Written Statement as part of Application for USE PERMIT Proposed Antenna FacilityY 15-1839 32nd Avenue Kea'au, Hawai'i 96749 TMK: (3) 1-5-017-118 August 1, 2015 Mastec Network Solutions — Agent for Verizon Wireless 100 Kahelu Avenue, Suite #208, Mililani, HI 96789 10035.4 Tables of Contents SECTION 1 SUMMARY INFORMATION 3 SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION 4 SECTION 3 PROPERTY LOCATION 4 SECTION 4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4 SECTION 5 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUESTED FOR TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER APPLICATIONS 5 SECTION 6 INSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS 7 SECTION 7 INFRASTRUTURE CONSIDERATIONS 8 SECTION 8 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS 9 SECTION 9 RATIONALE FOR ISSUANCE OF THE USE PERMIT 10 SECTION 10 CONSISTENCY WITH PUNA COMMUNITY DEV. PLAN 16 SECTION 11 CONCLUSION 17 EXHIBIT A LOCATION, ZONING, PLAT MAP AND FLOOD MAPS EXHIBIT B PHOTOGRAPHIC REVIEW EXHIBIT C LIST OF OWNERS NEIGHBORING THE SITE EXHIBIT D FCC, FAA AND 100 MPH STRUCTURAL LETTERS EXHIBIT E PROJECT DRAWINGS EXHIBIT F TAX CLEARANCE EXHIBIT G LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION (VERIZON WIRELESS) WITH CHECK VZW HI3 Malamalama Page 2 SECTION 1 SUMMARY INFORMATION Applicant: CELLCO PARTNERSHIP A Delaware General Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless 1 Verizon Way, Mail Stop 4WA100 Basking Ridge, New Jersey 07920 Contact: Kate Stilwell Phone: 808-228-3036 Agent: Mastec Network Solutions 100 Kahelu Avenue, Suite#208 Mililani, Hawai'i 96789 Contact: Kate Stilwell Phone: 808-228-3036 Recorded Fee Owner: Hawaii Pacific District Church of Nazarene 15-1839 32nd Avenue Kea'au, HI 96749 Contact: Pastor Joe Crosby Phone: (808) 967-7129 Property Profile: Site Address: 15-1839 32nd Avenue Kea'au, Hawai'i 96749 TMK: 3) 1-5-017-118 Lot Area: 2.0 Acre Parcel Zoning (LUO): Ala State Land Use: Agriculture Special Management Area: No Flood Zone: X VZW H13 Malamalama Page 3 SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a Verizon Wireless as applicant, is requesting a Use Permit pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) section 205 and Hawaii County Code, Chapter 25-4-12 for the construction of a new telecommunications facility which will be located in a two-acre lot on 11-3019 Volcano Road. All equipment will be on a concrete slab or mounted on the proposed tower. The new telecommunication facility will consist of a new 150-foot steel monopole tower, in a 40' x 40' leased portion of a two-acre parcel located on 15-1839 32nd Avenue Kea'au, Hawaii 96749, TMK: (3) 1-5-017- 118 The parcel, TMK: (3) 1-5-017-118 is owned by Hawaii Pacific District Church of Nazarene. The parcel is located within the State Land Use Agriculture District and zoned A-la by the County of Hawaii. According to section 25-4-12 of the Hawaii County Zoning Code, this proposed use is permitted within the Al Zoned Districts with the approval of a Use Permit. In accordance with the above section of the Hawaii County Code, Verizon Wireless is requesting approval of a Use Permit to install a new telecommunication antennas and tower. SECTION 3 PROPERTY LOCATION The subject Property is a two-acre parcel owned by Hawaii Pacific District Church of Nazarene and is located at 15-1839 32nd Avenue Kea'au, Hawai'i 96749, TMK: (3) 1-5-017-118.There is no residence on the parcel and the antenna facility is proposed to be constructed on the northwestern section of the parcel. The property is zoned for agricultural use, and is not fully developed at this time. The surrounding areas to the east, west, north and south are agriculture lands where several of the properties have been developed as residences. The proposed location for telecommunications facility shall be accessed from 15-1839 32nd Avenue via an existing private asphalt access road between the public street and the telecommunications facility. Access to the proposed antenna facility will be fenced and locked so only authorized personnel can enter. The proposed antenna facility and all improvements except for the access road will be within a 40' x 40' area that will be surrounded by an 8' chain link fencing with locked gates to control access to the facility. SECTION 4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The objective of this project is to improve coverage in the neighborhoods for Hawaiian Paradise Park, covering the southwestern part of the neighborhood (which is geographically blocked from a future Ainaloa site). Please see Exhibit A for land use boundary, zoning, tax and street location details. Coverage shall be improved to provide better call quality within the homes as customers depend more on cellular service over land -line telephone services in Hawaii. Lastly, this proposed project will increase data speeds for internet connection,video services and phone applications. VZW H13 Malamalama Page 4 Verizon Wireless is seeking approval of a Use Permit pursuant to 25-4-12 of the Hawaii County Zoning Code to develop the telecommunication facility, which includes installing a 150-foot steel monopole tower with twelve (12) panel antennas & associated remote radio units, three (3) distribution boxes, two (2) GPS antennas and fiber & power cables. Electronic radio & battery equipment cabinets and an emergency generator will be installed on concrete slab within the 40' x 40' leased area. The additional vertical space on the monopole and ground space within the compound will be available for collocation by other carriers, as required by the County of Hawaii. The generator will allow for continued operations during power outages which is critical for safety in emergency situations. The area of the proposed site is an existing undeveloped portion of a two-acre parcel with an office building, meeting/ classroom building, and multipurpose building. The proposed telecommunication compound will include new concrete foundations in the undeveloped portion of the property, which will require the clearing of land zoned for agricultural use. Except during the construction of the proposed Verizon Wireless site, virtually no traffic will be generated by the operation of the antenna site, as it is an unmanned telecommunications facility that requires very low maintenance. Except for monthly maintenance and repairs as needed, the proposed facility is self-operating. Verizon Wireless technicians will periodically monitor the radios, antenna and its appurtenant equipment remotely, and a technician may visit the site on occasion in response to alarm conditions. There are no long-term traffic impacts resulting from this project. The tower will meet the County of Hawaii's 105 mph wind load requirement and adhere to all FAA and FCC regulations. Due to the distance from any airport, lighting of the tower is not required but an application will be submitted per the FAA due to the tower in proximity to a navigation facility. This will be submitted as required by the FAA, 45 days prior to construction. SECTION 5 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUESTED FOR TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER APPLICATIONS In accordance with the County of Hawaii Planning Commission, additional criteria and documentation must be addressed in the establishment of a telecommunication tower. 1. Schematic Plan for Tower Development on the Big Island: Currently Verizon Wireless owns and operates approximately 50 communication sites throughout the County of Hawaii. As a leader in Hawaii's telecommunication industry, Verizon Wireless has an ongoing goal of providing a high level of service to all of our communities including those in lower-populated rural areas like Hawaii County. In order to continue to meet the ever growing demands of the public as well as the private and government sectors for call availability and data speed, it is often necessary to locate antenna facilities near areas where people work, travel and reside. 2. Subject Site' s Role in Overall Plan: The objective of this site is to improve wireless coverage area, improve call signal levels and increase call capacity in the vicinity of the Hawaiian Paradise Park subdivision. The new facility will have an excellent vantage point of the entire Hawaiian Paradise Park Development and VZW H13 Malamalama Page 5 offer excellent signal coverage and call capacity to the area cost effectively. The site will also be equipped to provide higher data speeds to enhance wireless broadband services like video, music and internet. This location was selected by engineers because it allows for the optimum coverage and it was one of the many sites in the area where the landlords wanted a cell site on their properties. The facility is being designed to allow additional future co -location by other carriers. 3. Building Plans: All plans and specifications have been produced by state-licensed engineers at Mastec Network Solutions. Structural calculations and certificate of wind resistance for the proposed tower will be submitted as part of obtaining a building permit with the County of Hawai'i. The site will be designed to meet Federal, State, and County building regulations, and construction and operation of the proposed facility will comply with Federal, State, and County rules and requirements. Please see the attached Exhibit G for the site plan drawing. 4. Design Plan: The new proposed 150' monopole tower is to be constructed of structural galvanized steel and will accommodate twelve (12) 8' tall panel antennas. The tower will also be designed for future collocations of additional carriers. The fenced equipment compound will be at the foot of the monopole with a locking gate that prevents unauthorized access to the facility. The monopole will not be lighted. There will be 6' chain-link security fence with an entry gate. The antennas will be inaccessible due to the height of the tower. Hazard and identification signs will be installed as mandated by the FCC. 5. Federal Aviation Administration Determination: Verizon Wireless will adhere to the Federal Aviation Administration rules governing antenna installation, maintenance, and safety to its facilities. Verizon Wireless will comply with all regulations in the operation of the proposed tower monopole structure. The proposed tower monopole structure currently exceeds notice criteria tower in proximity to a navigation facility. An application will be submitted as required, 45 days prior to construction per the FAA. See Exhibit D. 6. Federal Communications Commission Requirements: Registration with the FCC is not required for this monopole. Verizon Wireless and all subsequent co-locators will be responsible for complying with the radio frequency emission standards set by the FCC. Verizon Wireless has initiated an AM study to determine if the site will interfere with existing transmitters in the adjacent band. See Exhibit D. 7. Statement of Non -Interference: The proposed use will not interfere with the County of Hawaii public safety radio system. 8. Co-location: The proposed installation would allow for co-location on the proposed monopole. Initially, Verizon Wireless will be the only occupant at the facility. 9. Feasibility of Using Existing Towers: VZW H13 Malamalama Page 6 The nearest existing Verizon Wireless cell structure is within five miles from the existing Maku'u telecommunications facility, so the proposed Malamalama site will provide improved Verizon Wireless coverage to the community and higher voice and data channel capacity to meet coverage and capacity requirements for the Hawaiian Paradise Park area. Likewise, the closest non - Verizon Wireless cell structure is within five miles from the proposed site. It was evaluated and cannot cover the area & provide the quality of coverage required by Verizon Wireless. 10.Justification for Height: The proposed Verizon Wireless new 150' steel monopole tower with antenna tip heights at 150' will allow Verizon Wireless provide enhanced wireless telephone service to the agricultural and residential area of the Hawaiian Paradise Park subdivision and reach to the edges of Pahoa, Ainaloa, and Kea'au. This facility will also improve coverage to parts of the Kea'au-Pahoa Hwy Hwy 130) which is well traveled by residents and tourists. The height will allow clean handoff of signals to and from existing Verizon Wireless telecommunications sites. The monopole will meet the setback requirements of Section 25-4-12 of the Hawaii County Code because it is located within a large parcel. 11. Landowner/Community Involvement: The Landlord is supportive of the VERIZON WIRELESS project and will support the notification to the neighboring residents. As in accordance with procedures for filing a Use Permit request, all adjacent landowners within a 500-foot radius of the site shall be notified and provided with information on all application submittal and public hearing dates, as they are scheduled. A sign will be posted on the site preceding the public hearing date. SECTION 6 INSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS A. State Land Use Classification: The State Land Use classification of the subject site is Agriculture. According to HRS Section 205-2 (b), Hawaii Administrative Rules section 15-15-01, and the referenced Hawaii County Code Section 25-4-12, telecommunication facilities are a permitted use within the A-3a District. B. County of Hawai'i General Plan: The County of Hawai'i General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map Designates the subject area as an Agricultural district. The General Plan describes A-3a district as "lands that are not capable of producing sustained, high agricultural yields without the intensive application of modern farming methods and technologies due to certain physical constraints such as soil composition, slope, machine till ability and climate." C. County of Hawai'i Zoning Code: The site of the proposed monopole, antennas and related structures is zoned Agriculture three- acre (A-1a), by the County. Telecommunication sites are listed as a permitted use under Hawaii County Code, Chapter 25-4-12, with the approval of a Use Permit. D. Special Management Area: VZW H13 Malamalama Page 7 According to SMA Arc GIS Explorer Online Map, the proposed site location is located outside of the SMA and not located near the coastline. Therefore, the County of Hawaii SMR rules do not apply. E. Hawaii Revised Statutes, Chapter 205A, Coastal Zone Management Act: The subject property is located within 10 miles from the shoreline. The proposed use of the subject property will not negatively impact recreational resources, visual resources to or from the shoreline, including access to and along the shoreline or coastal ecosystems. Therefore, no scenic or open space resources to the shoreline coastal view plane or coastal ecosystem will be negatively impacted by the proposed action. Please see Section 9 of this application for a more complete discussion of Chapter 205A objectives and compliance. The proposed project will not have any impact on access to the Coastal areas. F. Access: The subject property is accessible from the main city roadway, Kea'au-Pahoa Road/ Hwy 130 when traveling southwest from Hilo. The site is accessed by going east on Paradise Drive into the Hawaiian Paradise Park subdivision, then south onto 32nd Avenue, and then entering the property at 15-1839 32nd Avenue. Access from the public road to the facility will be via a private graded asphalt access road on the Hawaii Pacific District Church of Nazarene property. The subject property is situated around other agricultural zoned properties that are developed with farms and residences. No public access to these areas will be impacted by the proposed action. G. Historic District: The subject parcel is not located within any Historic District. No historic or cultural features will be impacted by the proposed action. SECTION 7 INFRASTRUTURE CONSIDERATIONS A. Traffic/Access: The proposed telecommunication site will be accessible from a paved public road, Volcano Road, to an existing private asphalt driveway from 15-1839 32nd Avenue to the area reserved for development. The project site will be in the southwestern side of the partially developed parcel. See the site map in Exhibit E attached. Minimal traffic will be generated by the proposed project as site visits will occur from approximately one to four times per month utilizing a van- type vehicle. There is adequate area within the site for the vehicle to park during these visits. This is an unmanned facility that is self-monitored. The compound shall be locked an inaccessible to non -authorized personnel. B. Water Availability: Water is not required for the proposed telecommunication tower and related structures. C. Sewage Disposal: There is no requirement for sewage disposal by the proposed telecommunication facility and the related structures. VZW H13 Malamalama Page 8 D. Utilities: Electrical and phone services are available from HELCO and Hawaiian Telcom via existing overhead transmission lines along 15-1839 32nd Avenue. A new private aerial pole will be installed to connect power approximately 375 feet from the new facility to the nearest utility access points. HELCO and Hawaiian Telcom will approve the final utility provisioning routing. E. Fire/Police Services: Both services are currently available in the area. A fire station is located 5 miles away in Pahoa, and Police services are located 5 miles away in Pahoa. F. Solid Waste Management: Construction waste will be transported to the County's land fill by the contractor. No household type waste in generated by the proposed use. Any green waste will be disposed of on-site. SECTION 8 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS A. Surrounding Land Uses: The two-acre partially developed parcel TMK: (3) 1-5-017-118 in Hawaiian Paradise Park subdivision is zoned for Agricultural use and residential and telecommunication facilities are approved uses. The properties to the east, west, north and south of this parcel are currently in agricultural and residential use. B. Flora/Fauna: The parcel is vegetated grasses and sparse clusters of 20-30 foot high trees along the east side of the property. The project area is covered with grasses and bushes in an undeveloped portion of the parcel. No rare or endangered species of flora and fauna were found on the proposed telecommunications site. A letter seeking confirmation will sent to the United States Department of Fish and Wildlife as part of the FCC NEPA process. C. Natural Beauty or Environmental Resources: The County General Plan, Natural Beauty element does not list the subject property nor the immediate area as being an example of Natural Beauty. D. Archaeological Resources: The General Plan Historic Sites element does not identify any archaeological resources on the subject site. No Historic or cultural resources will be impacted by the proposed action. The applicant's environmental consultant will send a letter to the State DLNR Historic Preservation Division requesting a concurrence of"no effect" including supporting documentation. E. Cultural and Historic Resources: No valued cultural, historical or natural resources exist on the subject property and no gathering is taking place. To the extent which traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights are exercised, the proposed action will not affect traditional Hawaiian rights; therefore no action is necessary to protect those rights. VZW H13 Malamalama Page 9 F. Drainage: According to the U.S. Corps of Engineer Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), the subject site is designated "X", an area outside of the 500-year flood plain. SECTION 9 RATIONALE FOR ISSUANCE OF THE USE PERMIT A. The granting of the proposed use shall be consistent with the general purpose of the zoned district,the intent and purpose of the Zoning Code and the County General Plan: The proposed use will not substantially alter or change the essential character of the land and the present use; and the request will not be contrary to the General Plan and official Community Development and other documents such as Design Plans. 1. The Project is not contrary to the objectives sought to be accomplished by HRS Chapters 205, 205A, and the rules of the Land Use Commission. a. HRS Chapter 205: The granting of this request would align with the objectives of Chapter 205, Hawaii Revised Statues, as amended. The State Land Use Regulations are intended to preserve, protect and encourage the development of lands in the State for those uses to which they are best suited in the interest of the public health and welfare of the people of the State of Hawai'i. In the case of the Agricultural District, the intent is to preserve or keep lands of high agricultural potential in agricultural use. The proposed property is presently a partially developed agricultural land with a residential structure. In recognizing that lands within agricultural districts might not be best suited for agricultural activities and yet classified as such, and in recognition that certain types of uses might not be strictly agricultural in nature, yet reasonable in such districts, the legislature has provided for the Use Permit process to allow certain unusual and reasonable uses within the Agricultural District. The subject property is situated within the county zoned two-acre Agricultural district. The proposed telecommunication site would be situated on a 900 square foot portion of the two- acre parcel of land. The proposed use will take minimal lands out of the agricultural inventory for this area and will not significantly affect the agricultural resource of the area. The proposed use will be confined to the 900 square foot portion of the subject property. The proposed telecommunication facility will provide wireless service to the development of Hawaiian Paradise Park subdivision of Kea'au. The applicant shall be compliant with the County policy and will allow other wireless communication service providers to co-locate. Increased growth in the cellular industry is being witnessed because of the convenient and cost-effective telecommunications services for the consumers and for the provider and for the consumer, and minimal environmental impacts resulting from the cellular network. VZW H13 Malamalama Page 10 Cellular service is also part of the civil defense network for the County of Hawaii, permitting otherwise unavailable communications during emergencies when line disruptions could occur, or in areas not served by traditional telephone service. Recently, Hawaii has implanted the Enhanced 9-1-1 service, which increased public safety by requiring wireless telephone carriers to provide 9-1-1 and E9-1-1 capability. This service provides an accurate location for 9-1-1 calls made from a wireless phone. The approval of the subject request would be consistent with and not contrary to the objectives of the State Land Use Laws defined in Chapter 205. b. HRS Chapter 205A(Coastal Zone Management Act) HRS Chapter 205A is the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) for the State of Hawaii. All lands in the State, including the mountain tops, are in the coastal zone management area under HRS Section 205A-1. The objectives of the CZMA is " to preserve, protect, and where possible, to restore the natural resources of the coastal zone of Hawaii" by " maintaining, restoring, and enhancing the overall quality of the coastal zone environment, including, but not limited to, its amenities and aesthetic values, and to provide adequate public access to publicly owned or used beaches, recreation areas and national reserves" by controlling development within an area along the shoreline,the Special Management Area (SMA). In addition the project is not contrary to the objectives of the CZMA as set out in HRS Section 205A-2. a) Recreational Resources: (1) Provide coastal recreational opportunities accessible to the public. This objective does not apply to land outside of the SMA nor to the applicant's requirements for the Use Permit. Therefore the project is not contrary to this objective. b) Historic Resources: (1) Protect, preserve, and where desirable, restore those natural and manmade historic and prehistoric resources in the coastal zone management area that are significant in Hawaiian and American history and culture. I Historic resources are discussed earlier in this application in Section 8. The State Historical Preservation Department has been consulted. c) Scenic and Open Space Resources: (1) Protect, preserve, and where desirable, restore or improve the quality of coastal scenic and opens space resources. Typically no proposed utility facility or telecommunications tower completely avoids visual impacts without excessive expenses that prevent cost-effective delivery of the service. In this case, the property is located approximately 10 miles from the nearest shoreline and the proposed action will not significantly impact any coastal view planes. d) Coastal Ecosystems: (1) Protect valuable coastal ecosystems, including reefs, from disruption and minimize adverse impacts on all coastal ecosystems. VZW H13 Malamalama Page 11 This objective does not apply to land outside of the SMA nor to applicant's requirements for this Use Permit. Therefore the project is not contrary to this project. e) Economic Uses: (1) Provide public or private facilities and improvements important to the State's economy in suitable locations. The economic impacts of the proposed project are consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan as identified later in this application. Such impacts are consistent with this objective. f) Coastal Hazards: (1) Reduce hazard to life and property from tsunami, storm waves, stream flooding, erosion, subsidence, and pollution. This objective does not apply to land outside of the SMA nor to the applicant's requirements for this Use Permit. The subject property is classified as Zone "X" on the FIRM. Therefore this project is not contrary to this objective. g) Managing Development: (1) Improve the development review process, communication, and public participation in the management of coastal resources and hazards. This objective does not apply to land outside of the SMA nor to the applicant's requirements for this Use Permit. Therefore the project is not contrary to this objective. h) Public Participation: (1) Stimulate public awareness, education, and participation in coastal management. i) Beach Protection: (1) Protect beaches for public use and recreation. This objective does not apply to land outside of the SMA nor to the applicant's requirements for this Use Permit. Therefore the project is not contrary to this objective. i) Marine Resources: (1) Implement the State's ocean resources management plan. This objective does not apply to land outside of the SMA nor to the applicant's requirements for this Use Permit. Therefore the project is not contrary to this objective. c. Land Use Commission Rules: HAR section 15-15-01 states that the Land Use Commission's Rules "Shall be liberally construed to preserve, and encourage the development and preservation of lands in the State for those uses to which they are best suited in the interest of public health and welfare of the people of the State of Hawaii." Based on the discussion above that addresses the objectives of HRS 205 and HRS 205A, the applicant believes the proposed project is not contrary to the objectives sought to be accomplished by the Land Use Commission Rules. Increased growth in the cellular industry is expected because of the convenience, cost effectiveness for the provider and for the consumer, and minimal environmental impacts resulting from the cellular network. VZW HI3 Malamalama Page 12 Cellular service providers also provide service to the open ocean areas of the island where many commercial fishermen use cellular service as their primary emergency communication system. Cellular service is also part of the civil defense network for the County of Hawaii, permitting otherwise unavailable communications during emergencies when line disruptions could occur, or in areas not served by traditional telephone service. Recently, Hawaii has implanted the Enhanced 9-1-1 service, which increased public safety by requiring wireless telephone carriers to provide 9-1-1 and E9-1-1 capability. This service provides an accurate location for 9-1-1 calls made from a wireless phone. d. The proposed use will not be contrary to the goals, policies and standards of the General Plan and other Applicable document: The General Plan LUPAG map classifies the property as an Open Area. The proposed use would be consistent with this LUPAG designation. 1. ECONOMIC GOALS Provide residents with opportunities to improve their quality of life. The County of Hawaii shall strive for diversity and stability in its economic system. The County shall provide an economic environment which allows new, expanded or improved economic opportunities that are compatible with the County's natural and social environment. POLICIES The County of Hawaii shall strive for diversification of its economy by strengthening existing industries and attracting new endeavors. The County of Hawaii shall encourage the research, development and implementation of advanced technologies and processes in existing and potential economic endeavors. STANDARDS The island of Hawaii should be development into a unique scientific and cultural model. The island should become a model of living where economic gains are in balance with social and physical amenities. Development should be reviewed on the basis of total impact on the residents of the County, not only in terms of immediate short run economic benefits. New industries which provide favorable benefit -cost relationships to the people of the County should be encouraged. Benefit -cost relationships as used here include more than fiscal considerations. VZW H13 Malamalama Page 13 The proposed use will be consistent with Economic Element of the General Plan. 2. LAND USE Through the careful analysis and examination of past and present situation, the following goals, policies, and standards are set forth to physically plan the lands in the County in the best interest of the island's residents. GOALS Designate and allocate land uses in appropriate proportions and mix and in keeping with the social, cultural, and physical environments of the County. The proposed will be consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. 3. PUBLIC UTILITIES GOALS Ensure that adequate, efficient and dependable public utility services will be available to users. Maximize efficiency and economy in the provision of public utility services. POLICIES Public utility facilities shall be designed so as to complement adjacent land uses and shall be operated so as to minimize pollution or disturbance. Provide utilities and service facilities which minimize total cost to the public and effectively service the needs of the community. Utility services shall be designed to minimize conflict with the natural environment and natural resources. The proposed use will be consistent with the Public Utilities Element of the General Plans. B. The granting of the proposed use shall not be materially detrimental to the public welfare nor cause substantial adverse impact to the community's character or to surrounding properties: VERIZON WIRELESS proposes installation of a telecommunications monopole to improve coverage and communication in the area without substantial alteration or change to the character of the land and its present uses. Land Use Commission Rules do not describe the impacts that must be considered in determining whether a proposed use adversely affects the community's character and surrounding properties. The applicant will discuss several of the potential impacts. The subject parcel is long and rectangular, approximately two acres in size. The property is zoned Agricultural (A-1a) and is also used for residences. The proposed use of the subject property will not adversely affect the surrounding properties or their present uses. The operation of the cellular radio antennas have filter equipment and operate in the microwave radio frequency band, between 700 to VZW HI3 Malamalama Page 14 2000 megahertz. The propagation pattern of the antennas is directed towards the horizon for maximum effectiveness and not downward. Thus the radio frequency energy near the base of the tower is minimal. Reviews of available scientific literature by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) have been conducted. None of these agencies have identified harmful health effects associated with low power densities and the microwave frequency of the cellular radio transmissions. Furthermore, Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S. C. 332 (c), as amended) recognizes the absence of health hazards from cellular radio transmissions and accordingly prohibits local authorities from regulating the placement of cellular structures based on environmental effects as long as those towers comply with the Federal Communication Commission's guidelines. The subject structure is so designed. The proposed monopole and its antennas will not interfere with the police radio band because they are on different frequency bands and all of the receiving devices have filter equipment. The police radio band is at the lower 450-megahertz wave band while the wireless technologies utilize the 700 to 2000 megahertz wave bands. While the microwave frequencies of police radio and some wireless service provider systems could be in the same range, the FCC will not assign the same specific frequencies to both the police department and the wireless service provider. Therefore, users of the proposed telecommunication tower should not interfere with the police department's radio or microwave frequencies. The operation of the telecommunication tower does not generate noise or dust. There will be minimal noise and dust generation during the construction of the required improvements, but this will be mitigated by proper construction techniques, dust control and limiting construction to daylight hours. All construction will be permitted and comply with all applicable governmental regulations. Typically no proposed utility facility or telecommunications site completely avoids visual impacts without excessive expenses that prevent cost- effective delivery of the service. In this case, the proposed telecommunication facility will be located more than 10 miles from the nearest shoreline and will not significantly impact any coastal view planes. C. The granting of the proposed use shall not reasonably burden public agencies to provide roads and streets, sewers, water, drainage, school improvements and police and fire protection and other related infrastructure: The project site will have electrical and telephone service via overhead lines from 15-1839 32nd Avenue which fronts the subject parcel. The project does not need a supply of water. The traffic to be generated by the proposed telecommunications tower is minimal with approximately four trips generated to the site per month. VZW H13 Malamalama Page 15 There are no floodways or drainage ways on the subject property and it is designated by the FIRM map as Zone "X". No wastewater improvements are required. All construction will meet the regulations and standards established by government agencies. No public expenditures for road, street, sewer, water, drainage or school improvement or increased police or fire protection are required. The project will not burden any public agency. D. The proposed use is an unusual and reasonable use of the land, which would not be contrary to the objectives sought to be accomplished by the Land Use Law, Rules and Regulations: Based on the above considerations, the applicant believes the proposed telecommunication monopole, antennas and related structures is an unusual and reasonable use of this land, which would not be contrary to the objectives sough to be accomplished by the State Land Use Law and Regulations. SECTION 10 CONSISTENCY WITH PUNA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN The Puna Community Development Plan cites the existence of rudimentary infrastructure and services in its subdivisions as well as the fastest rate of population growth of all the districts in the County of Hawai'i, presenting formidable challenges to the natural environment and the rational management of development and future population growth. An increasing number of residents expect improved infrastructure. The Plan addresses Growth Management for public services, in part, as follows: 3.1.1 Goals c) Services and community facilities are more accessible in village/town centers that are distributed throughout the region, including the underserved subdivisions that have been experiencing higher levels of development growth. Granting of a Use permit for the proposed monopole will be consistent with the goals and policies of the Puna Community Development Plan's stated goal because of the convenience, cost-effectiveness for the provider and for the consumer, and minimal environmental impacts resulting from expansion of the cellular network. 3.1.2 Objectives e) Target investments in public services and infra-structure to promote the development of village/town centers and, secondarily to serve the peripheral subdivision areas. Granting of a Use permit for the proposed monopole will be consistent with the goals and policies of the Puna Community Development Plan' s stated objective since it permits otherwise unavailable communications in areas not served by traditional telephone service. 3.4.1 Goals c) Infrastructure investment facilitate the growth management strategy. Granting of a Use permit for the proposed monopole will be consistent with the goals and policies of the Puna Community Development Plan's stated goal because of the convenience, cost-effectiveness VZW HI3 Malamalama Page 16 for the provider and for the consumer, and minimal environmental impacts resulting from expansion of the cellular network. 3.4.2 Objectives b) Improve and broaden communications access for a larger number of residents. Granting of a Use permit for the proposed monopole will be consistent with the goals and policies of the Puna Community Development Plan' s stated objective since it permits otherwise unavailable communications in areas not served by traditional telephone service. 3.4.3 Actions e) Encourage enhancement of cell phone service to expand coverage. Granting of a Use permit for the proposed monopole will be consistent with the goals and policies of the Puna Community Development Plan's stated Action since the proposed telecommunication facility will provide improved wireless service to the Mountain View area and the applicant will be compliant with the County policy and will allow other wireless communication service providers to co -locate diminishing the need for additional towers. Granting of a Use permit for the proposed monopole will offer more convenient and cost-effective telecommunications services with minimal environmental impacts resulting from the resulting increased cellular network. 1 SECTION 11 CONCLUSION The relatively recent introduction of the wireless communication industry may qualify the proposed project as an unusual use of property. However, the proposed project is considered to be a reasonable use of land, as it will provide necessary telecommunications service without significant adverse impact. The proposed telecommunications facility will not greatly affect the purpose for which the land is designated. There will be minimal alteration to the landscape. Verizon Wireless seeks to provide optimum service to its customer while working within the guidelines set by the County. The use of creative design provides the opportunity for improved coverage without changing the character of a community. Therefore, Verizon Wireless submits this application and respectfully requests your approval of a Use Permit. VZW H13 Malamalama Page 17 Exhibit A: Search Area Map 1' ProRo'Setl Sjte 'o, O nu'<in w wi` N/•/' ' \I• Plateau '*,' 1.,,' Rte• r• •:•' E c..:. , • Google ear ' VZW H13 Malamalama Page 18 Exhibit A: Street Location Map tea Wiki-Wiki Mart v'8.4 S o, 130) o4 4, Map data 02014 Goog1 , Directions to Site from Hilo International Airport— 1) Head west on Kekuanaoa St (1.5 miles) 2) Turn left onto Kanoelehua Ave/Hawaii Belt Road/HI-11. Continue to follow HI-11 (21.6 miles). 3) Turn left onto HI-130/Keaau Pahoa Bypass Rd (6.4 miles). 4) Turn left onto Paradise Dr (0.1 miles). 5) Take the 1st right onto 32nd Ave Property is on the left side of 32nd Ave. VZW H13 Malamalama Page 19 Exhibit A: Assessor's Parcel Map 4, • 5-17 DI'v e :tile.1 R — ::. 'I r Qr..,,,r, '17.:';Z"...:.: fill u el,« a ',g.":.: u © ,fix-: e e ------8:••L! U "-=='i'i i 6 e .-e a'"-'0 e y',,ke y v---,--k) YQ••'£ xa, `•••e..x'1.0 ;ye- e..--......;,-.0 "a ,. O„ a sa nab 1 1 .,---,e 1,...-e-s- --e #* 0 "rs® .p, .`.'..1a, e ! 0 L7I4 e% b; :.ems:-:K0 maw=0, . -© d asxr'•r^-,-1 ..... f-f-..., a /,,..'PeII:wet..©u r® '^'---- u V in' 2 '%M^ lJ 2 L Sy ; .moi J r u ^ic fl e 0r",,,,p 3 .esti®•-. a 0:.v.© e:!r».• -;0, MT.''"e ..,.F ,.e. ..,.e ,,,, e,,,„ .e ' ii:=Lritel=.p 3 '--e 1-5-17- .""' S 0 :"© 0 c..:e z-a 1 I .. e e w r. a( 11 s e g.:;a;j e a.,..e.i"""re w'"`8 ',.7,,--. e' f p ~,.:;._ 7...-x© s 1 p © -- e . 4CU m =® T: a 1 e Z. 1 _ dSite 1 G. _ A. _ Propane r.n VAMP U. V ami"`.,C @"s,-..y••n..,•c. wr...w n.r. u,, w-.w.a..n...i tAR MAS Por BLOCK "6" KEAAU,PUNA,HAWAII LO C4 App/013,Mop SO su*ITLr TO CHANCE 11161111_ VZW H13 Malamalama Page 20 Exhibit A: Propagation Maps The propagation maps show the following: Exhibit 1A—The area 700 coverage without the new site and the target area circled in red. Exhibit 1B—The plot shows the coverage after the new site is on air. Please also reference the color explanation below: The propagation maps that follow show three levels of service,designated as the following colors: ill Green >=-80 dBm, a level of service adequate for providing reliable coverage inside a building. Yellow>=-90 dBm, a level of service adequate for providing reliable coverage outdoors or inside a car. White>=-100 dBm, unreliable signal strength, not capable of reliably making and holding a call. In addition to the maps, a letter from Verizon Wireless RF Engineering provides an in-depth detail of the sites importance to Verizon Wireless and the community. VZW H13 Malamalama Page 21 vers n wireless 5430 NE 122"d Avenue Portland,OR 97230 July 28th, 2015 Duane Kanuha, Director County of Hawai'i Planning Department Aupuni Center 101 Pauahi Street Suite 3 Hilo,Hawai'i 96720 Dear Mr. Kanuha: This letter will serve to justify a proposed Verizon Wireless site called H13 Malamalama to be located at 15-1972, Kea'au,HI 96749.The proposed location was chosen by Verizon Wireless to improve the quality of voice and data services as well as 911 services, for its customers living a large geographic area between the towns of Kea'au and Pahoa and largely east of the Kea'au-Pahoa Raod. Design Criteria & Results When designing an existing or new coverage expansion area(s),Verizon Wireless will first attempt to utilize an existing tower or structure for collocation at the desired antenna height. If an existing tower or structure is not available or not attainable because of space constraints or unreliable structural design,Verizon Wireless will propose a new site. In this instance our real estate group with the help of outside consultants,did several searches and concluded there was not an existing structure nearby. Verizon does have an active project call H13 Ainaloa located to the southwest of the proposed site. However the Ainaloa site and Verizon's on air Puna site are too far away to provide good 4G data services to the targeted neighborhoods. To analyze our network design, Verizon Wireless uses a propriety Radio Frequency(RF) propagation tool called"Geoplan". Our objective is to improve call quality and data through put speeds. A plot(s)of our propose network coverage expansion without the H13 Malamalama tower is shown in Exhibit 1A. The dotted polygon in Exhibit lA depicts average to poor 4G RF coverage for that area. The green represents a high RF signal strength which generally provides good coverage and data speeds, inside vehicles and buildings. Yellow represents moderate RF signal strength that generally provides good service and data speeds inside vehicles and moderate service inside buildings. The white areas represent RF signals that generally provide poor quality of service particularly inside buildings, but fair service in vehicles or outdoor coverage. Exhibit 1B depicts Verizon's coverage with the proposed HI3 Malamalama site integrated into our network system for that area. The exhibit clearly shows the proposed location improving a large density populated area east of the Kea'au-Pahoa Road. Verizon Wireless strives for a network design that provides high RF signal strength resulting in quality service inside buildings and vehicles, as indicated by the purple areas, for a particular area and environs. Please note that higher RF signal strengths such as those mentioned above promote reliable voice calls and higher data speeds throughout a given licensed area. Summary The proposed site is a necessary communication facility as it provides the desired public service needed to complete the Verizon Wireless network in the area and to comply with the obligations of our FCC license. This site once built and operational will provide necessary public voice and data, including 911 services. Sincerely, Do as B'ier ry&II Douglas Briedwell Verizon Wireless 503)408-3404 Exhibit 1A Ill Nib S4A's, mbh,Vie III NI P/ Ali NI% b ip, 114k6" A. 144 Att-6*iis A0 I -z -. II fie ifbto 4, 11,11 11 4.. 1 I t* AVI r is b, % 111Sto PL/ts44/ ariO 1046 lott iir 1i 17 id.: t 0 kiiip, i-.^ Nt. '41144? 16 akripio- i , . . attida I" hs. %. . 16 , r . ,, _ , 1 44- VAik. -- i .' 1114' f ii a-- illkExhibit 1 B `` - 1` 1111 -4, 1111111 ' N3111111Ni abli kJ 11114I Ilk `kaArglilk ai4 i6: 1411, crw II11: 111, " %I Illip..40oNi i` Ili 41 r.,,,i. I train kili Ili3 gill a Oil , ' - -,. -T:1'07., i: ,. , ' ok les411100s. A lib It a ENV ri 11 P . s .,:A i litdp.... rill ...- 1 144k 4 i 16 IP 11‘. . 1 4‘k t.. iv a 10 : 1 i iiN ir VA • i r Mill alliti.E Exhibit B: Photographic Review Overall Site Area Prcposed Leaf -+.._.._I Area ill j i 0.) Lf •E i II,' ' t . r it Property/ Site Access (From 32nd Avenue) Witt i...vAti -.= Iiiiiiiiim, .1.,..... to lila.I =ill-( dipammiA VZW H13 Malamalama Page 26 Exhibit B: Photographic Review Looking West towards Site (Approx. Location) 1,010,01., off 1 4t, ,,,,,../. L.,.-:f S.,. .0 ' 1 r I r • 0 rt Ir orar r- a41.i:'. Looking South towards Site (Approx. Location) I Al f r. ' Mjj 4" t d - r ' 4 Proposed Lease Area t' rr — r_ Matt ` . y,,. -P i'. VZW H13 Malamalama Page 27 Exhibit B: Photographic Review Looking East from Site (Approx. Location) l F`,' 3 111s+a •/` Ff Y'i4 '' l 1 P t^` I iia 3111S.` f i„. I r • ' . •. rn„ «,f c1••, Pr a 3`'a wlfaV. r So lxi. W4'.. ti' i t4i4tc .1. d , k 1 \rad Itt' t 3sr. . a. 1 l' ,f' , !, '4, ':. 1:kt. ''''''s ',I.: i...'4 441 rit4t. -.4',,i v.'i 0:0\4'4. n,' f i r v.a iat^tt` `-'I}'.`of ' ' • Looking North towards Site (Approx. Location) a 41 ' :if 44 t o l O ,,, 1. j 1 ' p a•_ - ;.1,rI t•i r. • • + St.,.-..qt• fix'.', kr. tiProposedLeaseAreaft. It r 1 a`r'''''. ''''4 7`3.;'1 y' 70rrtl.ta' VZW H13 Malamalama Page 28 Exhibit B: Photographic Review Nearest Source for Power & TeIc° 440:,..i I I - Power:HELCO f.- I d.,,' .0' 4101, 4 i 11 I, ill ilk•x, 11 V ifi e: 141 x, t iii 1/ At Power: HELCO Power Pole# 130865 w/ Telco: Hawaiian Telcom Demarc Box#1479. Transformer. Distance to lease area: 300'-0". Distance to lease area: 300'-0". VZW H13 Malamalama Page 29 Exhibit C: List of Owners Neighboring the Site Note the following land owners within 300'-0" of the subject property TMK: (3) 1-5-017-118: Austin John& Elaine Angella Mauch Rodney Seu Hong Young Trust Uilani Jacquene Grace Granito c/o Mail&Ship 415 Haleloa Place,Apt C Alice Kealohilani Granito 16-566 Kea'au-Pahoa Rd,Ste 188 Honolulu, HI 96821-2249 PO Box 630440 Kea'au, HI 96749-8137 Property: (3) 1-5-017-115 Lanai City, HI 96763-0440 Property: (3) 1-5-017-081 Property: (3) 1-5-017-124 Cloud Marea McCann Donald J & Patricia A Pirch Trust Randolph A& Elaine Baltero 10023 242"d Place SW 205 Oak Street PO Box 1477 Edmonds, WA 98020-5748 Spring Valley, IL 61362-2322 Kea'au, HI 96749-1477 Property: (3) 1-5-017-082 Property: (3) 1-5-017-116 Property: (3) 1-5-017-125 Cloud Marea McCann Villamor Evera Gani Denise Van Franklin 10023 242nd Place SW PO Box 4942 Sach Dang&Van Bach Ho Edmonds,WA 98020-5748 Hilo, HI 96720-0942 4115 Briarchase Drive Property: (3) 1-5-017-083 Property: (3) 1-5-017-119 Houston,TX 77014-1813 Property: (3) 1-5-017-126 Hawaii Pacific District Andy Tagavilla Padilla Everett Ikaika Dwyer Hesia Church of Nazarene Estelita Reyes Padilla PO Box 6371 HC 3 Box 13519 2416 S Trail Ct Hilo, HI 96720-8927 Kea'au, HI 96749-9211 Chula Vista, CA 91914-4165 Property: (3) 1-5-017-127 Property: (3) 1-5-017-084 Property: (3) 1-5-017-120 Jason Kiha Piilani Lester& Natasha Alexandria Tsung Ying Luk Stacey Kapuaokalani Kaaua Nicole Ly-Ching Mealoha Lester The Farmhouse PO Box 208 PO Box 492408 44 Papermill Road Papaikou, HI 96781-0208 Kea'au, HI 96749-2408 Newtown Square, PA 19073-1804 Property: (3) 1-5-016-140 Property: (3) 1-5-017-085 Property: (3) 1-5-017-121 Michael F Lynch Trust Alexandria Tsung Ying Luk Joseph Julian Feliciano,Jr. PO Box 490 The Farmhouse Daijah Hokulani Aloha Pagay Kea'au, HI 96749-0490 44 Papermill Road PO Box 5283 Property: (3) 1-5-017-086 Newtown Square, PA 19073-1804 Hilo, HI 96720-8283 Property: (3) 1-5-017-122 Property: (3) 1-5-016-101 B-V Educational Trust Virginia Tee Lee Charles Jenks&Jeannie Akalia Bargas 1342 Kilauea Avenue 879 Hartglen Avenue HC 2 Box 6062 Hilo, HI 96720 Westlake Village, CA 91361-2026 Kea'au, HI 96749 Property: (3) 1-5-017-087 Property: (3) 1-5-017-123 Property: (3) 1-5-016-100 Joesph S Dalrymple 15-1326 Kahakai Blvd. Pahoa, HI 96778 Property: (3) 1-5-017-114 VZW H13 Malamalama Page 30 Exhibit D: FCC & FAA Information VZW H13 Malamalama TOWAIR Search Results TOWAIR Determination Results NOTICE *** TOWAIR's findings are not definitive or binding, and we cannot guarantee that the data in TOWAIR are fully current and accurate. In some instances, TOWAIR may yield results that differ from application of the criteria set out in 47 C.F.R. Section 17.7 and 14 C.F.R. Section 77,13. A positive finding by TOWAIR recommending notification should be given considerable weight. On the other hand, a finding by TOWAIR recommending either for or against notification is not conclusive. It is the responsibility of each ASR participant to exercise due diligence to determine if it must coordinate its structure with the FAA. TOWAIR is only one tool designed to assist ASR participants in exercising this due diligence, and further investigation may be necessary to determine if FAA coordination is appropriate. DETERMINATION Results Structure does not require registration. There are no airports within 8 kilometers (5 miles) of the coordinates you provided. Your Specifications NAD83 Coordinates Latitude 19-33-19.1 north Longitude 154-58-58.5 west Measurements (Meters) Overall Structure Height (AGL) 45.7 Support Structure Height (AGL) 45.7 Site Elevation (AMSL) 121.9 rtructure Type MMTOWER - Monopole Tower Construction Notifications Notify Tribes and Historic Preservation Officers of your plans to build a tower. CLOSE WINDOW http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/AsrSearch/towairResult.jsp?printable[6/23/2015 10:22:28 PM] Notice Criteria Tool Page 1 of 2 OFederal Aviation of/AAAAdministration Notice Criteria Tool Notice Criteria Tool-Desk Reference Guide V_2014.2.0 The requirements for filing with the Federal Aviation Administration for proposed structures vary based on a number of factors:height,proximity to an airport.location,and frequencies emitted from the structure.etc.For more details,please reference CFR Title 14 Part 77.9. You must file with the FM at least 45 days prior to construction if: your structure will exceed 200ft above ground level your structure will be in proximity to an airport and will exceed the slope ratio your structure involves construction of a traverseway(i.e.highway,railroad,waterway etc...)and once adjusted upward with the appropriate vertical distance would exceed a standard of 77.9(a)or(b) your structure will emit frequencies,and does not meet the conditions of the FAA Co-location Policy your structure will be in an instrument approach area and might exceed part 77 Subpart C your proposed structure will be in proximity to a navigation facility and may impact the assurance of navigation signal reception your structure will be on an airport or heliport filing has been requested by the FAA Ifyou require additional information regarding the filing requirements for your structure.please identify and contact the appropriate FM representative using the Air Traffic Areas of Responsibility map for Off Airport construction.or contact the FM Airports Region/District Office for On Airport construction. The tool below wilt assist in applying Part 77 Notice Criteria. Latitude:19 Deg 33 j M 19.12 S Longitude: 154 Deg 58 M 58.53 5 I Horizontal Datum:NAD83 v site ltavafJon(Si): 1400 (nearest toot) Structure Height(AGL): 150 (nearest feat) Treversaway: Ilio Traverseway vl Additional Height is added to certain structures under//9(c)1 Is structure on airport: 0 yes Results You exceed the following Notice Criteria: Your proposed structure is in proximity to a navigation facility and may impact the assurance of navigation signal reception. The FM,in accordance with 77.0.requests that you fie. The FM requests that you file https://oeaaa.faa.goy-/oeaaa!external/gisTools/gisActionjsp 8/8/2015 Notice Criteria Tool Page 2 of 2 https_ foeaaa_faa_got-ioeaaalexte naltgisToolsigisAction jsp 8/8/2015 Exhibit E: Tax Clearance VZW H13 Malamalama William P. Kenoi r os ••. Deanna S. Sako Hcrror JMS" 'M 7'Finance Director 1 Lisa K. Miura ti ';',.".71, '4 Deputy Dtrectnr County of Hawai`i DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE- REAL PROPERTY TAX Aupuni Center • 101 Pauabi Street • Suite No.4 • Hilo.Hawaii 96720 • Fax(808)961-8415 Appraisers(808)961-8354 • Clerical(808)961-8201 • Collections(808)961-8282 West I lawai'i Civic('enter • 74-5044 Ane Kcohokalolc Ilscy. • 1-314. l).2nd Fir. • Kailua Kona,[lawai'I 96740 Fax(808)327.3538 • Appraisers(808)323-4881 • Clerical(808)323-4880 Website:ooww.hawaiiproperty'tax.corn REAL PROPERTY TAX CLEARANCE Rev. 07/13) Date: May 1, 2015 TMK(s): (3) 1-5-017-118-0000 This is to certify that the real property taxes due to the County of Hawaii on the parcel(s) listed above have been paid for the tax year 2014-2015, up to and including June 30, 2015. The County's real property taxes are levied on July 151 each year. The taxes become a lien on the property assessed as of the levy date. This clearance was requested on behalf of HI PAC DIST CH OF NAZARENE for the County Planning Department and is issued for this/these parcel(s) only. t , P `'', k);x .1 /J 1 /iiv'i By Rochelle Marzo, Tax Cork' REAL PROPERTY TAX DIVISION Paid up to and including June 30, 2015. f/awai7('mint)is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer Exhibit F: Letter of Authorization (Verizon Wireless) with Check VZW H13 Malamalama 00000. 000, 00.' a VenMP Pacific NW Real Estate Verizon Wireless Network Engineering 3245-158th Ave SE,MS 231 Bellevue,WA 98008 LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION This authorization is not a commitment of any kind. All land-use approvals obtained will be subject to the successful completion of lease negotiations and the approval of site plans by the owner or its authorized representative. In order to determine the viability and permit the use of a wireless antenna facility on the real Property("Property") at the address stated below,the undersigned authority hereby grants, consents, and agrees with CELLCO PARTNERSHIP, a Delaware General Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless as follows: 1. Filings. Owner or authorized agent consents that Verizon Wireless may make and file applications for the proposed wireless antenna facility on the Property to such local, state and federal governmental entities whose approval may be necessary for this type of use. Submittals and approvals include zoning applications,variances,land use descriptions, and other submittals necessary for this type of use. All such applications and approvals will be subject to Verizon Wireless's sole expense. Authorized Signature: Print Name: Y-a)cA Title: g._via:__A yComPan i(70-1 W`, 1 tV-e- to SS Phone Number: 20(p— Z-??j Date: Cj 1 s Tax Map Key( MK): 3) 1-5-017-118 Property Address:15-1839 32nd Avenue Kea'au, Hawai'i 96749 1 ViasTec Network Solutions No. ° 10859736427° DATE: 29-Jul-15 DUST.ACCT.NO. VENDOR NAME COUNTY OF HAWAII-DIRECTORvENDOR NO: INVOICE NO. INVOICE DATE DESCRIPTION DISCOUNT AMOUNT NET AMOUNT CR80098 Jul 29,2015 MALAMALAMA • 0.00 500.00 I 74470 EVERGREEN DATA SYSTEMS INC PLEASE DETACH AND RETAIN THIS STATEMENT AS YOUR RECORD OF PAYMENT. Thank You 0.00 500.00 747uBankofAmerica= s4=i27sisrl PA. Netw/.I`K`,jSolutions. • Ct+ECk DAl E CHECK NUMBER CH= .41VIOf NT pi- ' sTe- '. 4401 No side"Parkway.Suite,60U" Atlanta,GA 30327 29-Jul-15 87470 500.00 J p l= arkwaYiun'clIfid Dollars And Zero Cents s' COt1NTY OF HAWAII DIRECTOR OF FINANCE TO HE 25 AUPUNI SAnd ZerUITE 2103 OR ER OF H1 o,Hl 96720 x l.Irnt d Stades Aufi t4r lilEa Sicr y 1 IZED S GNATUR 11'08747011' 1: Exhibit G: Project Drawings li VZW HI3 Maiamalama r } giir ggT 1 2 : 1-f-1-.1 A 11111 U ZW [ a its 'JIlfl 2 i lu RkW_ 1"_ 1 1 3 =z q WZN „ O M g 1 Pr///P I Vs 1 i ! Dii 1611piI W 3 ig f a O. I g 1 1 ! I i 4. I re'? bb Werk.. z0 al5iillas8. I 5 a aao ti pa dm 19 111igehilig. I l<1< a 9,1 NI g 11 I117 4 z eih in 1 i67 Li 1.2 N So !3f II go i d. v1 10 5g0id alihi.05x1 5 5 eh g5cl. 1„ i'P Es 5 - Iiiii iRRI lig k. 2 ki9 i :11 11 li li b I I p § Zi it o v 8 = s22 EirgA r 4 4H -4 fir.h la LIu i 1 4.1 4 7 , 2 2 2S J 2 11 Z ii ! 1 il , ' I p..., ;74 0 ; ! .1- P tII =o hg Y d C = i I—Ili IE,s C Ilii IP,ilh s W 0 N all; 'MHO c' Q R N W l g M m 0 X111111 ! lga a JWU 1 ] fig 1 SI11i1 s f 1 oo O q o.46'Ai p4:-: 7 II bb 11. C ) i m/ / 0 1 cv0 o \ o I g Pi g3 I •)\ 1,-------\__-- -- -- _ -------§--,, 1 / i!. il 4:4_ 405 1 g 606— 406"\ ti W s 40 u-- J g 8 9 i PP El 1,111 cc2M ' c' Ellin! II ili! ig s yy a N wE{ {L-1 r NIIIw wIIIw a r r 141 1 0-.a 9'S Y'b rt 5 R agi 0., nii\ Fav ly...1 r moi, ,, ... ,:,: f 1-9 ' ti iliii1151,,,,, ,, _ 5 4Ety gigg. pp vy,--4....1.70! AAS I II 11 " Wbb I N .A Z I 111Fd Q 11-%2`7. W gg su b A 1 0 1` NE Mill(.. A-, A-.r 1 WI fol i jig 11 1! i[t g lgl Y II KI 1(:,_fr 2 hit c W W d G m Z i 1111111 N 4 -,-, „. I - g I m E 0 m e20 # iw 8 4 efi b a$ a I of`:-- 1 W _ Z eiPll 1! 1— s aill iso Ids g k. r la i q 0 III T-A..ss sA.0 "M ' k g ig Si4 ai S : o-Asi T 0 r in 2 6511141IAV r d8 gg y+ IIII33kSSM ! IHI Il A ION HI! R — I. 0-i"''' ig hilh1H !ii 0 i 0-ASI 1 i., (611 :1 ,`i [. rAUG4 2015L, DATE No. 02£721 9 Q ST auM IBJ t-L-wv v;c IA)ti-1r .•3 $ St v ;CDRECEIVEDFROMR W xr+ 111: g DOLLARS p 0 P'' x OR RENTS / e l l C t7 Pct 4f--vte-ar c 7 e. 0..* V ..-. ACCOUNT 0. H S.-Q ( -I [ tC C EC PAYMENT t) G MONEY FROM TO a ORDER BAL.DUE CREDIT CARD BY r Bank of America IasTec 6- No. 0874708747O12781611GAV Network Solutions CHECK DATE CHECK NUMBER CHECK AMOUNT4401NorthsideParkway,Suite 600 Atlanta,GA 30327 29-Jul-15 ; 87470 500.00 PAY Five Hundred Dollars And Zero Cents COUNTY OF HAWAII•UIRECTOR OF FINANCE ge\---C—.TO THE 25AUPUNI STREET,SUITE 2103 ORDER OF Hilo,HI 96720 United States AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE 11.w1A; AUTH RIZED SIGNATURE I 11'08747011' 1: I rem_ r. OF Nw, County of H'awai'i WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION Aupuni Center • 101 Pauahii Street,Suite 3 • Hilo,Hawaii 96720 Phone(808)961-8288 • Fax(808)961-8742 NOV 1 9 2015 Mr. David Lyman Mastec Network Solutions 123 Terrace Drive Hilo,HI 96720 Dear Mr.Lyman: SUBJECT: Use Permit Application(USE 15-000056) Applicant: Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless Request: Allow the Construction of a 150-foot Steel Mopopole Telecommunication Tower and Related Improvements Tax May Key: 1-5-017:118 The Windward Planning Commission,at its duly held public hearing on November 5,2015,voted to approve the above-referenced request to allow the construction ofa new telecommunication facility, including a 150-foot tall steel monopole with 8-foot tall panel antennas and related facilities within a 1,600 square-foot portion ofa 2-acre parcel situated in the County's Agricultural 1-acre(A-la) zoning district. The project site is situated on the northeast side of 32nd Avenue approximately 2,160 feet southeast of the Paradise Drive—32nd Avenue intersection,Hawaiian Paradise Park Subdivision, Kea'au,Puna,Hawai`i. A Petition for Standing in a Contested Case Hearing was received from Petitioners, Shun Kwan and Yuk Wah Wong both ofwhom,were not present during the Commissioner's meeting on this matter. The Commission subsequently voted to deny the Petitioners request for Intervention. Approval of this permit is subject to the following conditions: 1.The applicant,its successors,or assigns shall be responsible for complying with all stated conditions of approval. 2.Construction of the monopole shall be completed within five(5) years from the effective date of this permit. Prior to construction,the applicant, successors or assigns shall secure Final Plan Approval for the proposed development from the Planning Director in accordance with Section 25-2-71(c)(3), 25-2-72, 25-2-74 and 25- 4-12, Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Hawai`i County Code. Plans shall identify proposed structures, fire protection measures, access easements and any fencing associated with Hawai`i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer NOV 2A2015 Mr. David Lyman Mastec Network Solutions Page 2 the use. Landscaping shall also be indicated on the plans along northeast and northwest corner ofthe property for the purpose of mitigating any adverse noise or visual impacts to adjacent properties. The plans shall identify existing landscaping and new landscaping in the areas that do not currently have landscaping in place. The antenna plans shall be stamped by a structural engineer. 3.Co-location ofantennas upon the existing tower and expansion ofrelated support equipment within the project site may be allowed within the parameters ofthe tower height as approved by the Planning Commission,provided that ground lease areas of co-locating carriers are adjacent to the existing ground lease area and not located within the open yard setback areas. 4.Prior to the issuance of Final Plan Approval,the applicant shall secure and finalize any building permits for the subject property required by the Department of Public Works Building Division. 5.Within 120 days of the permanent abandonment of the tower,the applicant shall remove the tower and its antenna and accessory structures(including the equipment building and the fence),down to,but not including,the concrete foundation. The applicant shall immediately provide written notification to the Planning Director ofthe termination of the telecommunication tower and related improvements and the removal ofall structures. 6.Should any unidentified sites or remains such as lava tubes, artifacts, shell,bone,or charcoal deposits,human burials,rock or coral alignments,pavings,or walls be encountered,work in the immediate area shall cease and the Department ofLand and Natural Resources—Historic Preservation Division(DLNR-HPD) shall be immediately notified. Subsequent work shall proceed upon an archaeological clearance from the DLNR-HPD when it finds that sufficient mitigative measures have been taken. 7.Comply with all applicable rules,regulations,and requirements of the affected agencies for the proposed development, including the Federal Aviation Administration and Federal Communications Commission. All exterior lighting shall be shielded. 8.An initial extension of time for the performance of conditions of the permit may be granted by the Planning Director upon the following circumstances: A. Non-performance is the result of conditions that could not have been foreseen or are beyond the control ofthe applicant, successors or assigns, and that are not the result of their fault or negligence. Mr. David Lyman Mastec Network Solutions Page 3 B. Granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the General Plan or the Zoning Code. C. Granting of the extension would not be contrary to the original reasons for the granting ofthe permit. D. The time extension granted shall be for a period not to exceed the period originally granted for performance(i.e., a condition to be performed within one year may be extended for up to one additional year). Should any of the conditions not be met or substantially complied with in a timely fashion,the Director may initiate procedures to revoke the permit. This approval does not,however, sanction the specific plans submitted with the application as they may be subject to change given specific code and regulatory requirements of the affected agencies Approval ofthis permit is based on the reasons given in the attached Findings Report. Should you have any questions,please contact Jeff Darrow of the Planning Department at 961-8158. Sincerely, Myle Miyasato,Cha i an Windward Planning Commission LCellcopartnershipUSE l 5-056wpc Enclosure: PC Findings Report cc: Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless Department of Public Works Department ofWater Supply County Real Property Tax Division-Hilo Department ofLand&Natural Resources-HPD Mr. Gilbert Bailado COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS CELLCO PARTNERSHIP DBA VERIZON WIRELESS USE PERMIT APPLICATION(USE 15-000056) Based on the following, Use Permit No. 15-000056 is hereby issued to allow the construction of a new telecommunication facility, including a 150-foot tall steel monopole with 8-foot tall panel antennas and related facilities within a 1,600 square-foot portion of a 2-acre parcel is approved by the Planning Commission. CELLCO PARTNERSHIP DBA VERIZON WIRELESS is requesting a Use Permit to allow the construction of a new telecommunication facility, including a 150-foot tall steel monopole with 8-foot tall panel antennas and related facilities within a 1,600 square-foot portion of a 2-acre parcel situated in the County's Agricultural 1-acre (A-la) zoning district. The property is located on the northeast side of 32nd Avenue approximately 2,160 feet southeast of the Paradise Drive — 32nd Avenue intersection, Hawaiian Paradise Park Subdivision, Kea'au, Puna, Hawaii,TMK: 1-5-017: Portion of 118. The applicant, Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless, is requesting a Use Permit to construct a 150-foot tall steel monopole with twelve (12) 8-foot panel antennas mounted on top of the monopole. The monopole would be designed to also accommodate the placement ofother carriers (co-location). In addition to the monopole, the 1,600 square foot (40' x 40') leased area would be used for accessory ground facilities, which includes electronic radio and battery equipment cabinets and an outdoor emergency generator on a concrete slab. The leased area would be fenced with 8-foot high chain link security fencing with locked gates. The proposed facility would be unmanned, and maintenance and repair activities will be performed by a technician on a periodic basis. The pole will be constructed of structural galvanized steel and built to withstand 105 mph wind. The applicant will comply with all Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) rules. Additionally, the monopole will not interfere with the County's public safety radio system. The objective of this project is to improve coverage in the neighborhoods for Hawaiian Paradise Park, covering the southwestern part of the neighborhood. Coverage will be improved to provide better call quality within the homes as customers depend more on cellular service over land-line telephone services in Hawaii. Lastly, the proposed project will increase data speeds for internet connection,video services and phone applications. Telecommunication towers and antennas previously required a Special Permit to operate within the State Land Use Agricultural District. In 2007, the State Legislature adopted Act 171 to allow the construction and operation of wireless communication antennas and towers as permitted uses within the State Land Use Agricultural District. In 2010, the Hawai`i County Council approved Ordinance No. 10-17 to require a Use Permit for telecommunication antennas and towers in the County's Agricultural zoned district. As the applicant is proposing to construct a new tower in the County's Agricultural (A-la) zoned district, a Use Permit is required. In considering a Use Permit for any proposed use, Rule 7 of the Planning Commission relating to Use Permits,requires that such action conform to the following guidelines: 1- A. The granting of the proposed use shall be consistent with the general purpose of the zoned district,the intent and purpose of the Zoning Code and the County General Plan; B. The granting of the proposed use shall not be materially detrimental to the public welfare nor cause substantial adverse impact to the community's character or to surrounding properties;and C. The granting ofthe proposed use shall not unreasonably burden public agencies to provide roads and streets, sewers, water, drainage, school improvements, police and fire protection and other related infrastructure. The proposed request meets the guidelines for approval of a Use Permit, for the reasons outlined below: The granting of the proposed use shall be consistent with the general purpose of the zoning district, the intent and purpose of the Zoning Code and the County General Plan. The Use Permit process provides an avenue to review and analyze a proposed project on a case- by-case basis relative to infrastructure and impacts on surrounding properties and existing uses, as well as consistency with the goals and polices of the General Plan. The Zoning Code allows for telecommunication antennas and towers to be a permitted use within the County's Agricultural zoned district ifa Use Permit is approved by the Planning Commission. The Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide(LUPAG)Map component of the General Plan is a representation of the document's goals and policies to guide the coordinated growth and development of the County. It reflects a graphic depiction ofthe physical relationship among the various land uses. The LUPAG Map establishes the basic urban and non-urban form for areas within the County. The General Plan designation for this property is Rural, which includes existing subdivisions in the State Land Use Agricultural and Rural districts that have a significant residential component. Typical lot sizes vary from 9,000-square feet to two acres. These subdivisions may contain small farms, wooded areas, and open fields as well as residences. Allowable uses within these areas,with appropriate zoning,may include commercial facilities that serve the residential and agricultural uses in the area, and community and public facilities. The Rural designation does not necessarily mean that these areas should be further subdivided to smaller lots. Most lack the infrastructure necessary to allow further subdivision. Telecommunication facilities may be allowed in this area with the approval of a Use Permit from the Planning Commission. The telephone is an essential means of voice communication for the majority of residents in Hawai`i County. However, over the last decade, the County has seen acceleration in the development of telecommunication technology and a transformation of the telecommunications industry. In addition to traditional phone communication, the telecommunications industry now includes technologies such as wireless cellular and digital mobile phones, the intemet and World Wide Web. During the last decade, wireless telecommunications has experienced a dramatic decrease in cost and a phenomenal increase in availability. Changes in technology and competition in the industry have made wireless communication more affordable to the general public. Advances in telecommunications are not without cost or concerns. One such concern is the construction and location of telecommunication towers. Telecommunication towers are the physical structures to which antennas are attached to facilitate wireless communication. Because of the need for a clear line-of-site, telecommunication towers are usually located in areas with minimum obstructions between the tower and its area of service. Line-of-site refers to the 2- imaginary line between a mobile phone antenna and a telecommunication tower. If there are impediments between the mobile phone antenna and the telecommunication tower, there may be signal degradation or signal loss. For example, the loss of line-of-sight occurs when a person uses a mobile phone while driving through a tunnel. Most often, communication is lost or unclear. The line-of-sight requirement often necessitates the conspicuous location of many telecommunication towers. Consequently, the telecommunications tower is usually much taller than the surrounding structures or vegetation and may negatively impact the scenic nature of a given area. A standard in the Public Utilities element of the General Plan states that in the development and placement of telephone facilities, such as lines, telecommunications and cellular towers, poles, and substations, the design of the facilities shall consider the existing environment, and scenic view and vistas shall be considered and preserved where possible. The tower site is located on a small portion of a 2-acre property. There is significant public benefit to be gained by the installation of the proposed telecommunication tower for the residents in this area. Therefore, approval ofthis request will not run contrary to the goals,policies and standards of the General Plan. Lastly, the Puna Community Development Plan (CDP) was adopted by the Hawaii County Council on September 10, 2008. The request is consistent with Action 3.4.3.(e) under the Public Safety and Sanitation Services section in the plan, which states "Encourage enhancement of cell phone service to expand coverage to more remote areas." Based on the above, the request is consistent with the general purpose of the zoned district,the intent and purpose ofthe Zoning Code and the County General Plan. The granting of the proposed use shall not be materially detrimental to the public welfare nor cause substantial, adverse impact to the community's character or to surrounding properties. The project site is a 1,600 square-foot (40' x 40') portion of a 2-acre property. There is an existing church facility on the property, which includes the church hall, office-classroom building and parking area. Special Permit No. 607 was approved by the Planning Commission on October 15, 1985 to allow the establishment of a church and related improvements on 2 acres of land. The remainder of the property is undeveloped. The surrounding properties are similarly zoned A-1 a and consist of scattered dwellings, agricultural uses and vacant land. The nearest dwellings are located on the adjacent properties to the east and to the north. There are also several dwellings across 32nd Avenue just west of the subject property. To help mitigate possible visual impacts in the immediate area, a condition of plan approval will be to maintain and/or place landscaping along the northeast and northwest corners of the subject property where the tower will be located. If there is landscaping in place, the applicant will just be required to identify the landscaping on the site plan and make sure it is maintained in place. If landscaping is not in place, the applicant will need to identify the new landscaping in that area on the site plan, and install and maintain the new landscaping. It is anticipated that the approval of the telecommunication tower will be beneficial to the community as it will provide increased cell phone coverage in the area and will be a significant resource for emergency services. Therefore, based on the above, the proposed use shall not be materially detrimental to the public welfare nor cause substantial, adverse impact to the community's character or to surrounding properties. 3- The granting of the proposed use will not unreasonably burden public agencies to provide roads and streets, sewer, water, drainage, school improvements, police and fire protection and other related infrastructure. The desired use shall not unreasonably burden public agencies to provide roads and streets, sewers, water, drainage, school improvements, and police and fire protection. Only electrical and telephone services are required for the use and they are already available to the property. Access to the property will be from 32w' Avenue Uhaloa Avenue), which is a private road that has an approximately 20-foot gravel road within a 50-foot right-of-way. As traffic is anticipated to be minimal, the access to the site on the property is adequate. Fire and police services are available to the project area in Kea'au and Pahoa. Finally, the applicant will be required to meet all applicable agency requirements, including the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Aviation Administration. In addition to the criteria for granting a Use Permit, the request is not contrary to Chapter 205A, Hawaii Revised Statutes,relating to Coastal Zone Management Area. The subject property is located over four (4) miles to the nearest shoreline and is not located in the Special Management Area, and therefore will not be impacted by coastal hazards and beach erosion. There are no identified coastal recreational resources, coastal scenic and open space resources, coastal ecosystems, and beach or marine resources in the area. Thus, the proposed request will not adversely impact coastal resources. Additionally, there is no record of a designated public access to the shoreline or mountain areas that traverses the property. Lastly, this approval is made with the understanding that the applicant remains responsible for complying with all other applicable governmental requirements in connection with the approved use, prior to its commencement or establishment upon the subject properties. Additional governmental requirements may include the issuance of building permits, the installation of approved wastewater disposal systems,compliance with the Fire Code,installation of improvements required by the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), among many others. Compliance with all applicable governmental requirements is a condition of this approval; failure to comply with such requirements will be considered a violation that may result in enforcement action by the Planning Department and/or the affected agencies. 4- MP PROPERTY SERVICES n19 SEP S RITl 10 09 r" September 5,2019 Windward Planning Commission c/o Hawaii County Planning Department 101 Pauahi 9Street,Suite 3 Hilo,Hawaii 96720 Re: Request to Revise Access to Previously Approved Telecommunication Facility and Extend Permit Expiration Date USE PERMIT NO. 15-000056 TMKs: (3) 1-5-017:118 AND 084 Applicant: Cellco Partnership d/ b/a Verizon Wireless Dear Commissioners: Please find following for your consideration: 20 copies of a Use Permit Application for the purpose of revising access to the previously approvedtelecommunicationfacilityandtoextendthepermitexpirationdate. The Application includes scaled drawings. Authorization letter from the Applicant Check in the amount of$500 for the filing fee Tax Clearance Form List of Surrounding Property Owners Once you accept this application as complete,I will mail out the first notice to surrounding property owners and post the required signage. Please inform me where the sign should be posted,i.e.in front of parcel 84 or 118,or both. Scaled drawings are attached to the application. Please let me know if you need anything else. Sincerely, 1:\ litl;W' W41/1 Danette Martin Agent to General Dynamics and Verizon Wireless FiaccD 1 v'fn'4 76-6357 Kololia Street,Kailua-Kona,Hawaii 96740 Telephone: 808-895-3569 Facsimile 808- 329-6484 Email: 1211/31 COUNTY OF HAWAII rile Sc p pfi in 09 PLANNING COMMISSION I 1j USE PERMIT APPLICATION buE 1i i' G } i,t s.. Type or legibly print the requested information) APPLICANT: Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE: See attached authorization letter DATE: ADDRESS: 255 Kahelu Avenue, Mililani, Hawaii 96789 LIST APPLICANT'S INTEREST IF NOT OWNER: Licensee TELEPHONE:(Bus.) Res.) _ Fax) LANDOWNER(S): Hawaii Pacific District Church of the Nazarene LANDOWNER SIGNATURE(S): See attached authorization letter DATE: ADDRESS: 15-1839 32nd Avenue, Kea auayHawaii019 TAX MAP KEY: (3) 1-5-017:084 and 118 STREET ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 15-1839 32nd Avenue, Kea'au, Hawaii 96749 REQUESTED USE: Revise Access To Previously Approved Telecommunication Facility and Extend Permit Expiration Date 2 acres ZONING: A-1 A SIZE OF PROPERTY: AGENT: Danette Martin, General Dynamics ADDRESS: do 76-6357 Kololia Street, Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 TELEPHONE:(Bus.) Res.) Fax) Please indicate to whom original correspondence and copies should be sent. ORIGINAL: Agent COPIES: Applicant 127631 County of Hawaii Use Permit Application Background and Request for Approval Report To Amend Use Permit No. 15-000056 For The Purpose of Revising Access To The Previously Approved Telecommunication Facility And To Extend Permit Expiration Date TMK: (3) 1-5-017:118 and 084 Prepared for: Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, Applicant Prepared by: General Dynamics,Applicant's Agent do Danette Martin 76-6357 Kololia Street Kailua-Kona,Hawaii 96740 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 3 SECTION 2 BACKGROUND 3 SECTION 3 REQUEST TO REVISE ACCESS 3 SECTION 4 REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO PERFORM 3 SECTION 5 CODE COMPLIANCE 4 SECTION 6 SCALED DRAWINGS 4 Use Permit Application(USE 15-000056) Applicant: Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless Request: Revise Access To The Telecommunication Tower and Related Improvements and To Extend Permit Expiration Date TMK: 1-5-017:118&1-5-017:084 2 SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless was granted a Use Permit to Allow the Construction of 150' Steel Monopole Telecommunication Tower and Related Improvements at the Windward Planning Commission hearing on November 5,2015. Since then,the Property Owner,Hawaii Pacific District Church of Nazarene,has requested that the access to the telecommunication tower be taken from TMK 1-5-017:84 for safety reasons. In addition,the Use Permit will expire on November 5,2020. The Applicant requests a 5-year extension up to November 4,2025.1 1 SECTION 2 BACKGROUND On November 5,2015,the Windward Planning Commission voted to approve the Applicant's request to construct a new telecommunication facility,including a 150-foot tall steel monopole with 8-foot tall panel antennas and related facilities within a 1,600 square-foot portion of a 2-acre parcel situated on the County's Agricultural 1-acre(A-1a)zoning district. The project site is situated on the northeast side of 32nd Avenue approximately 2,160 feet southeast of Paradise Drive—32nd Avenue intersection,Hawaii Paradise Park Subdivision. SECTION 3 REQUEST TO REVISE ACCESS After the Windward Commission's original approval of the Use Permit,the Applicant was made aware that children sometime play on the lawn where the original access had been planned. A Pastor that was not at this Church during the originally planning stage,requested that access to the tower be moved to TMK 1-5-17-84. There are currently homes constructed on the surrounding parcels. These homes should not be affected by additional noise or disruption since access will only be used by the Applicant's technician for maintenance of the tower which is typically only visited once per month. A traffic study was not required for the original permit and should not be required because access will not be used by the general public and will only be used infrequently. SECTION 4 REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO PERFORM Condition 2 of the Use Permit requires that construction of the monopole shall be completed within five 5)years from the effective date of this permit(November 19,2015). The Applicant is requesting an extension of five years in order to complete the Plan Approval,obtain a building permit site,order materials and construct the site. Condition 8 of the Use Permit allows for an extension of time for the performance of conditions of the permit in certain circumstances. The Applicant,through no fault of its own,was unable to construct the site using the original proposed access for reasons stated in the above application. Planning staff advised that an amendment of the Use Permit is required whenever access is revised,making it impossible to complete this project within the original time period of five years. Granting of the time extension is not contrary to the General Plan or Zoning Code. Granting the extension is not contrary to the original reasons for granting the permit. And,the time extension requested of five years does not exceed the period original granted for performance. 3 I SECTION 5 CODE COMPLIANCE The granting of a change in access is not inconsistent with the Zoning Code,County General Plan or State Statutes. The relocation of the access to the telecommunication will not be detriment to the public welfare or cause substantial,adverse impact to the surrounding properties. The Applicant agrees to accept all of the original conditions for the permit to extend to the added access parcel,including notifying DLNR-HPD if any unidentified sites or remains such as lava tubes,artifacts,shell,bone or charcoal deposits,human burials,rock or coral alignments,paving or walls be encountered. The change in access should have no effect on the rules,regulations of the affected agencies for the proposed development as the Federal Aviation and Federal Communications Commissions does not regulate the access to the tower,only the tower structure itself. A granting of an additional period of time to construct the tower is also not inconsistent with your Policies or Procedures,and would allow the Applicant enough time to obtain its necessary permits, order materials and construct the tower. SECTION 6 SCALED DRAWINGS A drawing showing the proposed access road,including the previously approved telecommunication facility is attached for your consideration. 4 ti t IIlkoitt! !illilli. yii: Q. FIRSZ1 ---- r41 wo ff II. 0!11111 z C ' 174 e i v_1 .N1 5 z4 ' W riiiimFi. W ¢ M1 nP ! a 111 it. S G M „ F woo 65 f O a E J c,3'Q ao o_ 4Amm iii g zg P., 16 4 wen zy`Ybb bac=.. 0 Q N.4DirYR,ia`, m ` o 101 Ilia); zi `e 2 gg is a< z 8 Q a- o 4 I V s? grot N 2 0 e I <-°. s E T She-IVs-§o.a 3$ E13.1 V Ii tliiIzaiV ai F. 0agtML%eg iiia s F 0 os b W ob m 'Fa Nab Z 'm. W e § . pe MMnQ - E IF. s -x „77 Cr a< iiiim Wim' g z 1 g Alil ,Q2 ;_ IH!O wgg IX _ s M p P a L Ja x s; a 5nC z O 5 NM R 1 ce ztn, i giil 0 4 S 0 egtl s co §g5 m + 0 5g( - gFi co 8a5H 3 «, g h R 2.8 Ila 2,g z ,1t4g 2" g s 3 Z J s s N i3 $! i l v gi : EL?o3 €: E`i 4 4 r„ q ' 20 & 2 z Q o i- . i i .< y Q'- a O ‹-66 J i A ; Q -Buil` i 0 5 6 r 1 p s w F, , i gRg 08 Wei1 ./O 1 J ' bra " a '7C./I. AI ice ,. , 70 i 71 `2Z. a a . .a S 1giiflfltt 6111111 ® JoX111iii 1111 111111 Z C '4 Q R _-IR O oj." `1' 8 t-2 E ICEmwa2 ~ w stxo Eirrywr tr. 11.16.16,16.\.— 0i irgE/ J i.. su CC oi P Age / jaL W" JW Iv N,I / \ \ ' ae dam. Nill / c/ i'\>n ir ' I 1 i ''-, f 7EllO y a 4 a 4 flJ !j4JI 1 ili! ° O 8 Q ^ b € a 11.1111111ale le/ N E ` oa -C - 30 w4 , e E w rNNRNI ' 61 WU Q 4Q 4 Q o . 1111.1 f, vE C - WER C....,3\ 9 14 41Q y f' 63 I/ Kge Q aWY b AO‘' F 0 R / z- 1 5a.IrT tr A M 5 M NM-r ,-, , .' --------------------- vz o dI / f —Th 4 1 si IN-, 71 *14/-- g- b?5 / -D/s___- 0 42 y tom• 7 t` 4C Ste= a \ ` - .----/ 405 W ;b 506 Q 3 'cN X 406-\ J- .04 -\- --a r__?...au g$g l-409 I ii a lEj r 11111111 IR 1! $11111iiljib 5 c z o N t 1- i j;t {i J{O Q Q w^ ya-a-W—+ '- r g , a2is..„ I — o S Na Er, 0 iiim 6 CNI a RE- 3 w Q 3 e.....::.. z a - - 3 m 41 c 5 8 g / Z = h° ' ,T, we Z cE ema r A-5 a E 6g E. w_ U -4 a 21 7 m mss:`,. c. W k _ O= WI gs . O=k a€ b s igs moo- 6,tis i! Iq.gym§ i_P! n; b 1 1" .ta,9 Li ... CA.' !. z z s 1 1 E 5 7...:,-, :. 1 , ,,„ -.. .i,q. k ••••••• 1 . 1 1...........H„drI, WM A 41'./II iss W. Fg olt- 1. ob r I r I ' 1 1 r - S a W ss L, 1 lbI[ IN, i H011 r11 S 0 € b / e ow 41J5 AQ i zz 11111111 ElloWMWW :iiUIIIIIIt ! 4m P. O J z € Ste, a It8Y F Q m 4 Z< a Iglaf M m d t z W W w z C r T gE g R; dom 7 s w dz 2' ' 6isgzA° i- Jp P _6v^ g Z 0,§i g! ul ", Hr50Bo Ot V NF _, yf. i f,a-,.Nom .,, >7 stat ilisa 3 Wob o — —gg i= ;,s O a=P a z-- a g kW yob; o- 81 = w =g gI! .-. mag 2ga s T d.. i'.;[! a. ffi5g I r L.,_t g , „gtSsgfl 8, = Y, ggA :_=.'S P. _ €D a _ j I o-,9 R 0: lim z cwOgg t W'.7e§— i'kc g Rs-x bi reset c, W 8.. tlIi „$ sg h Ib- .6N % U,- aid 8 3 eke Oego -c A = W A--- w fi=g A-Psi 0.•. pf e, Deanna S.Sako Harry Kim 0o.• • ,, , Finance Director Mayor I4 Steven A.Hunt Deputy Director fOTq•..... qtr:1E ' County of Hawaii DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE-REAL PROPERTY TAX Aupuni Center,101 Pauahi Street,Suite No.4 • Hilo,Hawaii 96720-4224 • Fax(808)961-8415 Appraisers(808)961-8354 • Clerical(808)961-8201 • Collections(808)961-8282 West Hawai`i Civic Center • 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Hwy. • Bldg.D,2nd Flr. • Kailua Kona,Hawai`i 96740 Fax(808)327-3538 • Appraisers(808)323-4881 • Clerical(808)323-4880 Website: www.hawaiipropertytax com REAL PROPERTY TAX CLEARANCE Date: September 5, 2019 TMK(s): (3) 1-5-017-118-0000 This is to certify that the real property taxes due to the County of Hawaii on theparcel(s) listed above have been paid for the tax year 2019 up to and including June 30, 2020. The County's real property taxes are levied on July 1st each year. The taxes become a lien on the property assessed as of the levy date. This clearance was requested on behalf of HI Pac Dist Ch of Nazarene for the County Planning Department and is issued for this/these parcel(s) only. 0/./ REAL PROPERTY TAX DIVISION Paid up to and including June 30, 2020 Tax Clearance for Planning Department(rev. 12/09) Hawai`i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer IVOFN. Deanna S. Sako Harry Kim o.•Finance Director Mayor Iilk ` Steven A.Hunt s'__ Deputy Director 40- County of Hawaii DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE-REAL PROPERTY TAX Aupuni Center,101 Pauahi Street,Suite No.4 • Hilo,Hawai`i 96720-4224 • Fax(808)961-8415 Appraisers(808)961-8354 • Clerical(808)961-8201 • Collections(808)961-8282 West Hawai`i Civic Center • 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Hwy. • Bldg.D,2nd FIr. • Kailua Kona,Hawai`i 96740 Fax(808)327-3538 • Appraisers(808)323-4881 • Clerical(808)323-4880 Website: www.hawaiipropertytax.com REAL PROPERTY TAX CLEARANCE Date: September 5, 2019 TMK(s): (3) 1-5-017-084-0000 This is to certify that the real property taxes due to the County of Hawaii on the parcel(s) listed above have been paid for the tax year 2019 up to and including June 30, 2020. The County's real property taxes are levied on July 1St each year. The taxes become a lien on the property assessed as of the levy date. This clearance was requested on behalf of Hawaii Pac Distr Church of the Nazarene for the County Planning Department and is issued for this/these parcel(s) only. REAL PROPERTY TAX DIVISION Paid up to and including June 30, 2020 Tax Clearance for Planning Department(rev. 12/09) Hawai`i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer I C c coCO. 0 co p0 CO N 01 O 01 ai co al I N N 00 CO 01 N a1 0 01 0 CO 01 0 ' KtOl m aC.1 N N h N a7 N d' 00 h 0 d• N N N h 0 ci- N N d• N N N h d• N N d• N N N h h h h h h h h h h h h h CT, rn h h h h h 0 h h 0 h h h h h 1740101010101011310101010101 O. LC) On LO ami 01 01 m 01 01 01 ami o 0i a 01 a rn 0 4. d Q Q _o — v) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 = 2 2 2 2 0 = 2 = _ _ 2 = 3 2 2 2 2 I .,-1 0 = VI N 003O c0 f0 N p a7 p c07 p 7 3 3 O CC co co co 0 co co 0 c to to o EO m Eco co CO T 0 TO CNm41y 0 O m • N CO co -C vC) C) OOmy0MoC) '0 C) "O 0 iU ± Y 2 x a a Q Y 2 2 2 a in Y 2 Y 2 Y LU a Y W Y Y Y I 2 H a N NNdV a t N N N v N 00 V) j co .@ co O C) 1- a O d h < +-' cYo ro Lo M d• ca L N N oo W O O o M M = M ccoo V) C M N O O) .c0 '^ c0 W N W 7 M p ai l0 O M I Ol N OJ V) N ei 01 01 O L Z Y NN X a•I N N Y X M ai co O X LD ai N X l0 CO N X d' CO cC O lD In J O X X X O N O X 7 X X O X X O X X O (JD cC M CO X p Y 2 a-I vpi M E W m O O O N ai O7 00_ 0 o U O O m O O M 15oN CD CO m N O N O] O] CD CO m N m CO N m N O N M CD m N ehi 1 'p 0 M u 0 0 0 u1 O1 ) 0 co O O CO "O O O 0 0 0 0 - L0 co 0 v O O M N `i )o > Q If) I a a a rl 0, 2 a .--I a s c» cc a a 2 a a .1 2 .--I a ai 2 a a a-1 a-I (44 Z e-I CO C 00 to C 0 roU0ro c 2 co Y ca F-C C C o t c to 0 L tn Y Y azO cro 0 T+ C V) U C 0 — C C y a) 0 r 0 > c 2CUr0 a w CULI— L.; w c O L OJVI t U.. 0 0 L I 0 0 QY 7 T u7 N CO 50_ T_ U CO C/OC O w'- •E C O d C 7 .OC 0dDcoNU NI C N v L :Y t0 °) U ca •co • U •? co CU i C u n@ c CO __ C t u C) CU > m E E c u . cC c u N co c = CO X io CO J CO CO li D Y LL U U 2 a CD U O W O a 0 N L O C L r2 Z,I-.J a, L Z O coL a+ O CO coNTZ vco m O C c 3 mYccoovC .O C co U I. CU C 0) E to N j, •> is co c0 f6 N Y OC CZ 2 E to a) L ` Y C N J c0 ' O O v O 'O C 'O uhf ro f0 .`0 fl- a°'i) c`o O) YO N C 00 co" c0 O N '^ p L L L •N U co co 2 C) N d U O +, v c0 o N 3 O to U O O O i. u ° j CCY w Y CCO w`c N CC I- Y O U c < 0 v) 2 < a 1- 4.0..O. 0 a•-I N 01 O eim d• ai O 0 0 M d' 'Cr e-I N CO d• in t0 d' in t0 h 00 01 0 .--I N d• V1 0 h CO I a—I LO a--I ei a-1 .-4 .-i ri I. d' d' V V d' N h h h h PN CO CO 00 00 CO CO CO CO e-I e-i l0 tD 6 t0 6 l0 us h h 1 h N A N A r& N A N N N N N 1, 1, N N N N N r1 ei N rI a I .-1 .1 r1 ai ai 1-1 ai a—I a I e-1 a1 a1 ai a••1 a I ai ai e-/ a I ati ei a-I Y 7) 11 ul Ul 111 11 t11 11 t.f) f1 lfl lfI Vl lfi t!1 Lf1 111 to 1r;1 Vl t<1 t.fl Vt V1 1J1 t11 V1 Ltl u1 X a-1 a-1 a-1 a•-1 e-1 a I a-1 a-I e-1 aIi e'i e-1 -II ri a-1 a-1 a I ell r/ a-1 e I a-1 a-i ri e-1 ,LI ei ri ei g M Mi M A M f!) 41 M M ca'1 N) M M fn M ca'1 M (a'1 M cY1 M M M M M M M M N 0 al o 0 m ei m 01 Ol Ql Ol Ci V 00 Ql 0NNV' N N N tO LO <T Cr V Cr n u1 N03r- N N. N 0 m N N N N N r\ N N o N1.0 VD (2) LD L0 Ci ei L0 LO LO LO (. ( (.0 (.O m LC/CT) rT Ol 01 al N 01 m 01 Ol 01 Ol Ql al 01 N 01 2 2 2 2 2 0 U S S S I S S S S > 2 CC0) M 0 + T' D)D) O O O v a+ 00 U 7 O 7 7 7 O r0 Q Co CO o O j w m •C co rco f0o ro CO CO C C v O S S Y = 2 Z rn > > ..@_I Y Y Y Y Y CO CO U' 2 CU 0) Y Y 0) 0 0 I' NCC Q 0CCaomrOD u 1 Del O E C0 M V' N Y 3 Y >. LCD3 to C ro cn J m 0 Y rOo 2 X O N N co N O N O N 3 V 'Cr M c0 . d Ol m m N a-12 •N 2 00 CO Mr00u1Or0100110- U 0 N V n 0 0 in In r0 Uill ? Na-1 N 2 D_ N d' co 0. a ei .-i d ei a 0 eY 0_ In N OLI- 00 t v U j Y 0 0. t N C co r9N 0) 0 Z I— CUC E...) roNN Z W 0 t U 4-.VI DO OD C N ,C VI z Of_. C c Y 0)Y C O O m c c ro U' Y =U co ti rn in Y U Y cc roI C U 7- CO ODroC7 C E O C C N N J '` 0) Ocu ccoLL 0) r0 Y CUaYLUCI— Ucu L f0 E RS L p r0 Q N N C vs NazOasr0rotoYO C U E C r0 • —'C -cs N E E C r(p J OBJ C O v `A r0 C C 0 O C > 3 0) CCVIr02 -J Q > 2 cc I— H Y 2 •0 Q u1 LO 00 m 0 .-t m V u1 LO V u1 tO N. CO Dl 0eia--I .--1 e-1 N N N N N N N u1 Ui N Ln N 10e-1 .-i .-i N a--i ..4 N .-i e-1 .-i N ei a-1 e-i e-1 .-1 ei f\ (. t` r!...t\ r n r.!.,. n 14..t\ r..!..I.:,N NNeiei .-I .-i e-1 e-1 .i .--1 a-I ei ei e-i ei .-1 e 1 .-i u:., •r1 diILL Ui In VT to ul to to In Vt U Ill ui ei N .„I e1 1 ,111ei N e-1 e-I N ei e I a i ei I I M mp m m m m M M MM M M M M, M M M BCellco-HPP31stAmendUSE.doc 12/23/19 COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND REPORT CELLCO PARTNERSHIP DBA VERIZON WIRELESS AMENDMENT TO USE PERMIT NO. 15-000056 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP DBA VERIZON WIRELESS is requesting an amendment to Use Permit No. 15-000056, which allowed the construction of a 150-foot tall steel monopole telecommunication facility and related improvements within a 1,600-square foot portion of a 2-acre property(TMK 1-5-017:118) situated in the County's Agricultural- 1-acre (A-1a) zoning district. The applicant is requesting: 1)to change access to the telecommunication facility so that access is from 31'Avenue over TMK 1-5-017:084, and 2) a 5-year time extension to Condition No. 2 to complete construction of the facility. The subject property is situated between 31' Avenue and 32nd Avenue, about 2,160 feet southeast of the Paradise Drive intersectionHawaiian Paradise Park, Puna, Hawaii, TMKs (3) 1-5-017:84 and 1-5-017: Portion of 118. APPLICANT'S REQUEST 1.Request: On November 19, 2015, the Windward Planning Commission issued a Use Permit to allow the construction of a new telecommunication facility, including a 150-foot tall steel monopole with 8-foot tall panel antennas and related facilities within a 1,600-square foot portion of a 2-acre parcel situated in the County's Agricultural 1-acre A-la) zoning district. Condition No. 2 of the permit required completion of construction by November 19, 2020. As of this writing, plan approval and a building permit has not been issued nor has construction begun on the tower. The applicant is requesting an additional 5 years to complete construction of the telecommunication facility because they will not be able to secure plan approval, secure a building permit, and construct the facility by the November 2020 deadline. The applicant is also proposing to revise the 12-foot wide gravel access to the facility from 31'Avenue over parcel 84, which is a vacant lot owned by the same landowner as parcel 118, where the telecommunication facility will be located(See Overall Site Plan' in 2019 Application). Originally the access was proposed from 32m Avenue into the church parking lot and between the playground equipment area and multi-purpose building. (Planning Department Exhibit 1- 2015 Site Plan)After the 1 Use Permit was issued in 2015, the applicant was made aware that children sometime play on the lawn where the original access had been planned. The landowner has requested the applicant move the access to parcel 84. 2.Landowner: The landowner of the property is the Hawai`i Pacific District Church of the Nazarene, who has given authorization for the applicant to submit this application. 3.Supportive Information: The applicant has submitted the attached in support of the request. (P.D. Exhibit 2—Letter dated September 5, 2019 from Danette Martin with Use Permit Amendment Request). BACKGROUND INFORMATION 4.Telecommunications Act of 1996: The Telecommunications Act of 1996, Section 704, which amended portions of the 1934 Act, limits the state or local authorities from regulating the placement, construction and modification ofpersonal wireless service facilities on basis of environmental effects of radio frequency emissions, as long as such facilities towers comply with the FCC's regulations concerning such emissions. The applicant will adhere to FCC guidelines. STATE AND COUNTY PLANS 5.State Land Use District: Agricultural. 6.General Plan LUPAG Map Designation: Rural. 7.County Zoning: Agricultural 1-acre(A-la). 8.Puna Community Development Plan (CDP): The Puna CDP was adopted by the Hawai`i County Council, Ordinance 08 116, on September 10, 2008. Under Public Safety and Sanitation Services in the plan, Action 3.4.3.(e) states "Encourage enhancement of cell phone service to expand coverage to more remote areas." 9.Special Management Area: The Special Management Area is a part of the Coastal Zone Management Program and regulated by the County. The property is not located within the Special Management Area and is over four(4)miles from the nearest coastline. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA 10. Description of Property: The subject property consists of two properties. Parcel 118 is 2 acres in size and rectangular in shape. There is an existing church facility on the property, which includes the church hall, office-classroom building and parking area. 2 Special Permit No. 607 was approved by the Planning Commission on October 15, 1985 to allow the establishment of a church and related improvements on parcel 118. Parcel 84, which adjoins parcel 118 to the northeast, is one acre in size and rectangular in shape and is vacant of structure and forested in non-native trees and ohia trees. 11. Surrounding Zoning/Land Uses: The surrounding properties are similarly zoned A-1 a and consist of scattered dwellings, agricultural uses and vacant land. The nearest dwellings are located on the adjacent properties to the east and to the north. There are also several dwellings across 32nd Avenue just west of the subject property. 12. Flood Zone: Zone X, area determined by FEMA to be outside the 500-year flood plain. 13. Flora and Fauna Resources: There was no flora or fauna survey submitted with the application. According to the applicant,parcel 118 is vegetated with grasses and sparse clusters of 20-30-foot-high trees along the east side of the property. No rare or endangered species of flora and fauna were found on the proposed telecommunication site. The property has been cleared and used as a church site since for over 20 years. Parcel 84 is covered in non-native trees and some ohia trees. 14. Archaeological/Historic/Cultural Resources: There was no archaeological survey submitted with the application. According to the applicant, the General Plan Historic Sites element does not identify any archaeological resources on the subject site. No historic or cultural resources will be impacted by the proposed action. The property has been cleared and used as a church site for over 20 years. 15. Public Access: There is no public access to the mountains or the shoreline that runs through the property. 16. Co-Location: The applicant is proposing to have other carriers co-locate on the proposed monopole. PUBLIC UTILITIES AND SERVICES 17. Roadway Access: Access to the facility will be from 31st Avenue(Uala Avenue), which is a 20-foot wide private paved road within a 50-foot right-of-way. 18. Water: Water is not required for the proposed use. 19. Wastewater: This use will not generate wastewater. 20. Utilities: Electrical and telephone services are available to the site. 3 21. Police/Fire Services: The nearest Police and Fire facilities are located in Kea'au and Pahoa. AGENCY COMMENTS 22. Department of Public Works: P.D. Exhibit 3—December 9,2019 memo. AGENCY-NO COMMENTS/CONCERNS 23. Department of Water Supply, Police Department, Department of Environmental Management, County Civil Defense Agency, State Department of Health, State Department of Land and Natural Resources. AGENCY-NO RESPONSE 24. Department of Public Works-Building Division, Fire Department, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Hawaiian Paradise Park Community Association. PUBLIC COMMENTS 25. As of this writing, the Planning Department has not received any written comments or objections from the general public or adjacent landowners on the subject application. 4 RCellco-Amend USE 15-56.doc 12/23/19 COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION REPORT CELLCO PARTNERSHIP DBA VERIZON WIRELESS AMENDMENT TO USE PERMIT NO. 15-000056 Upon review of the request against the guidelines for granting an amendment to a Use Permit, the Planning Director recommends that an amendment to Use Permit No. 15-000056 to change access to the telecommunication facility and to provide a 5-year time extension to complete construction be approved by the Planning Commission. Since this recommendation is made without the benefit of public testimony, the Planning Director reserves the right to modify and/or alter this recommendation based upon additional information presented at the public hearing. This recommendation is based on the following findings: On November 19, 2015, the Windward Planning Commission issued a Use Permit to allow the construction of a new telecommunication facility, including a 150-foot tall steel monopole with 8-foot tall panel antennas and related facilities within a 1,600-square foot portion of a 2-acre parcel situated in the County's Agricultural 1-acre(A-1a) zoning district. Condition No. 2 of the permit required completion of construction by November 19, 2020. As of this writing,plan approval and a building permit has not been issued nor has construction begun on the tower. Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless is requesting an additional 5 years to complete construction of the telecommunication facility because they will not be able to secure plan approval, secure a building permit, and construct the facility by the November 2020 deadline. The applicant is also proposing to revise the 12-foot wide gravel access to the facility from 31St Avenue over parcel 84, which is a vacant lot owned by the same landowner as parcel 118, where the telecommunication facility will be located. Originally the access was proposed from 32nd Avenue into the church parking lot and between the playground equipment area and multi-purpose building. The subject property is situated between 31'Avenue and 32nd Avenue, about 2,160 feet southeast of the Paradise Drive intersection, Hawaiian Paradise Park, Puna, Hawai`i, TMKs (3) 1-5-017:84 and 1-5-017: Portion of 118. 1 The non-performance is the result of conditions that could not have been foreseen or are beyond the control of the applicant, successors or assigns, and that are not the result of their fault or negligence. The applicant became aware of the conflict between the original proposed driveway access and children's playground after the original permit was granted in 2015. The proposed change in access has caused delay in securing plan approval and building permits for construction of the facility. Granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the General Plan or Zoning Code. Since the original permit was granted in 2015 there have not been changes to the General Plan, the Puna Community Development Plan, or the Zoning Code that affect telecommunication facilities, thus the amendment request remains consistent with these plans and the zoning code. Granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the original reasons for the granting of the permit. The reasons for granting the original permit have not changed; the only change is the location of the proposed driveway access in order to create a safer environment for children playing on and around the playground equipment on Parcel 118. The proposed use will not have any significant adverse effects on surrounding properties and will not substantially alter or change the essential character of the land and the present use. The change in driveway access location from Parcel 118 to Parcel 84 will not adversely affect surrounding properties,primarily because of the very low volume of traffic that will use this driveway. In the original application, the applicant estimated about one to four visits to the site would occur on a monthly basis for the applicant to maintain the unmanned facility. It should also be noted that although the landowner of Parcel 118 also owns Parcel 84, the proposed driveway access on Parcel 84 cannot be used for church traffic unless Special Permit No. 607, which permitted the church in 1985, is amended by the Planning Commission. The Planning Director also recommends a condition be added to the permit to ensure access is provided during the life of the telecommunication facility over Parcel 84, even if the parcel is sold to another owner by the landowner. 2 Lastly, this approval is made with the understanding that the applicant remains responsible for complying with all other applicable governmental requirements in connection with the approved use, prior to its commencement or establishment upon the subject properties. Additional governmental requirements may include the issuance of building permits, the installation of approved wastewater disposal systems, compliance with the Fire Code, installation of improvements required by the American with Disabilities Act(ADA), among many others. Compliance with all applicable governmental requirements is a condition of this approval; failure to comply with such requirements will be considered a violation that may result in enforcement action by the Planning Department and/or the affected agencies. Based on the above, the request to change access to the telecommunication facility and to provide a 5-year time extension to complete construction would not be contrary to the objectives sought to be accomplished by the State Land Use Law Rules and Regulations or the original reasons for approving this permit. Conditions of the permit are proposed to be amended as follows (material to be added is underscored; material to be deleted is bracketed and lined out). Approval of this amended request is subject to the following conditions: 1.The applicant, its successors or assigns shall be responsible for complying with all stated conditions of approval. 2.Construction of the monopole shall be completed within five(5) years from the effective date of this amended permit. Prior to construction, the applicant, successors or assigns shall secure Final Plan Approval for the proposed development from the Planning Director in accordance with Section 25-2-71(c)(3), 25-2-72, 25-2-74 and 25-4-12, Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Hawai`i County Code. Plans shall identify proposed structures, fire protection measures, access easements and any fencing associated with the use. Landscaping shall also be indicated on the plans along northeast and northwest corner of Parcel 118 Rhe property] for the purpose of mitigating any adverse noise or visual impacts to adjacent properties. The plans shall identify existing landscaping and new landscaping in the areas that do not currently have landscaping in place. The antenna plans shall be stamped by a structural engineer. 3 3.The applicant shall execute and record an easement over Parcel 84 to provide access to the telecommunication site on Parcel 118 for the duration of the life of the telecommunication facility. A copy of the recorded easement shall be provided to the Planning Department prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the telecommunication facility. 4.All earthwork activity, including grading, grubbing and stockpiling, shall conform to Chapter 10, Erosion and Sedimentary Control, of the Hawai`i County Code. 3.]5. Co-location of antennas upon the existing tower and expansion of related support equipment within the project site may be allowed within the parameters of the tower height as approved by the Planning Commission,provided that ground lease areas of co-locating carriers are adjacent to the existing ground lease area and not located within the open yard setback areas. 4.]6. Prior to the issuance of Final Plan Approval, the applicant shall secure and finalize any building permits for the subject property required by the Department of Public Works Building Division. 5:]7. Within 120 days of the permanent abandonment of the tower, the applicant shall remove the tower and its antenna and accessory structures (including the equipment building and the fence), down to,but not including, the concrete foundation. The applicant shall immediately provide written notification to the Planning Director of the termination of the telecommunication tower and related improvements and the removal of all structures. 6,]8. [_ . . . ., . have been take".] In the unlikely event that surface or subsurface historic resources, including human skeletal remains, structural remains (e.g. rock walls., terraces,platforms, etc.), cultural deposits, marine shell concentrations, sand deposits, or sink holes are identified during the grading or construction work, 4 work shall cease in the immediate vicinity of the find, the find shall be protected from further disturbance and the State Historic Preservation Division shall be contacted at(808) 933-7651 or(808) 692-8015. 3.]9. Comply with all applicable rules, regulations and requirements of the affected agencies for the proposed development, including the Federal Aviation Administration and Federal Communications Commission. All exterior lighting shall be shielded. 87]10. An initial extension of time for the performance of conditions of[the-permit] this amended permit may be granted by the Planning Director upon the following circumstances: A. Non-performance is the result of conditions that could not have been foreseen or are beyond the control of the applicant, successors or assigns, and that are not the result of their fault or negligence. B. Granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the General Plan or the Zoning Code. C. Granting of the extension would not be contrary to the original reasons for the granting of the permit. D. The time extension granted shall be for a period not to exceed the period originally granted for performance(i.e., a condition to be performed within one year may be extended for up to one additional year). Should any of the conditions not be met or substantially complied with in a timely fashion, the Director may initiate procedures to revoke the permit. 5 BCellcoHPPAmendUSE.revisedcond.doc 1/7/20 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP DBA VERIZON WIRELESS AMENDMENT TO USE PERMIT NO. 15-000056 (USE 15-56) REVISED RECOMMENDATION AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service submitted comments on January 6, 2020, regarding the subject application. As such, the Director finds it prudent to revise the conditions of approval. The Planning Director recommends adding the following conditions and re-numbering the remaining conditions: 5.To protect any Hawaiian hoary bats in the vicinity of the property,barbed wire fencing shall not be used in the permit area and woody vegetation over 15 feet in height shall not be disturbed, trimmed or removed during bat birthing and pup rearing season ofJune 1st to September 15th without first conducting surveys for bat nests and coordinating with US Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS) if nests are found. Surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. 6.To protect any Hawaiian hawks in the vicinity of the property, ground clearing, grubbing activities and construction shall not occur in the permit area during hawk breeding season of March 1st to September 30th without first conducting surveys for hawk nests and coordinating with USFWS if nests are found. Surveys shall be conducted by a qualified ornithologist and are only valid for 14 days. Ground clearing or construction shall not occur within 1,600 feet of any active Hawaiian hawk nest during the breeding season. Regardless of the time of year, trimming or cutting trees containing a hawk nest is prohibited. 7.To protect any seabirds (Hawaiian petrels, Newell's shearwaters and band- rumped storm petrel) in the vicinity of the property, any lighting shall be fully shielded so that the bulb can only be seen from below bulb height. The lights shall be turned off when human activity is not occurring in the lighted area. 8.To prevent the spread of Rapid `Ohi`a Death, a survey of the proposed site shall be conducted two weeks prior to any tree cutting to determine if there are any infected `ohi`a trees. If infected `ohi`a are suspected at the site, the applicant shall contact the appropriate agencies at UH-Hilo and USDA for further guidance. If ohi`a trees will be cut during construction, the applicant shall follow procedures as described in the comment letter from US Fish and Wildlife Service, dated January 6, 2020. 9. To prevent the spread ofharmful invasive species, the applicant shall follow biosecurity protocols as described in the comments letter from US Fish and Wildlife Service, dated January 6, 2020. 2- WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII MINUTES JANUARY 8, 2020 The Windward Planning Commission met in regular session at 9:02 a.m. in the County of Hawai`i, Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawai`i, with Chairman Joseph Clarkson presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Gilbert Aguinaldo, Dean Au, Joseph Clarkson, Dorm Dela Cruz, John Replogle. ABSENT & EXCUSED: Thomas Raffipiy. ALSO PRESENT: Michael Yee (Planning Director), Malia Hall (Deputy Corporation Counsel for the Windward Planning Commission), Maija Jackson (Planner), Christian Kay(Planner), Jessica Andrews (Planner), and Sarah Hata-Finley (Commission Secretary). A quorum was present. Chairman Clarkson introduced the Windward Planning Commissioners and staff to members of the public, went over the procedures for public testimony, and asked that cell phones and electronic devices be silenced. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC—No statements were presented under this section of the agenda. 1.APPLICANT: CELLCO PARTNERSHIP DBA VERIZON WIRELESS (AMEND USE 15-000056) Application for an amendment to Use Permit No. 15-000056, which allowed the construction of a 150-foot tall steel monopole telecommunication facility and related improvements within a 1,600-square foot portion of a 2-acre property TMK 1-5-017:118) situated in the County's Agricultural- 1-acre (A-1a) zoning district. The applicant is requesting: 1) to change access to the telecommunication facility so that access is from 31st Avenue over TMK 1-5-017:084, and 2) a 5-year time extension to Condition No. 2 to complete construction of the facility. The subject property is situated between 31st Avenue and 32nd Avenue, about 2,160 feet southeast of the Paradise Drive intersection, Hawaiian Paradise Park, Puna, Hawai`i, TMKs (3) 1-5-017:84 and 1-5-017:118. The Commission took this item up at 9:03 a.m. with 8 members of the public in attendance. At 10:08 a.m., it was moved by Commissioner Dela Cruz and seconded by Commissioner Replogle that the Commission go into executive session to consult with its attorney regarding questions and issues pertaining to the Commission's powers, duties,privileges, immunities, and liabilities,pursuant to Hawai`i Revised Statutes Section 92-5. A voice vote was taken ofall Commissioners present, and motion carried with five aye votes. Page 1 of 4 Windward Planning Commission January 8,2020 Minutes The room was cleared, and at 10:10 a.m., the Commission went into executive session. At 10:17 a.m., it was moved by Commissioner Replogle and seconded by Commissioner Au that the Commission go out ofexecutive session. A voice vote was taken ofall Commissioners present, and motion carried with five aye votes. The hearing reconvenedfor regular session at 10:19 a.m. SEE EXHIBIT A) This item ended at 10:22 a.m. 2. APPLICANT: RTA KILAUEA LODGE LLC (REZ 19-000239) Application for a Change of Zone from a Single-Family Residential- 20,000 square feet RS-20) to a Village Commercial- 10,000 square feet (CV-10) zoning district for approximately 1.176 acres of land. The subject property is located on the north side of Old Volcano Road, approximately 500 feet west of its intersection with Wright Road, Olaa Summer Lots, Block "B", Puna, Hawai`i, TMK: (3) 1-9-004:004. The Commission took this item up at 10:22 a.m. with 11 members of the public in attendance. Chairman Clarkson called a recess at 10:54 a.m., and the meeting was reconvened at 11:06 a.m. SEE EXHIBIT B) This item ended at 11:19 a.m. 3.APPLICANT: BRUCE AND LAURA GILMORE (SPP 19-000211) Application for a Special Permit to establish a religious retreat center with overnight accommodations and the construction of a caretaker's residence with associated improvements on an approximately 1.1-acre portion of a 5-acre property situated in the State Land Use Agricultural District. The subject property is located at 19-4251 Haunani Road, about 1,800 feet northwest of the intersection with Maile Avenue, Volcano, Puna, Hawai`i, TMK: (3) 1-9-011:Por. 030. The Commission took this item up at 11:19 a.m. with 5 members of the public in attendance. Due to technical difficulties with the PowerPoint presentation, Chairman Clarkson called a recess at 11:20 a.m., and the meeting was reconvened at 11:24 a.m. SEE EXHIBIT C) This item ended at 12:02 p.m. Page 2 of 4 Windward Planning Commission January 8,2020 Minutes MINUTES —The Commission took this item up at 12:02 p.m. Approval of Minutes of the December 4, 2019 Meeting— It was moved by Commissioner Au and seconded by Commissioner Dela Cruz, that the Minutes of December 4, 2019, be approved as circulated. Motion was unanimously carried by a voice vote of all Commissioners in attendance. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS - The Commission took the following up at 12:02 p.m. 1. Election of Officers for 2020. It was moved by Chairman Clarkson and seconded by Commissioner Dela Cruz that Commissioner Raffipiy be nominated for Chairman of the Windward Planning Commission for the year 2020. There were no other nominations for Chairman, and the nomination motion was unanimously carried by a voice vote of all Commissioners in attendance. [Secretary's Note: Commissioner Raffipiy, who was not present at the meeting, subsequently accepted the chairmanship ofthe Windward Planning Commission for the year 2020 via telephone conversation with Jeffrey Darrow, Planning Program Manager.] Commissioner Replogle volunteered to be the Vice-Chairman of the Windward Planning Commission for the year 2020, which was seconded by Commissioner Aguinaldo. There were no other nominations for Vice-Chairman, and the nomination motion was unanimously carried by a voice vote of all Commissioners in attendance. 2. Discussion of recent Special Management Area (SMA) determinations, minor permits and enforcement action issued by the Planning Director. There was no report. ANNOUNCEMENTS —At 12:06 p.m., Ms. Hall informed the Commission that the Third Circuit Court's remand of the Piilani Partner's matter [SMA 18-000070] was scheduled on their February 6th agenda. Ms. Hall confirmed that the Commission already received copies of the Court's Order from staff and clarified that the Commission needed to issue revised findings in line with the Court's Order [ofDecember 13, 2019]. Upon Commissioner Replogle's inquiry, Ms. Hall stated that the Commissioners could review the record, particularly the portions that supported their denial of the permit. Ms. Hall emphasized that their decision would need to be within the parameters of the Court's Order. Ms. Jackson stated that there were tentatively six items on the February agenda, including the Piilani Partners matter. Page 3 of4 Windward Planning Commission January 8,2020 Minutes ADJOURNMENT—There being no further business, it was moved by Commissioner Dela Cruz and seconded by Commissioner Replogle that the meeting be adjourned. Motion was unanimously carried by a voice vote of all Commissioners in attendance. Chairman Clarkson adjourned the meeting at 12:08 p.m. Respectfully submitted, I • Ptah i?) Sarah Y. Hata-Finley, Secretary ATT T: seph C arkson, Chairman Windward Planning Commission Page 4 of 4 Windward Planning Commission January 8,2020 Minutes WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT JANUARY 8, 2020 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of CELLCO PARTNERSHIP DBA VERIZON WIRELESS (AMEND USE 15-000056) was called to order at 9:03 a.m. in the County of Hawaii Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawai`i with Chairman Joseph Clarkson presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Gilbert Aguinaldo, Dean Au, Joseph Clarkson, Donn Dela Cruz, John Replogle. ABSENT & EXCUSED: Thomas Raffipiy. ALSO PRESENT: Michael Yee (Planning Director), Malia Hall (Deputy Corporation Counsel for the Windward Planning Commission), Maija Jackson (Planner), Christian Kay(Planner), Jessica Andrews (Planner), and Sarah Hata-Finley(Commission Secretary). And 8 members from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: CELLCO PARTNERSHIP DBA VERIZON WIRELESS AMEND USE 15-000056) Application for an amendment to Use Permit No. 15-000056, which allowed the construction of a 150-foot tall steel monopole telecommunication facility and related improvements within a 1,600-square foot portion of a 2-acre property TMK 1-5-017:118) situated in the County's Agricultural-tural- 1-acre (A-1a) zoning district. The applicant is requesting: 1) to change access to the telecommunication facility so that access is from 31St Avenue over TMK 1-5-017:084, and 2) a 5-year time extension to Condition No. 2 to complete construction of the facility. The subject property is situated between 31'Avenue and 32nd Avenue, about 2,160 feet southeast of the Paradise Drive intersection, Hawaiian Paradise Park, Puna, Hawaii, TMKs (3) 1-5-017:84 and 1-5-017:118. CLARKSON: With that, we'll proceed with the first item on the agenda, which is an application from Cellco Partnership to amend an existing Use Permit, and Maija will proceed, please. JACKSON: Good morning, everyone, and happy new year, happy new decade. So, the first application on our agenda today is a request from Cellco Partnership also known as Verizon Wireless to amend Use Permit No. 15-56. The subject property is located in the Puna District in the Hawaiian Paradise Park Subdivision. The properties are outlined in black in the middle of the slide, and you can see the Kea`au-Pahoa Road running in a north-south direction on the left side of the slide, and Paradise Drive coming off towards the north, and Maku`u Drive on the bottom of the slide. The property is situated between 32nd Avenue and 31'Avenue. EXHIBIT A 1 So, in 2015, the Planning Commission issued a Use Permit to Verizon to allow the construction of a 150-foot tall steel monopole telecommunication facility and related improvements within a 1,600-square foot portion of a 2-acre property, and that 2-acre property is Parcel 118, which I will show you in a minute. The permit allowed access to the facility over a driveway from 32nd Avenue. It also required that construction ofthe facility be completed by November 19th of this year. So, the Applicant is now requesting to relocate that driveway from 32nd Avenue to 31'Avenue over a new property that the same landowner that owns Parcel 118 also owns Parcel 84. It's owned by a church. And, they're doing this in order to provide a safer play area for the preschool on the church property. The Applicant is also requesting a 5-year time extension to complete construction of the facility. So, this is the original site plan. You can see 32nd Avenue on the left side of the slide. This is the 2-acre Parcel 118 which is owned by the church. This is a church building, and then over in this area is a preschool building. There are some playground equipment generally in this area, and the driveway access that was proposed back in 2015 would come through the parking lot near the playground equipment between the church and the playground to the back of the property to the cell tower facility site. The Applicant is now proposing to get access from 31St Avenue over Parcel 84 and then to the back area of Parcel 118. And, that would avoid this playground equipment area. So, it would make a safer situation for the preschool. The County zoning of the property is Agricultural — 1 acre along with most of the properties in Hawaiian Paradise Park. That's shown in the light green color. The General Plan designation is Rural for this area. And, this is an aerial view ofthe properties and surrounding area. This is the church building, the preschool building, the playground equipment is located here. So, the original driveway would have come through this area and back to the proposed tower site. Now, they are proposing to get access through this property to the tower site here. And, this is a view of the property from 32nd Avenue. The original driveway would have come right through here, and this is the playground equipment. The cell tower site is behind the church building in this area here. And, this is another view again of the playground equipment, the cell tower site, and, another view from 31'Avenue through the vacant lot. The new driveway would be created back to this cell tower site. The Planning Director is recommending approval of the amendments, and I do have quite a bit of information that has come in since our recommendation was released. In your packet, you should have two packages of letters received from the community opposing the extension request. And, you should also have a revised recommendation from the Planning Department on a yellow piece of paper. These revised recommendations were made to add conditions that were recommended by the U.S. Fish&Wildlife Service due to impacts on threatened and endangered species in the area. EXHIBIT A 2 And, I do also just want to the point out that a lot of the testimony we received opposing the extension referred to a preschool called, "Tutu and Me" and I just want to point out where that preschool is located. And, this is based me goggling the address so I'm assuming its correct. The Tutu and Me program is located right about here near Paradise Drive. Of course, there is also a preschool on the property which I mentioned. And, that concludes my presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions. CLARKSON: Any questions for staff from the Commission? You all will be given a chance to testify and ask questions later. [Audience member raised her hand.] AU: Mr. Chair, I have a question. CLARKSON: Please. AU: Maija, the proposed access, who owns that property? JACKSON: The Church of Nazarene, and they also own the property where the tower will be located. AU: Okay. So, they—I noticed in that Google map that there's other houses in the area, and just that one property behind is owned by the church? JACKSON: That's correct. AU: Okay, thank you. CLARKSON: I have a question. Could we see the plot plan again that chose the new proposed driveway? Yeah, there. I'm just curious. It goes quite a ways, away. I mean, it's located quite a ways away from the property boundary. Was that done specifically just to shield the neighbor from the driveway or, I mean— JACKSON: —I'm not sure why that was done. We could ask the Applicant. CLARKSON: Okay, I will. JACKSON: Okay. CLARKSON: Any further questions? If not, thank you. Will the Applicant or their representative please come forward? Would you please raise your right hands? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter before the Planning Commission today? MARTIN: Ido. GRODZIN: Ido. EXHIBIT A 3 CLARKSON: Please introduce yourselves and tell us where you reside, who you represent, and proceed with your comments about the application. MARTIN: Okay, great. My name is Danette Martin. I'm a consultant to Verizon Wireless, and I live in Kailua-Kona. GRODZIN: My name is Noah Grodzin. I'm the real estate manager for Verizon in the State of Hawaii, and I reside in Mililani, Oahu. MARTIN: Okay, so let me give you a little bit background on this. I came on this project after the permit was received in 2015, and at that time, the owner had not signed the lease agreement prior to getting the permit here. So, my job was to finish things up. And, so, I contacted the pastor who was new to this church, Dr.—or Pastor Ray, Raymond Seamon, and he was new to the project as well. And, so we went through the plans with him and he had mentioned that they had newly acquired this property in the back and that he requested that we change the access for that. So, we did sign an agreement with him with the revised access and then we had to go through the NEPA process and that takes some time to do to make sure that they consult with the different agencies and things like that including Fish & Wildlife. So, we're coming back now after we were able to update that requesting this change. I did read the, some of the testimony, the opposing testimony, and unfortunately, I wasn't able to get a radio frequency engineer here, because that's always helpful in talking to the community to explain to them why it's safe and why it's not harmful. And, so, if you don't mind, I would like to just read a little bit of information that I've received from the FCC about this. So, "In 1996, the FCC adopted updated guidelines for evaluating human exposure to RF fields from fixed transmitting antennas such as those used for cellular and PCS cell sites. The [FCC's] guidelines are identical to those recommend by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measures [Measurements], a non-profit corporation chartered by Congress to develop information and recommendations concerning radiation protection. The FCC's guidelines also resemble the 1992 guidelines recommended by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, a non-profit technical professional engineering society, and endorsed by the American National Standards Institute" and ANSI "a non-profit, privately-funded membership organization that coordinates development of voluntary national standards in the United States. In the case of a cellular and PCS cell site transmitters, the FCC's RF exposure guidelines recommend a maximum permissible exposure level to the general public of approximately 580 microwatts per square centimeter. This limit is many times greater than RF levels typically found at [near] the base of cellular or PCS cell site towers or in the vicinity of other, low lower-] powered cell site transmitters. Calculations corresponding to a"worst-case" situation (all transmitters operating simultaneously and continuously at the maximum licensed power) show that, in order to be exposed to RF levels near the FCC's guidelines, and individual would essentially have to remain in the main stream EXHIBIT A 4 transmitting] beam and within a few feet of the antenna for several minutes or longer. Thus, the possibility of[that] a member of the general public being [could be] exposed to RF levels in excess of FCC guidelines is extremely remote." I hope this helps and provides them some comfort. And, I'm willing to take any of your questions. CLARKSON: Well, the first question is do you agree with the Director's Recommendation and conditions of approval. You've had it—have you had a chance to see those? MARTIN: I have. We did discuss, you know, the Hawaiian Hawk is being delisted as an endangered species, and we discussed, we discussed maybe revising that language, but I was told this morning, Maija had mentioned that she had discussed this with U.S. Fish&Wildlife, and the Planning Department has decided to continue to not revise it, and we're fine with that and those other, those other conditions as well. CLARKSON: This is including the Conditions 5 through 9 that were very recently added— MARTIN: —That's right, yes— CLARKSON: —after— MARTIN: —Yes. CLARKSON: Okay. MARTIN: We are fine with those. CLARKSON: Commissioners, any— AU: —Mr. Chair, I have a question? CLARKSON: Please—. AU: Ms. Martin, how, is Pastor Seamon here? MARTIN: Is who? AU: Pastor Seamon. Is that his name? MARTIN: No, he is not here. AU: Okay, so I, I've seen the documents. One of the reasons why he requested to change the access was because he said, "the applicant was made aware that children sometimes play on the lawn." So, can you just elaborate on that? Is that the reason—? EXHIBIT A 5 MARTIN: That's exactly the reason why— AU: —That's one of the reasons why? MARTIN: And, even though our maintenance people, they rarely come, probably once per quarter, it was still probably just a safer idea to redo that since they had the opportunity to do that since they had recently purchased the property. AU: Okay, so, the two properties that the church owns, did they purchase the property at the same time? MARTIN: No. AU: So, they bought— MARTIN: —They acquired the second parcel much later. AU: Okay, did they acquire it for this reason? So, they can have an access through that end? Or, did they already have the property? MARTIN: I don't really know the reason why they did. They just told me that they had recently acquired it and then they had asked that we relocate the access. AU: Okay, and you have no indication on any future plans that they have for that property? MARTIN: He said that they did not plan on developing it— AU: —Okay— MARTIN: —the property and that it would be used for access. AU: Okay, thank you. CLARKSON: Any further questions from the Commission? If not, thank you. We'll proceed with public testimony at this time. We have four people signed up to testify, and I'd like to ask all four of them to please come forward to be sworn in—Mary Couch, Nancy Young, Ric Wirick, and Jaerick Medeiros. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter before the Planning Commission today? TESTIFIERS: Yes/I do. CLARKSON: All right. We'll start with Mary. Please speak into the microphone. COUCH: Sure can. CLARKSON: Introduce yourself and tell us where you live. EXHIBIT A 6 COUCH: Okay. Hi, my name is Mary Couch. I live in Hawaiian Paradise Park. I've been a resident there for about 6-7 years. The reason why I am here today, I was on the board there for a year, and I'm one of the people that bailed because it was so dysfunctional. But, the reason why I am here is because the board had already passed—we've got a cell tower being built that's going to be put up on 17th where our community center is. And, in hindsight, that really should have gone out to the community for a vote. Now we're looking at another cell tower at the opposing end of our subdivision. This is right after that passed by the board; is when doctors started coming out on television saying we do not know what 5G is going to do to the community. We can't say without a doubt. And, honestly, it's going to be another one of those things like Roundup where once it's in, and it happens, and these contracts are not little one- or two- year things, these ramifications are going to take a long time to come to fruition. They say that highline and being located really close to high voltage power substations don't cause cancer, but any lineman worth his weight in salt will tell you it does. People that live close to that stuff have problems. We aren't talking about a minute amount of increase in the amount of radio waves that are going through—the numbers jumped from 4K to 5K substantially. And, HPP is a large park, but we are going to now have two 5G towers in there—one for AT&T and one for Verizon. And these guys are paying peanuts, folks. Peanuts at the expense of the community. And once they're in, they're in, and it doesn't matter how many people get sick, because they don't know. They're going to monitor it. They just don't know, and that's the facts. That is the facts. They don't know. They're going to monitor it, and it ain't going to, it's not going to come to fruition until many years down the road. There's little kids right there! The neighbors, I was a board member, and I told them, please guys, this needs to go out to a vote to the community because it's going to impact our entire community, and they were too busy fighting with each other and I so regret. I regret that I had voted for that thing, and I should have said no, but I didn't know, and you guys have an opportunity here to help our community, to protect us, because our board didn't do that. So, I am asking you to genuinely please consider what you're doing. Consider, because we're going to have two cell towers in a small amount of space, and it's going to be going like this at our community. Thank you. CLARKSON: Nancy Young? Please speak into the microphone. YOUNG: Okay— HALL: It's on. CLARKSON: It's on. YOUNG: Thank you, my name is Nancy Young. I'm actually a retired teacher. I also have 14 children that I gave birth to with my same husband, which maybe some of you know—Coach Tony Young, the big black guy with the dreadlocks. We have been on the Big Island for 27 years, and we were at 13 years being raised by Hawaiians in Hau`ula. We're originally not from California,but Illinois, and I just am—I'm a mother; I'm a grandmother; I'm even a great- grandmother. EXHIBIT A 7 I want to ask the people if they gave us testimony of the safety rules from 1996 folks. There has been a lot of research since then. Is that correct? [Turning to audience.] You folks are basing it on, and not only that, but my children were raised, well two of them graduated from [inaudible] okay? There was six of'em graduated from Waiakea High. Unfortunately, four of, I don't know, you do the math. The rest of them graduated from Kea`au, okay? Even my children, even my daughters and granddaughters have played sports in this community. They've been active members of this community and contributing. Some of them went to Kea`au Elementary. It was too late when they found out the asbestos and the, I forget, arsenic in the ground I believe out there, but we do have updated information about the cell phone. I went to purchase a smart phone, Straight Talk. It does not say like people of my generation a little very fine line, "This may cause cancer." If you check out some of the packaging of the new cell phones, it says specifically, "This will cause cancer." You know, folks, we do have an updated version of the safety. Let's not, let's not do this. There are children, that their lives are at stake, and you talk about endangered species. Yes, the animals and the endangered, we are an endangered species with our lack of trying to see the more recent—and if we have to change our opinion, no shame folks. We're doing it for each other and our children. Thank you for listening, and this was very last minute, but, yes, and I appreciate—one ofmy questions was where is the pastor today, so thank you, sir, and I don't know if I should hold this to the end, but I wanted to ask the question again of the people that are proposing this, are, they're there? [Turning to Ms. Martin and Mr. Grodzin in the audience.] When you, I didn't quite get it, did he ask for your help to become a permitted—I'm not quite sure. I was trying to listen and take notes at the same time. The pastor, when you folks first got involved, you helped them— CLARKSON: —Please, please address the Commission and then we'll— YOUNG: —Oh, I'm sorry— CLARKSON: —make sure the information gets requested. YOUNG: Thank you. CLARKSON: What is your question then? YOUNG: The story they said about, was it the pastor that had originally, I want to know how the thing got started where, I guess he was not able—oh, and you, so many questions. Okay, let me say this. The pastor, Raymond Seamons [sic]? How is that spelled? CLARKSON: We'll find out. YOUNG: Okay. EXHIBIT A 8 CLARKSON: This is the current—you're asking how to spell the name of the current pastor? YOUNG: The one that they are—. CLARKSON: Dealing with now? YOUNG: Yes, yes, yes. CLARKSON: We'll find out. YOUNG: Okay. And, the story was did he seek their help or did they seek his help in having this on this property or—? CLARKSON: Well I—okay, we can ask about how the site was selected— YOUNG: —Thank you— CLARKSON: —later. YOUNG: Okay. CLARKSON: But, the change in the access is all that is new to this project. YOUNG: Okay. CLARKSON: And, that was initiated by the pastor. YOUNG: Okay. Thank you. CLARKSON: That's my understanding. YOUNG: Yes, thank you for— CLARKSON: Okay. Please— COUCH: Can I ask one more question? CLARKSON: Please. COUCH: So, in 2015 when they applied for this permit, was it a permit for 5G at that point in time? Because you can be certain that that's what they're going to be putting up. So, what they want put up there, it's not even what they originally got it mapped for guys. C'mon. CLARKSON: Okay, at this time, we'll ask Ric Wirick—? EXHIBIT A 9 WIRICK: Yes, my name is Ric Wirick. I live in Orchidland Estates just across the highway from HPP. First of all, I do have a question for the Commission. Is this meeting today to approve the tower going in or just to approve the road access to the tower going in? CLARKSON: It's to approve the time extension required for completion with all of the conditions that were added to protect endangered species and with the new road access. The tower itself is not up for consideration today. That's my understanding. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong. AGUINALDO: That's correct. WIRICK: Okay, because I believe, you know, most of us that are here are here because the public health and welfare, safety issue created by the tower. And, so, I guess what would be best for us, especially us that are here, is how do we get our testimony in demanding actually that the County take the time to do the necessary studies around existing towers to show the community that this is a safe structure to put up? Now, there have been studies going on for over a decade in Europe. They were showing up to 70 percent of the people that live around within a half mile of these radiuses are being adversely affected, including the raise of cancer in individuals and that, so I'm just asking at this particular point, how do we go through the process to have every one of these towers looked at before they go in and make sure that the public safety hazard that it does create is addressed because there will be in time class action lawsuits going against the County for approving these things and the companies for installing these things. I mean, if we look at the scientific data that they presented to us today, if you remember, back in the 1950's we had doctors recommending Camel cigarettes to their patient with the AMA backing them. Today, we laugh at that. I'm telling you, that took 50 years to come around the corner. We're looking now at a risk that is involving safety of individuals and to allow these towers to go up around homes, schools, and also churches is, you know, verging on, you know, a form of insanity. We have to be able to move forward with this addressing the public safety issue in a realistic term looking at studies that have already been done in Europe, having countries already stop this. Like Belgium stopping any installation of new 5G towers and that how do we as a community stand up to protect ourselves before this hazard is put in place? CLARKSON: To answer your question to the best of my ability, and I'll invite other Commissioners to speak to this issue, too, my suggestion is that you contact your Federal elected representatives, and I'll tell you why. There is a Federal law that prohibits any local jurisdiction from even considering the health effects ofradiofrequency emissions in the consideration of siting telecom facilities. So, you all are very welcome to make your views known, but we as a local jurisdiction, the Planning Commission and the County, cannot consider any health effects of radiowaves in making our decision. So, if you think that that's wrong, Federal law needs to be changed, and the only way to do that is to get a representative before Congress to introduce those changes. COUCH: That's 4G to 5G is in your power to say no, too, because they didn't apply for it. Well,just pointing it out. EXHIBIT A 10 WIRICK: Okay, so, I mean, maybe I can ask her question then on a technicality. There is planning that goes through when there is a Building Permit, special use permit, etcetera that goes through, and it has to be very specific to what it is. If they applied under 4G and they are now moving to 5G, there seems to be, there would have to be a resubmission of that to take it to the next level to have that put in, which would allow for time for those of us who have studied this to get something in so that we may stall this process. In other words, it's, it's, you know, to direct us to the Federal Government at this point is, you know, those of us who have worked for the Federal Government, we know what that means. It's basically there's nothing we can do, at least in a rapid time. The problem is, is we do have a safety issue. It is being addressed. There is a concerned public, and we need to be heard. So, you know, in other words, we need to be working with you folks to help us because actually I believe you're in this position, you're not elected or a paid position, but you are here to serve us, not the other way around. In other words, and it's the same with our elected officials. We have a public safety concern, and we would likeitaddressed. CLARKSON: Concern taken. Can we go to the—Jaerick? Please introduce yourself and proceed. MEDEIROS: My name is Jaerick Medeiros Garcia. Mahalo, happy new year everybody.Thank you for this opportunity for letting us speak. I come from Pepeeekeo, and in the past, I've seen the Commission fail the people of the communities. I seen the public officials, I still see the public officials failing the County of Hawaii. You look around this, this city, this town in Hilo, how much towers is up, and none of them have permits to be putting up extra things on these towers. How do I know? Because it happened in my own hometown of Pepe`ekeo. You got Corp. Counsel hoping everybody don't say anything about the health issues because a 1993 [sic] is the last time that they upgraded it, the FCC. Well, we can hold the County officials and the Commission accountable. As a Planning Director, Mr. Yee, you can deny these cell towers. You can. You have that power, but you're not. Can we hold you accountable if our family getssick, when and if FCC do [sic] change their rules and regulations? Because right now, that's what's happening. For the towers in my community, you folks seen me speak before here about Pepeekeo, about the tower that Verizon wanted to put up in Kalapana. The thing is the towers that I speak of in my community sits on County property, and the County had failed to maintain and regulate these towers since 1988. Fifty-two people, and it doesn't matter if the CountyCommissioncannotgoagainsthealthissues. Well, this is a County issue, because why? The towers in my community is not regulated in the FCC jurisdiction. It's not. In the TMK that Corp. Counsel had held from us getting to the last two weeks, because I know they're trying totakepapersoutofthere, I'm just look—I'm just lucky I took pictures of everything. It says that our tower is supposed to be regulated by the PUC and it hasn't. Since 1988, 52 people had died from cancer in my community. As we speak right now, there's 27 people in my community with cancer at stage four. Homes hum [making humming sound] at night from these towers that had no permits to be upgraded, to have done anything. The TMK is still missing; I can't find that file. There's some funny business going on in here, and it needs to stop. If you guys are not concerned about the future generations of our children, our mo`opuna-s, you guys better think twice man, it's your kids, your grandkids that these things, EXHIBIT A 11 they shouldn't be around these things. We all know that it is a health problem no matter what Corp. Counsel said. Corp. Counsel is there to help profligate the County. I'm telling you guys. These guys can come in here and say since 1996, why? Give us an answer. Sir, did you say your name was, what his name was Corey Shaffer maybe? [Turning to Mr. Grodzin in the audience.] Is that your name? GRODZIN (from audience): No, I work with Corey— MEDEIROS: Okay, I spoke to Corey Shaffer. You know, I have about one minute plus three, so here's the thing. Why can't you folks get the FCC, you folks get the FCC to upgrade all that information. You guys have that power. You're the Planning Commission. Help put things into legislation. The least you guys can do. Help us. I mean, I'm worried about your mo`opuna-s, your mo'opuna-s, your mo`opuna-s, your mo`opuna-s, your kids, your mo`opuna-s, your kids pointing to each Commissioner, Director Yee, and Ms. Hall]. I'm concerned about that, nobody else? That's weird. Do not turn the blind eye to the community. Please think about what you guys doing. This might be just for about a road, but look, it's majority of churches that is being, putting these things on their properties next to playgrounds, next to children. These guys, they get one agenda, and their agenda is everything is okay. That's their agenda. The FCC Director comes from Verizon. Remember that. He's here with their own agenda to tell you guys it's okay, it's okay. Thank you. CLARKSON: Thank you. Any—or would you like—? YEE: Quick comment. This is a reminder to the public that any application that comes to the Planning Department goes through me, and I vet it, and I make a recommendation to them. Because an application is in front of the Commission does not mean that they were approving it, disapproving it, denying it. They have to hear it. Because they are hearing it does not mean they have leaned on a decision one way or another. To question any of these volunteers in their service to this community, I think is certainly not part ofthe Aloha Spirit. Question me. I'm not born and raised here. But, to question the service of these folks is getting a little bit outside of your testimony that you should be providing to the Commission. Okay, we clarified in 1996, there's a telecommunications act. It's a Federal Law. MEDEIROS: You know how long ago is that? YOUNG: Twenty-four years ago. YEE: It is a Federal law that as a Commission, they must abide to. Now, whether or not you want to agree or disagree with that, that's the law that certainly binds them to certain review. Okay, so I need folks to understand that. And as soon as we make a decision that falls outside of that, we would fall into an appeal hearing immediately, and we almost automatically would lose that appeal if it's solely based on whether or not the health issues—a 4G, 5G, if it's just based on a health concern. So, I would welcome testimony around if you're opposing the tower, but if it EXHIBIT A 12 only relies on health issues, you're going to make it hard for the Commission to really determine where the legal authority to deny or to approve. YOUNG: May I speak? I don't know the technicalities of this. May I speak? I want to thank all of you, including you, sir, and this is what we live here for. This is why my husband and I forty years ago moved back here, because this is the last stand of aloha. Where my children would call any one of you uncle, aunty. We are not protesting. We just want—this meeting I was told that this is to debate whether the extension should be permitted. Is that true, yes? CLARKSON: A time extension, yes. YOUNG: Yes, and we are just actually asking it will be further down the line if we have everybody's cooperation in knowing that we need a little bit more time on this to bring in some of these more updated data, and I think that's really all we're really asking, and I just want you to know that even in this man's heart, he appreciates all of you. MEDEIROS: Definitely, I'm not here to put all you guys on the hot seat— YOUNG: —It's just that we're so— MEDEIROS: —I'm hear to tell you guys— YOUNG: —heartfelt— MEDEIROS: —do you guys have kids? YOUNG: Yes. MEDEIROS: You guys have mo`opuna-s. YOUNG: Yes. MEDEIROS: I'm not telling you guys doing a terrible job. I'm just saying look around. If you guys want to hold cell tower issues, do it in the evenings so more people can attend. People is trying to make their—live, they're trying to survive. They at work. Nobody's here. We'd have more opposing these things, but it's not allowed seems like. So, can we just think about changing the times of dealing with this stuff so more people can be part of this decision, and— CLARKSON: —That's— MEDEIROS: —I am, I have firsthand experience, issues in my community where people within 300 or 500 feet from the project should be aware. It's not happening. It's not happening. Is County doing anything about it? No, they're not! CLARKSON: Well, I can assure you that the notifications that are required by County ordinance of the neighbors when this originally was permitted were done. Everybody had a chance— EXHIBIT A 13 MEDEIROS: —Are you sure? Are you sure? Because I got paperwork showing me that within 500 feet of my, my home— HALL: He's talking about a different project. He's not talking about this project. MEDEIROS: No, but majority ofthe projects I'm talking about, Counsel, because you sit there as the Counsel doesn't mean you know everything— CLARKSON: —Okay, I think we've gone through— MEDEIROS: —The thing is, I have documentation saying, okay, how can you reach people through, the only things that, they don't list, in my community, they don't list all the addresses that get their mail. They try to hit the PO boxes that not even are in use already. So, a lot of my neighbors, they don't get notification of what's happening with the County. They don't. CLARKSON: Okay, thank you all. Are there any further questions for any of the testifiers? COUCH: Can I ask one more question? CLARKSON: Go ahead. COUCH: It'll be very brief Thank you. I appreciate you guys giving us an opportunity to speak here. I really do, and since I kind of heard it out of your mouth, it seems like 5G is a different factor, that might be some of the things that are modified. When they applied at the Planning Department, it was for a different technology. So, I am saying that you guys can go back and say reapply for 5G instead of modifying, and I pray to God that each and every one of you will do that today for us. Thank you. CLARKSON: Thank you, all. If there are no further questions for any of these testifiers, I'd like to call Dwight Vicente? Please raise your right hand. If you're not willing to be sworn, let me know, and we'll put on the record that your testimony is unsworn. VICENTE: For the record, your jurisdiction is limited to the 1,750,000 acres that was illegally ceded to the U.S by the joint resolution of 1898 by the banana republic of Hawaii. So, these lands have been on number 1, 2, and 3, I believe, was not ceded in 1898 and still belong to and fall under the jurisdiction ofthe Hawaiian Kingdom. So, your jurisdiction is questionable at best, limited to the Hawaiian Homes Commission which is the 1,750,000 only. So, you cannot issue permits or tax map keys of any sort. That's my answer to why I don't get sworn in. CLARKSON: Any further testimony? VICENTE: Okay my testimony is that the jurisdiction is questionable based on the 1898 Joint Resolution. It's limited to 1,750,000 acres of Crown and Government lands that was illegally ceded to the United States by the banana republic of Hawai`i. There's no amendment to go beyond that except in 1959, the State of Hawaii had the State Land Use Commission to use their EXHIBIT A 14 power beyond the 1,750,000 acres by claiming adverse possession of these Crown and Government lands which the lease ended in 18-1915. Fell under their jurisdiction because they made a statement that somebody now owns these Crown and Government lands, and they're going for a land use change from agriculture to developing. So, it's still illegal because treaties ended in 1898, so anybody who claims, who remains here after 1897,became illegal aliens and they cannot own these Crown and Government lands. Till today, they still don't own the Crown and Government Lands even with the State Land Use Commission and even this Planning Commission. You cannot use their power beyond the 1898 Joint Resolution. And the Federal laws does not apply beyond the 1,750,000 acres. So, if you cite Federal law, it doesn't apply. There's no amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2. So, that's the limits right there. It's questionable because of the constitutional issues involved between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States which consist of, till today 13 states under Article I, Section 2, Clause 3. Thank you. CLARKSON: Thank you. Are there any questions for this testifier, for Mr. Vicente from the Commission? Thank you, please be seated. Is there anyone else that hasn't testified that wishes to testify? If not, I'll ask for a motion that public testimony be closed. AU: Mr. Chair, I move for, that public testimony be closed. REPLOGLE: I second. AGUINALDO: Second. CLARKSON: All those in favor? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. CLARKSON: Opposed? Public testimony is closed. There's one follow-up question I would ask of the Cellco Applicant. It just relates to the question that was asked by one testifier as to who—the spelling of the name and who you're dealing with as a representative of the landowner. MARTIN: Pastor Raymond Seamon, and that's spelled S-e-a-m-o-n. CLARKSON: S-e-a-m-o-n, Pastor Raymond Seamon. That's all I have. Thank you. GRODZIN: Can we address the comments of opposition? AU: Mr. Chair, I do have some questions as well. CLARKSON: Yes, follow-up questions for the Applicant? AU: Yes. So, what is the process for,just give it to me real brief. I know you can talk about it a lot as far as the site selection for a cell tower or any cell tower,just real briefly. EXHIBIT A 15 MARTIN: Okay, so, the radiofrequency engineer issues a, well, we used to call them search rings, but now we call them search dots because they really do, you know, we're trying to fill in most of the area. So, they give us an area that they get, saying that they need service. So, we go out. We look at it, we talk to landowners, we try to talk to neighbors. We also go to the Planning Department usually and find out what the zoning is, and we try to provide more than one selection. Construction has a say in it, and utilities and things like that. There's a lot of things that go into it. Is this on? [Referring to microphone.] Okay, so sorry, talking away. So, there's a lot of things that go into it. It's location first and foremost, utilities, and zoning and a landlord's willingness. GRODZIN: But, stepping back from that, I mean, it starts off with is there coverage or not, and so if there's no coverage—I mean, we don't, there's a lot of capital spent to build a facility like this. And, Verizon doesn't just go out and build a cell tower just to add it to an area where there is like, coverage is okay, right? So, the RF engineer will, you know, his job is to, our job it to provide a great network for our customers and users and other users, future users, emergency service users and what not. So, simply, it's, when there's, when the engineer is looking at our network, and there's a coverage—what's called a coverage gap or a hole, it becomes an obvious, you know, an obvious response is like we need to provide a solution to provide coverage to that area. And, so that would, that's what starts what Danette's talking about where then he provides a search area and says, okay, if we can place a new solution, whether that's a cell tower or antennas on a rooftop or what have you, if we can provide a new solution in the search area, that will solve our coverage problem. And, so, in this area. There is no tall structures. There's nothing else to put an antenna on. There is no coverage. So, the only solution for this type of area is a new cell tower. And, so, that's when you come into the complexities of zoning, right? So, not every zone allows for a tower or this type of use, so you have this area and you kind of start dividing it up. It's like where can we put this thing that's going to meet the jurisdictional requirements. And, so, it's a combination of impacts, but I just want you to understand that it's not—you know, it's not like throwing darts at a dartboard or just a random thing. It's like, hey, we have no coverage here. Our job is to provide a great network so that someone when they're driving across an area or someone when they move somewhere or an emergency service person when they're going through an area, they don't lose service, right? So, they can always have continuous service. So, it starts with that and then it goes to hey can you find us a spot in this area `cause we know anything in this search area will like fill in the coverage need. That's kind of how that happens. AU: Thank you. Just one more follow-up question. So, you guys are coming in for a 5-year time extension, so share with the Commission where you are at with construction, and how much time do you really need? Do you need five years? MARTIN: No, we don't. EXHIBIT A 16 AU: Okay, so where are you at with the construction part? Because you've already acquired the land; you got your permit; you're just waiting for this access. So,just share with us exactly where you are. MARTIN: We already have the tower foundation designed. I plan on coming in for Plan Approval as soon as I get, as soon as I get the written approval from the Commission, and so, I could probably have this permitted by mid-year, and then we'll have to start applying for utilities and ordering the tower. It has to come by boat. So, really, realistically, I've been told we really only need a one-year extension. GRODZIN: So, we spent the past year, literally the past year, working on this access revision. That's how long it's taken us to work to design new plans to go through the process to get to today. So, I mean, five years doesn't seem like a long time, but almost a quarter of that was spent just working on revising access. But, like Danette is saying, we do want to build this structure, but now we have to go through plan review, if we get approved today, we still have to go through the plan review process. We have to go through a Building Permit process which, I mean, we'll do the best we can to get through those processes, but some of it is, you know, on the reviewers and sometimes that takes longer than you want. So, I mean, we want to build this thing in the next year, but we can't really, really we can't—we're not confident that we could get it built under today's timeline. AU: One more question. This is for staff or for Mr. Yee and Maija. So, can you just clarify this with me as far as process. So, the Applicant is coming in for a time extension and amendment, but now we're adding on another parcel, so from my understanding, the original special use permit was for one TMK. So, now the amendment is for another TMK. So, is it more appropriate for a new application or is it fine to just do an amendment to add on another TMK for the access road? JACKSON: Typically, whenever we add a new TMK, it can be done through an amendment process. The same public notification to surrounding property owners is done and it includes the additional parcel, so more neighbors are notified. But, it's essentially the same process. AU: Okay, thank you. CLARKSON: Any further questions? REPLOGLE: I have a question, and I don't know if you can answer this, but one of the earlier testifiers mentioned how within their subdivision, there's an AT&T tower, and you're going to put up a Verizon tower. Are you both separate— MARTIN: —Let me address this— REPLOGLE: —or do those overlap? Do we have to have a tower—if I'm Verizon, we got to put up a hundred towers and then we got to put up a hundred for AT&T—? EXHIBIT A 17 MARTIN: Absolutely not. As a matter of fact, each carrier prefers—the Planning Department policy requires us to co-locate, and so if AT&T or some other carrier came in after us, after we got our permit in 2015, they would have need to, they would have needed to show that this tower that Verizon is building couldn't meet their coverage objective. So, that doesn't happen. REPLOGLE: Thank you. CLARKSON: Any further questions? I have one last follow-up question. It relates to the difference between 5G and 4G. My understanding is that the effective coverage range for 5G is not as large as for 4G. Is that a—. MARTIN: Five G is basically an overlay, an overlay to an existing system to reduce capacity. So, it's more like a wifi, so with all the smart phones eating up all of the service, they add these smaller antennas and they don't go on towers because we obviously have coverage there, but they usually go on buildings or utility poles, and they're just a wifi overlay. CLARKSON: Well, the— GRODZIN: —You are correct. The 5G— CLARKSON: —The questions I have is as cell companies migrate to 5G, does that mean, meaning more new towers are going to be required because their effective range isn't as far as the old 4G technology, and you're going to have to keep adding new towers? GRODZIN: Not necessarily. So, I mean, this is a different type of conversation, but like I said, I was talking about before solutions, coverage solutions. So, 5G is just a newer—so first of all, the G stands for"Generation" all right so we went from 3G to 4G. It's just a generation of technology. So 5G is a smaller frequency area, but it provides for like higher speeds or higher bandwidth. So, the need for more towers? Not necessarily. So, one of the things with 5G that people are looking at or that companies are looking at are just smaller stations, smaller locations where a small 5G antenna would go like on a utility pole or something like that. Not necessarily a-5G does not require, necessitate more new cell towers. CLARKSON: Okay, thank you. But, it would have a lot more smaller transmitters, much more frequently, throughout a community, on buildings on poles. I mean, that's what I've read. I just wanted to see how it affected tower applications, but you're saying 5G will not require more towers than 4G. MARTIN: It actually does the opposite. The way I see it, is it does the opposite because it's, it's creating capacity, more capacity. So, you're adding these smaller antennas so that you don't need more towers. GRODZIN: I guess ultimately, what requires more towers or more locations is more users and more usage of anyone's network. MARTIN: That's right. EXHIBIT A 18 GRODZIN: But I can't speak to everyone like AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile. I can't speak to all their coverage objectives and plans and stuff like that,but that's what really drives the need, is using it. CLARKSON: Thank you. MARTIN: One more thing I wanted to, you know, I want the public to feel safe. So, I wanted to point them to the American Cancer Society's website. They have done their own review of safety, and they have information on that website for their information. CLARKSON: Okay, thank you. AU: Mr. Chair? CLARKSON: Did the audience get that? American Cancer Society website has information on cell technology. MARTIN: That's right. AU: Mr. Chair, I have a question for staff. So, there's, if this access, if this road access is granted for this second parcel, my concern is what limitations does the church have for that property, because it seems like that property is only going to have a road in it, and can you just tell us what's going to happen with that property? Can they sell it? And, ifthey do sell it, what's going to happen to the cell tower? Do they have to come in for another amendment for a new access road? Can you just kind of explain what could happen or what's going to happen with that piece of property. That's just my concern. JACKSON: So, I also don't know what the church's plans are for the property. It could be used for a house. It could be used for any other agricultural purpose. The property could be sold by the church in the future, and if that does occur, we added a condition, Condition No. 3 requiring that the Applicant execute and record an easement over Parcel 84 so that access to the cell tower site can be provided in perpetuity by a future owner. If a future owner purchases Parcel 84, they still have to allow access to the tower. As far as how the church could use that driveway, they also received a Special Permit for the church and so, if their intention is to move some of the church traffic through that property, they would need to amend that Special Permit to add that driveway onto the church Special Permit. Does that answer your question? AU: Yes, it does. Thank you. MARTIN: And, I just wanted to confirm that we already do have a recorded license for this access, for that property, so if it was ever sold, the easement would go with the property. It wouldn't just end. EXHIBIT A 19 JACKSON: Could you provide a copy of that to the Department, please? For the file? MARTIN: I can provide a redacted copy, yes. JACKSON: Thank you. CLARKSON: There being no further questions and public testimony has been closed. Thank you both. You may be seated. At this time, the Chair will call for a motion for action. DELA CRUZ: Chair, I move that the Commission enter into executive session to consult with its attorney regarding questions and issues. REPLOGLE: Second. CLARKSON: It's been moved and seconded that we go into executive session to consult with the Corporation Counsel. All those in favor? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. CLARKSON: Opposed? Motion carried. So, the Commission will now go into executive session. Everybody is to leave the room except for the Commissioners and their attorney. HALL: And Sarah. At 10:08 a.m., it was moved by Commissioner Dela Cruz and seconded by Commissioner Replogle that the Commission go into executive session to consult with its attorney regarding questions and issues pertaining to the Commission's powers, duties,privileges, immunities, and liabilities,pursuant to Hawai`i Revised Statutes Section 92-5. A voice vote was taken of all Commissioners present, and motion carried with five aye votes. The room was cleared, and at 10:10 a.m., the Commission went into executive session. At 10:17 a.m., it was moved by Commissioner Replogle and seconded by Commissioner Au that the Commission go out of executive session. A voice vote was taken of all Commissioners present, and motion carried with five aye votes. The hearing reconvenedfor regular session at 10:19 a.m. CLARKSON: The regular meeting is back is session, and at this time, the Chair will ask for a motion for action. C'mon guys we gotta take an action. AU: Mr. Chair, I'm prepared to make a motion. I move that the application to amend Use Permit No. 15-000056 be approved based on the Planning Director's recommendation which shall be adopted. EXHIBIT A 20 REPLOGLE: Second. CLARKSON: It's been moved and seconded that the motion—what he said—be approved, the application for an extension be approved. Is there any further discussion within the Commission about this motion? If not, will staff poll the Commission? REPLOGLE: I would likejust discussion for the benefit ofyou all and Verizon. I can't say that we're unanimously in favor of this,but it appears that law and order supersede our authority in this case and, therefore, we are carrying out our duty to the County in terms of zoning, and we will do what's right as we have sworn to do. But, I think you can safely feel that I can't speak for everyone, but I'm guessing most of us are very sympathetic towards what you attempted to do today. But, we, we have our duty, and as our Chairman pointed out, I would get in touch with our congressional representatives and maybe somehow if they understand the urgency of it, something can be done. I feel powerless also. Anyway, thank you. CLARKSON: Any further discussion? If not, please call the vote. JACKSON: Commissioner Au? AU: Aye. JACKSON: Commissioner Replogle? REPLOGLE: Aye. JACKSON: Commissioner Aguinaldo? AGUINALDO: Aye. JACKSON: Commissioner Dela Cruz? DELA CRUZ: Aye. JACKSON: And, Chair Clarkson? CLARKSON: Aye. JACKSON: Okay, the motion carries five, zero. CLARKSON: Thank you, all. The Applicant will be notified in writing very soon as to the action taken today. EXHIBIT A 21 The discussion ended at 10:22 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sarah Y. Hata-Fi ley, Secretary Windward Planning Commission EXHIBIT A 22 Harry Kim Joseph Clarkson, Chair Mayor i% Thomas Raffipiy,Vice Chair i '" '• Gilbert AguinaldoRoyTakemoto Dean AuManagingDirector 4 ••,-f'•' os N' Donn Dela Cruz John Replogle County of Hawaii WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION Aupuni Center • 101 Pauahi Street,Suite 3 • Hilo,Hawai`i 96720 Phone(808)961-8288 • Fax(808)961-8742 JAN 21 2020 Ms. Danette Martin General Dynamics 76-6357 Kololia Street Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 Dear Ms. Martin: SUBJECT: Use Permit No. USE 15-000056 Applicant: Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless Request: Revise Access to Previously Approved Telecommunication Facility And Five-Year Extension of Time to Condition No. 2 (Complete Construction) Tax Map Key: 1-5-017:084 and 1-5-017:118 The Windward Planning Commission,at its duly held public hearing on January 8,2020,voted to approve the above-referenced request to amend Use Permit No. USE 15-000056 to change access to the telecommunication facility so access is from 3151 Avenue over TMK 1-5-017:084 and allow a five-year time extension to Condition No.2 to complete construction of the facility. The property is located between 3151 Avenue and 32nd Avenue,about 2,160 feet southeast ofthe Paradise Drive intersection,Hawaiian Paradise Park, Puna, Hawaii. Approval of this amendment is subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant, its successors or assigns shall be responsible for complying with all stated conditions of approval. 2. Construction of the monopole shall be completed within five (5) years from the effective date of this amended permit. Prior to construction,the applicant,successors or assigns shall secure Final Plan Approval for the proposed development from the Planning Director in accordance with Section 25-2-71(c)(3),25-2-72,25-2-74 and 25-4-12,Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Hawaii County Code. Plans shall identify proposed structures, fire protection measures,access easements and any fencing associated with the use. Landscaping shall also be indicated on the plans along northeast and northwest corner of Parcel 118 for the purpose of mitigating any adverse noise or visual impacts to adjacent properties. The plans shall identify existing landscaping and new landscaping in the areas that do not currently have landscaping in place. The antenna plans shall be stamped by a structural engineer. www.hiplanningdept.com Hawai'i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer planning@hawaiicounty.gov JAN 212020 Ms. Danette Martin General Dynamics Page 2 3. The applicant shall execute and record an easement over Parcel 84 to provide access to the telecommunication site on Parcel 118 for the duration of the life of the telecommunication facility.A copy ofthe recorded easement shall be provided to the Planning Department prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the telecommunication facility. 4. All earthwork activity, including grading, grubbing and stockpiling, shall conform to Chapter 10, Erosion and Sedimentary Control, of the Hawaii County Code. 5. To protect any Hawaiian hoary bats in the vicinity ofthe property,barbed wire fencing shall not be used in the permit area and woody vegetation over 15 feet in height shall not be disturbed, trimmed or removed during bat birthing and pup rearing season of June 1st to September 15th without first conducting surveys for bat nests and coordinating with US Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS)ifnests are found. Surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. 6. To protect any Hawaiian hawks in the vicinity of the property, ground clearing, grubbing activities and construction shall not occur in the permit area during hawk breeding season of March 1st to September 30th without first conducting surveys for hawk nests and coordinating with USFWS if nests are found. Surveys shall be conducted by a qualified ornithologist and are only valid for 14 days. Ground clearing or construction shall not occur within 1,600 feet ofany active Hawaiian hawk nest during the breeding season. Regardless of the time of year,trimming or cutting trees containing a hawk nest is prohibited. 7. To protect any seabirds (Hawaiian petrels, Newell's shearwaters and band-rumped storm petrel)in the vicinity ofthe property,any lighting shall be fully shielded so that the bulb can only be seen from below bulb height. The lights shall be turned off when human activity is not occurring in the lighted area. 8. To prevent the spread of Rapid `Ohi`a Death, a survey of the proposed site shall be conducted two weeks prior to any tree cutting to determine if there are any infected `ohi`a trees. If infected `ohi`a are suspected at the site,the applicant shall contact the appropriate agencies at UH-Hilo and USDA for further guidance. If `ohi`a trees will be cut during construction,the applicant shall follow procedures as described in the comment letter from US Fish and Wildlife Service, dated January 6, 2020. 9. To prevent the spread of harmful invasive species, the applicant shall follow biosecurity protocols as described in the comments letter from US Fish and Wildlife Service, dated January 6, 2020. 10. Co-location of antennas upon the existing tower and expansion of related support equipment within the project site may be allowed within the parameters ofthe tower height as approved by the Planning Commission, provided that ground lease areas of co-locating carriers are adjacent to the existing ground lease area and not located within the open yard setback areas. Ms. Danette Martin General Dynamics Page 3 11. Prior to the issuance of Final Plan Approval, the applicant shall secure and finalize any building permits for the subject property required by the Department of Public Works Building Division. 12. Within 120 days ofthe permanent abandonment ofthe tower,the applicant shall remove the tower and its antenna and accessory structures (including the equipment building and the fence),down to,but not including,the concrete foundation. The applicant shall immediately provide written notification to the Planning Director of the termination of the telecommunication tower and related improvements and the removal of all structures. 13. In the unlikely event that surface or subsurface historic resources, including human skeletal remains, structural remains (e.g. rock walls, terraces, platforms, etc.), cultural deposits, marine shell concentrations,sand deposits,or sink holes are identified during the grading or construction work, work shall cease in the immediate vicinity of the find, the find shall be protected from further disturbance and the State Historic Preservation Division shall be contacted at(808) 933-7651 or(808) 692-8015. 14. Comply with all applicable rules, regulations and requirements of the affected agencies for the proposed development, including the Federal Aviation Administration and Federal Communications Commission. All exterior lighting shall be shielded. 15. An initial extension oftime for the performance ofconditions ofthis amended permit may be granted by the Planning Director upon the following circumstances: A. Non-performance is the result of conditions that could not have been foreseen or are beyond the control ofthe applicant,successors or assigns,and that are not the result of their fault or negligence. B. Granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the General Plan or the Zoning Code. C. Granting of the extension would not be contrary to the original reasons for the granting of the permit. D. The time extension granted shall be for a period not to exceed the period originally granted for performance(i.e., a condition to be performed within one year may be extended for up to one additional year). Should any of the conditions not be met or substantially complied with in a timely fashion, the Director may initiate procedures to revoke the permit. Ms. Danette Martin General Dynamics Page 4 This approval does not,however,sanction the specific plans submitted with the application as they may be subject to change given specific code and regulatory requirements of the affected agencies. Note: Ramseyer version available upon request.] Approval ofthis permit is based on the reasons given in the attached Findings Report. Should you have any questions, please contact Maija Jackson of the Planning Department at 961-8159. Sincerely, Joseph B. B19CIarksonsigned byJoseph Clarkson Date:2020.01.21 17:28:58-10'00' Joseph Clarkson, Chairman Windward Planning Commission LCellcopartnershipAmend USE15-056wpc Enclosure: PC Findings Report cc w/enclosures: Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless Department of Public Works Department of Water Supply County Real Property Tax Division- Hilo Department of Land &Natural Resources-HPD U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service GIS Section COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS CELLCO PARTNERSHIP DBA VERIZON WIRELESS AMENDMENT TO USE PERMIT NO. 15-000056 Based on the following considerations, an amendment Use Permit No. 15-000056 to change access to the telecommunication facility and to provide a 5-year time extension to complete construction is approved. On November 19, 2015, the Windward Planning Commission issued a Use Permit to allow the construction of a new telecommunication facility, including a 150-foot tall steel monopole with 8-foot tall panel antennas and related facilities within a 1,600-square foot portion of a 2-acre parcel situated in the County's Agricultural 1-acre (A-la) zoning district. Condition No. 2 of the permit required completion of construction by November 19, 2020. As of this writing, plan approval and a building permit has not been issued nor has construction begun on the tower. CELLCO PARTNERSHIP DBA VERIZON WIRELESS is requesting an additional 5 years to complete construction of the telecommunication facility because they will not be able to secure plan approval, secure a building permit, and construct the facility by the November 2020 deadline. The applicant is also proposing to revise the 12-foot wide gravel access to the facility from 31st Avenue over parcel 84, which is a vacant lot owned by the same landowner as parcel 118, where the telecommunication facility will be located. Originally the access was proposed from 32nd Avenue into the church parking lot and between the playground equipment area and multi-purpose building. The subject property is situated between 31St Avenue and 32nd Avenue, about 2,160 feet southeast of the Paradise Drive intersection, Hawaiian Paradise Park, Puna, Hawai`i, TMKs (3) 1-5-017:84 and 1-5-017: Portion of 118. The non-performance is the result of conditions that could not have been foreseen or are beyond the control of the applicant, successors or assigns, and that are not the result of their fault or negligence. The applicant became aware of the conflict between the original proposed driveway access and children's playground after the original permit was granted in 2015. The proposed change in access has caused delay in securing plan approval and building permits for construction of the facility. Granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the General Plan or Zoning Code. Since the original permit was granted in 2015 there have not been changes to the General Plan, the Puna Community Development Plan, or the Zoning Code that affect telecommunication facilities, thus the amendment request remains consistent with these plans and the zoning code. Granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the original reasons for the granting of the permit. The reasons for granting the original permit have not changed; the only change is the location of the proposed driveway access in order to create a safer environment for children playing on and around the playground equipment on Parcel 118. The proposed use will not have any significant adverse effects on surrounding properties and will not substantially alter or change the essential character of the land and the present use. The change in driveway access location from Parcel 118 to Parcel 84 will not adversely affect surrounding properties, primarily because of the very low volume of traffic that will use this driveway. In the original application, the applicant estimated about one to four visits to the site would occur on a monthly basis for the applicant to maintain the unmanned facility. It should also be noted that although the landowner of Parcel 118 also owns Parcel 84, the proposed driveway access on Parcel 84 cannot be used for church traffic unless Special Permit No. 607, which permitted the church in 1985, is amended by the Planning Commission. The Planning Director also recommends a condition be added to the permit to ensure access is provided during the life of the telecommunication facility over Parcel 84, even if the parcel is sold to another owner by the landowner. Lastly, this approval is made with the understanding that the applicant remains responsible for complying with all other applicable governmental requirements in connection with the approved use, prior to its commencement or establishment upon the subject properties. Additional governmental requirements may include the issuance of building permits, the installation of approved wastewater disposal systems, compliance with the Fire Code, installation of improvements required by the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), among many others. Compliance with all applicable governmental requirements is a condition of this approval; failure to comply with such requirements will be considered a violation that may result in enforcement action by the Planning Department and/or the affected agencies. 2- Mitchell D. Roth Mayor Lee E. Lard Managing Director West Hawaii Once 74-5044 Ane Keohokalale Hwy Katlua-Kuna, Hawaii 96740 Phone (808)323-4770 Fax (808) 327-3563 January 15, 2021 Noah Grodzin Verizon Wireless Dear Mr. Grodzin: County of Hawaii PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: FINAL PLAN APPROVAL (PLA -20-001742) NON -MANNED TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY TMKS: (3) 1-5-017:118 & 084; Kea'au, Puna, Hawaii Zendo KemDirector Jeffrey W. Darrow Deputy Director East Hawaii Office 101 Pauahi Street. Suite 3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Phone (808) 961-8288 Fax 1808)961-8742 We have reviewed the above-described plans for the construction of a Telecommunication Facility pursuant to FINAL PLAN APPROVAL. Enclosed is a copy of the FINAL PLAN APPROVAL for your files. Please be aware of the conditions of approval that are part of this FINAL PLAN APPROVAL for the proposed project. These conditions, which are listed on page 3 of the FINAL PLAN APPROVAL document, must be complied with, prior to the occupancy of the proposed Telecommunication Facility. For your information, all accessible parking spaces shall comply with County, State, and Federal standards and requirements. Please find the most current requirements at the Disability and Communication Access Board website at httpJ7health.hawaii.eovdcah'parkiue or visit our website for helpful information at https ;!-www.planning.hawaiicounty.govlresourccshesourccs-references. Should you have any questions, please feel welcome to contact Larry Nakayama of this Department at 808) 961-8149, or via email at I_arrv.Nakayama(' hawaiicounty.gov. Sincerely, ZENDO KERN Planning Director LHN:jaa P 1PIan Appro. Enclosure: d1PLA-20-001742 Verizon Wireless TMK 15017118&08400110 Tetter due PLA -20-001742 Form wV'Or [:11111111,.ilaWL1111:01.111tV.EM Dattari conan Equal opportuniD erorider and Employer muni _I, nm..e,,, COUNTY OF HAWAPI PLANNING DEPARTMENT FINAL PLAN APPROVAL PLA -20-001742 APPLICANT/AGENT: Verizon Wireless/Noah Grodzin Comments DATE APPROVED: January 15, 2021 LOCATION: 15-1839 32nd Avenue TAX MAP KEYS: 3) 1-5-017:118 & 084 PARCEL AREA/PROJECT AREA: 1 acre/900 sq. ft. ZONE: Agricultural —1 acre (A -1a) PROPOSED USE: Telecommunication 1aciity As Shown on Plans Comments Front Yard: (32nd Avenue) Tower: + 200' + 200' Equipment Shelter: + 200' + 200' OK. 30' -0" Minimum required. 30' -0" Minimum required. Rear Yard: (Northeast) Tower: + 40' Emergency Generator: + 32' OK. 30' -0" Minimum required. 30' -0" Minimum required. Side Yard: (Northwest) Tower: + 40' Equipment Shelter: + 40' OK. 30' -0" Minimum required. 20' -0" Minimum required. Side Yard: (Southeast) Tower: + 200' Equipment Cabinet: + 200' OK. 30' -0" Minimum required. 20' -0" Minimum required. Section 25-4-12 (a) (1) Freestanding antennas and towers shall be setback from every property line a minimum of one foot for every five feet on antenna or tower height. Height of Structure: Tower: 150' -0" Equipment Shelter: 7' -0" Emergency Generator: 8' -0" OK. 500 feet maximum allowed. 35 feet maximum allowed. 35 feet maximum allowed. Access to parking: Driveway off 31" Avenue. OK. Must comply with the requirements of the Department of Public Works. Off -Street Parking: 31 stalls shown. OK. None required; non -manned facility. Haxai'i County is an equal opportunity provider and employer Final Plan Approval for TMKS: (3) 1-5-017:118 & 084 PLA -20-001742 January 15, 2021 Page 2 of 4 As Shown on Plans Comments Loading and Unloading Space: None shown. OK. Not required. Density Not applicable. OK. Fencing and Walls: OK. Material: Chain Link. Height: 6 feet. Location Perimeter of compound. Landscaping: See sheet A-3. OK. Others: Tax Clearance Letter of Authorization (Owner) Letter of Authorization (Verizon Wireless) Structural Engineer Certification FAA Certification FCC Registration Condition 11; Use Permit — 15-000056 USE 15-000056) OK. Issued January 7, 2021. OK. Authorization letter dated 9/24/17. OK. Authorization letter dated 7/10/2019. OK. Structural Design Report dated 10/12/17. OK. See letter dated 11/28/18. OK. Granted 10/23/18. OK. See e-mail dated July 1, 2020. Site Drainage Plan: OK. Approved on April 4, 2018. Special Management Area: No. OK. Related Planning Approvals: Use Permit 15-000056 (USE 15-000056) OK. Pending Violations: None. OK. HRS -Chapter 343: Not applicable. OK. DLNR-SHPD Clearance: N/A. OK. Airport Hazards: FAA Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation FAA Determination of No Hazard Extension letter. OK. Issued on September 18, 2018. Issued on March 3, 2020. Final Plan Approval for TMKS: (3) 1-5-017:118 & 084 PLA -20-001742 January 15, 2021 Page 3 of 4 Conditions of Approval: 1. Prior to issuance ofthe Certificate of Occupancy, approved landscape planting and improvements shall be established per approved landscape plan and in a manner consistent with the Standards of Rule 17 Landscaping Requirements. Plants shall be maintained in a manner conducive to their health and growth. 2. Prior to approval ofa Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.), the Planning Department may inspect the subject property to verify compliance with the approved plans. A C.O. shall not be approved where the buildings, site improvements, landscaping or use plans are found by the director to be inconsistent with the submittals for which the Final Plan Approval is issued. 3. No modification to the plans without prior written approval. All work shown on the development plan covered by this Final Plan Approval shall be completed. No additions, substitutions or alterations to the site parking, landscaping, or building design plans covered by the Final Plan Approval, shall be made without prior written approval of such changes by the Planning Department. A written request for approval of such changes shall be submitted and include scaled plan sheets clearly specifying all proposed changes. Upon assessing the requested changes, the director may approve or deny the requested changes or require a new, complete application for Plan Approval where the director finds the changes to be substantial. 4. Applicant to comply with all conditions stated in Use Permit 15-000056 (USE 15-000056). 5. Applicant shall comply with all other applicable laws, rules, regulations and requirements of Hawai`i County. ZENDO KERN Planning Director Date: January 15, 2021 LHN:jaa P:\Plan ApprosaIs\I\PLA--20-001742 Verizan less TMK 1501'118&840000 form doc GENERAL DYNAMICS 76-6357 Kololia Street Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740 Telephone: 808-895-3 5 69 February 15, 2024 Mr. Jeffrey Darrow Director of Planning Countv of Hawaii 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo,Hawaii 96720 Subject: Use Pennit No. USE 15-000056 Applicant: Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless Request: Time Extension Dear Mr. Darrow, My client is respectfully requesting a time extension to construct the proposed telecommunication facility. Building Permit Application PW.B2024-000080 was only approved for issuance earlier this month. My client has plans to obtain bids from contractors next month and start construction in June. Condition 15.1). ofthe above-mentioned permit allows for an extension for up to one additional year. Please allow an extension for one additional year to complete construction. Thank you for your help. Sincerely, d"tm 01,1( Danette Martin C.Kimo Alameda,Ph.D. Jeffrey W.Darrow Mayor Ji,, Director William V.Brilhante,Jr. Michelle S.Ahn Managing Director Deputy Director West Hawaii Office East Hawaii Office 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Hwy 101 Pauahi Street,Suite 3 Kailua-Kona,Hawaii 96740 County of Hawaii Hilo,Hawaii 96720 Phone(808)323-4770 Phone(808)961-8288 Fax(808)327-3563 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Fax(808)961-8742 April 23, 2025 Danette Martin General Dynamics 76-6357 Kololia Street Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 VIA EMAIL Dear Danette Martin: Use Permit No. 15-000056 (USE-15-000056) Applicant: Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless Request:Construct a Telecommunication Facility Subject:Administrative Time Extension for Condition 2 TNIK: 3) 1-5-017:084 and 1-5-017:118,Hawaiian Paradise Park, Puna, Hawaii This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated February 15, 2025, requesting a one-year administrative time extension to comply with Condition No. 2 (Time to Complete Construction) of Use Permit No. 15-000056, which became effective on January 21, 2020. After reviewing your request and the reasons provided, the Planning Director acknowledges that you have requested a one-year extension. However, based on the department's assessment and past precedent, a five-year extension is being granted instead. The new deadline to comply with Condition No. 2 is now January 20,2030. Please be informed, however, should you need an additional extension of time to comply with Condition No. 2, your request and reasons shall be forwarded to the Planning Commission with a 250 filing fee. A public hearing will be held by the Planning Commission. www.planning.hawaiicoun1y.gov Hawaii County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer planningaawaiicoun ov Danette Martin General Dynamics April 23, 2025 Page 2 If you should have further questions, please contact Tracie Camero of this office at (808) 961- 8166 or via email at Tracie-Lee.Cam ero2hawai icounly. ov. Sincerely, 7e#kee W. Dawow Jeffrey W.Darrow(Apr 23,2025 14:50 HST) JEFFREY W. DARROW Planning Director TLC:mads hawaiicounty.gov\depts\PL\PL\planning\public\wpwin60\PC\letters\2025\PL-INT-2025-009855 USE_TE.doc BUILDING PERMIT BUILDING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS COUNTY OF HAWAI`I NO PLUMBING WORK Edward Hirayama Electric, Inc. (CT-19830) t3 Wireless & Assoc. Inc. (CT-32786) HI PAC DIST CH OF NAZARENE 15-1839 32ND AVE; HI1-5-017-118-0000 PLUMBING CONTRACTOR(S) ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR(S) BUILDING CONTRACTOR OWNER/TENANT TMK 5/24/2031EXPIRATION DATE5/24/2025DATE ISSUEDPERMIT NO. A PERMIT HAS BEEN ISSUED FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF CERTAIN BUILDING, ELECTRICAL, AND/OR PLUMBING WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL COUNTY AND STATE LAWS AS FOLLOWS: PW.B2024-000080 LOCATION HILO: (808) 961-8331 KONA: (808) 323-4720 1. FOUNDATION INSPECTION - Termite treatment certificate. After footing excavations are complete and required reinforcing steel forms are in place. After all in-slab or under-floor ancillary items are in place. 2. FRAME INSPECTION - After the roof, all framing, fire blocking, bracing, and metal connectors are in place; all pipes, chimneys and vents are completed; and the rough electrical, plumbing or mechanical installations are approved. 3. INSULATION INSPECTION - (as required) After framing inspection and before the lathing inspection. 4. LATHING INSPECTION - (as required) After all lathing and gypsum board, interior and exterior, in construction required to be fire-resistive is in place but before gypsum board joints and fasteners are taped and finished. 5. FINAL INSPECTION - After finish grading and the building is completed and ready for occupancy. 6. In addition to the required inspections specificed above, the Building Official may require other inspections to ascertain compliance with the applicable building regulations. ELECTRICAL INSPECTIONS - Required for all electrical phases of work as declared. Inspection must be requested by the electrician licensed per HRS 448E. Reference Article 8. "Inspections" of Hawaiʻi County Code Chapter 5. PLUMBING INSPECTIONS - Required for all plumbing phases of work as declared. Inspection must be requested by the plumber licensed per HRS 448E. Reference Article 8. "Inspections" of Hawaiʻi County Code Chapter 5. THIS NOTICE MUST BE POSTED IN A CONSPICUOUS PLACE ON THE SITE DURING THE PROGRESS OF WORK AS REQUIRED BY LAW. FAILURE TO COMPLY WILL RESULT IN A $100 PERMIT PLACARD POSTING FINE Requests for permit deadline extensions shall be submitted in writing to the authority having jurisdiction at least thirty days prior to the permit expiration date and an acknowledgement by the authority having jurisdiction will be sent upon receipt.” Hawaii County Code Section 5-5-5(b) Please notify the inspector at least 48 hours prior to each desired inspection. (A FEE OF $100 PER INSPECTION MAY BE ASSESSED WHEN THE REQUESTED PHASE OF CONSTRUCTION IS NOT COMPLETE OR READY) NOTICE TO BUILDERS HAWAII COUNTY IS AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY PROVIDER AND EMPLOYER randy Camacho December 01, 2025 Hawaii County Planning Department East Hawaii Office 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Hawaii County Planning Department, COH PLANNING DEPT DEC 12025 Pi 12:24 GEC'L HAND E F E EDateHANDLLSYLIL Re: Formal Complaint and Request for Stop -Work Order — Telecommunication Tower Zoning Violation in Keaau, HI I am Brandy Camacho, a resident at I am submitting this formal complaint regarding a potential zoning violation for a telecommunication tower (likely 4G/5G) under construction at the Connection Point Church of the Nazarene, 15-1839 32nd Ave., Keaau, HI 96749. This property operates as a school and is associated with Aloha Academy, a K-6 campus of the Hawaii Academy of Arts & Science Public Charter School (HAAS), a public charter school serving the Pahoa/Keaau area. Construction began on November 29, 2025, without any prior notification to me as an adjacent property owner. Despite living next door, I received no information or opportunity for input until work started. The tower is approximately 30 feet from the school building and 30 feet from my property line, violating Hawaii County Code Section 25-4- 12, including the 600-foot setback from schools and residences, and the 120% of tower height setback from property lines (effective under Bill 24, —July 2025). No tower can broadcast effectively at the maximum allowable height of about 36 feet under this restriction, when the minimum functional height is typically 50 feet. Community sources suggest the permit was filed several years ago, but significant delays may have caused expiration, requiring re -approval under current regulations. This placement raises serious concerns for my family and community, including potential health risks from radiofrequency exposure, property devaluation, and aesthetic impacts. I respectfully request: An immediate investigation into compliance with Code Section 25-4-12. Issuance of a stop -work order if violations are confirmed, pending relocation or modification. A copy of the full permit history, including filing/approval dates, expiration, extensions, and any notification records. As an adjacent property owner, I am exercising my rights under county zoning ordinances to ensure enforcement and protect my property. Please contact me at for any additional information or to discuss this matter. Thank you for your prompt attention to this urgent issue. Sincerely, Brandy Camacho Oda, Michelle From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Aloha Director Darrow, Brandy Camacho < > Wednesday, December 3, 2025 11 :00 AM Darrow, Jeffrey W. Planning Internet Mail; Oda, Michelle; Debra Greene Re: FW: URGENT: Request for Expedited Stop-Work Order on Non-Compliant Telecommunication Tower Construction in Keaau -Clear Violation of 600-Foot Setback Maha lo for your detailed response and for providing the recorded document regarding access over TMK (3) 1-5-017:084. After reviewing your email and the attached Memorandum of Land License Agreement (Doc No. T- 11439181 ), I want to clarify a few remaining issues so that I can understand how Planning is interpreting and enforcing the applicable Code and permit conditions for this tower. 1. Condition 3-Easement vs. License, and "Life of the Facility" Condition 3 of Use Permit 15-000056 requires the applicant to "execute and record an easement over (3) 1-5-017:084 to provide access for the life of the facility" and to submit a copy of that recorded easement to the Planning Department prior to issuance of a building permit. The document you provided is titled Memorandum of Land License Agreement between Hawaii Pacific District Church of the Nazarene and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless. It grants Verizon a license with a right of access and utilities over TM Ks (3) 1-5-017:118 and 084 for an initial five-year term, with options to extend under the private agreement-not an easement expressly running "for the life of the facility." From a land-use and enforcement standpoint, that raises two questions: 1. How did Planning determine that a term-limited license satisfies Condition 3's requirement for an "easement ... for the life of the facility"? 2. Did the Commission or Planning explicitly accept this license as meeting Condition 3, and if so, is there a written finding or staff analysis to that effect? Because Condition 3 was imposed to ensure permanent, legally secure access to the tower site, the distinction between a time-limited license and an easement that runs with the land is significant. I respectfully request any internal staff memo, Commission finding, or written determination where Planning concluded Condition 3 had been satisfied by this document. 2. Utilization of Approvals -§25-2-7 and Commission Authority You indicated that HCC §25-2-7 applies only to administrative permits and notto use permits issued by the Planning Commission. However, the text of §25-2-7 states: 1 "Whenever any permit or approval issued under this chapter, not otherwise conditioned ... has not been utilized within a period of two years ... the director shall initiate proceedings to invalidate the permit or approval." On its face, that language refers to "any permit or approval issued under this chapter", not just administrative permits. Even if the Commission chooses to set specific timelines and extension mechanisms for use permits (as it did here), §25-2-7 and §25-2-8 reflect a broader policy that long- dormant approvals should not be used indefinitely to avoid updated standards. Separate from §25-2-7, §25-2-67 gives the Commission explicit authority to revoke a use permit where there are violations of conditions or where the permitted use threatens public health or safety. Given: • The lengthy delay between the original 2015 approval and actual construction activity in late 2025; and • The adoption of strengthened tower setbacks and safety provisions in 2025 (Bill 24), It seems appropriate for Planning to acknowledge that the Commission retains authority under §25-2-67 to revisit this permit in light of current safety standards and neighborhood conditions, even if earlier approvals are technically still in force. 3. Setbacks, Fall Zone, and Bill 24 I understand your position that the old setback standard in former §25-4-12(b)(1) (one foot of setback per five feet of tower height) was applied when the use permit and building permit were processed. For a 150-foot monopole, that yields a minimum setback of only 30 feet from property lines. In reality, this tower is: • Approximately 30 feet from my property line and residence; and • Approximately 30 feet from the school buildings on the Connection Point/ Aloha Academy K-6 campus. At the approved 150-foot height, the tower's physical fall radius encompasses both my home and the school. That is precisely the kind of hazard the 2025 amendments to §25-4-12 and Bill 24 were designed to address-by requiring: • A 600-foot separation from homes and schools; and • A setback of at least 120% of tower height from property lines. Even if you view those new standards as non-retroactive, they represent a clear legislative determination that a tower of this size at a 30-foot setback is unsafe and incompatible with adjacent homes and a K-6 school. That, in turn, seems highly relevant to any analysis under §25-2-67 as to whether continued reliance on this older use permit poses a threat to public safety. Requested Next Steps Based on the above, I respectfully request that: 2 1. Planning provide a written explanation of how the 2018 Land License Agreement was deemed to satisfy Condition 3's "easement ... for the life of the facility" requirement, including any staff report or Commission finding on that point. 2. Planning acknowledge, in writing, whether it agrees that the Commission retains authority under §25-2-67 to reconsider or revoke Use Permit 15-000056 in light of current safety standards and neighborhood conditions (homes and a K-6 school within the tower's fall zone). 3. If Planning believes its role is limited, please identify the proper process and forum for me, as an immediately affected neighbor, to formally request Commission review or revocation under §25- 2-67, so that these issues may be fully addressed before the tower is completed. I appreciate your time and your continued responses. My goal is to ensure that all permit conditions are truly satisfied and that the County's current safety policy for towers near homes and schools is meaningfully considered before this structure is built out. Maha lo for your attention to these concerns. Sincerely, Brandy Camacho On Wed, Dec 3, 2025 at 10:29 AM Darrow, Jeffrey W.<jeff.darrow@hawaiicounty.gov> wrote: Aloha Ms. Camacho, To respond to your three (3) questions below: 1. Confirm whether the required access easement on TMK (3) 1-5-017:084 has in fact been executed and recorded (with document number and date), as required by Condition 3. Please see attachment. 2. Explain how Use Perm it 15-000056 remains valid under HCC §25-2-7 given the extended timeline and recent code changes. Section 25-2-7 applies to administrative permits and not a Use Permit issued by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission has the authority under Planning Commission Rules to issue Use Permits, which includes specific timelines and conditions for specific projects. The Planning Department does not issue Use Permits nor are they under the authority of the Planning Department. 3 3. Provide Planning's analysis of this tower's compliance with the current 600-foot and 120% setback requirements, and whether you intend to initiate action under §25-2-67 in light of the safety and compliance concerns. Prior to the changes in Section 25-4-12( d) in the Zoning Code regarding the current tower setbacks, the setbacks for freestanding towers were under Section 25-4-l 2(b )(1 ), which required a minimum of one foot for every five feet of antenna or tower height from every property line. As the approvals for this tower were granted prior to the recent changes in the Zoning Code, the previous applicable setbacks for towers were applied in this case. I also wanted to provide you with a brief history of the permitting of towers in Hawaii County. Prior to the changes in the current code to require Final Plan Approval for towers based in response to State Law (HRS 46-89), towers required approval of a Use Permit from the Planning Commission, which required a public hearing. Prior to that, a tower in the State Land Use (SLU) Ag district required a Special Permit. State Law then changed to allow towers in the SL U Ag district. Once this happened, the County changed the Zoning Code to require a Use Permit in the County's Ag district. Thanx, Jeff Jeffrey W Darrow Planning Director County of Hawaii Planning Department 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, HI 96720 808-961-8158 4 ~ County of Hawai'i Confidentiality Notice: Th is e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. Any review, use, disclosure, or distribution by unintended recipients is prohibited. If you are not the intended recip ient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. From: Brandy Camacho <> Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2025 8:19 AM To: Darrow, Jeffrey W.<jeff.darrow@hawaiicounty.gov> Cc: Planning Internet Mail <planning@hawaiicounty.gov>; Oda, Michelle <Michelle.Oda@hawaiicounty.gov>; Debra Greene <> Subject: Re : FW: URGENT: Request for Expedited Stop-Work Order on Non-Compliant Telecommunication Tower Construction in Keaau -Clear Violation of 600-Foot Setback Aloha Director Darrow, Mahala for your response. I will follow your suggestion and submit a separate written request to the Department of Public Works (Building Division and Engineering Division) regarding grading and building-code issues. However, those referrals do not resolve -or invalidate -the complaints that fall squarely within the Planning Department's jurisdiction under Chapter 25 (Zoning), the conditions of Use Permit 15- 000056, and the new telecom standards adopted in 2025. Your email states that "the applicant has secured the necessary permits from the Planning Department to proceed with construction." Respectfully, that conclusion appears incomplete in light of the following Planning-related issues, which I'm asking you to address directly: 1. Unmet Use Permit Condition -Recorded Access Easement Condition 3 of Use Permit 15-000056 requires the applicant to execute and record an easement over TMK (3) 1-5-017:084 to provide access for the life of the facility, and to submit a copy of the recorded easement to the Planning Department prior to issuance of a building permit. o I have searched public records and cannot locate any recorded easement for this access. o If no easement was recorded prior to Plan Approval/ Building Permit PW.B2024- 000080, then those approvals would have been issued contrary to the express condition of the use permit, which is a Planning issue, not just a DPW issue. Under Hawai'i County Code §25-2-67, the Planning Commission may revoke a use permit where conditions are not met or where the use creates a threat to health or safety. Local 5 Hawaii Real Estate+1 Request: Please confirm in writing whether (a) a recorded easement exists for access over TMK (3) 1-5-017:084, and (b) if so, provide the document number and recording date that Planning relied on before issuing plan approval. 2. Timeliness of Use Permit Under HCC §25-2-7 Chapter 25 requires that approvals be timely utilized. Section 25-2-7 provides that permits/approvals issued under the Zoning Code are to be utilized within a defined period, or the Director shall initiate invalidation proceedings. Local Hawaii Real Estate+1 o Use Permit 15-000056 dates back to 2015, with an effective date of January 21, 2020, and has since been extended out to January 20, 2030 -a roughly 10-year construction window. o During that time, the project lay dormant and only now is construction being pushed forward, after substantial changes in County law (Bill 24, 2025) and in surrounding neighborhood circumstances. In Greenbriar Village v. City of Mountain Brook, the federal court acknowledged that when a land-disturbance permit expired, "all work stopped on the property," and the owner had no vested right to continue under a stale approval. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals+1 The same principle applies here: if the use permit is no longer "timely utilized" under §25-2-7, work should not simply proceed as if those timelines do not matter. Request: Please explain how Planning determined that Use Permit 15-000056 remains valid under §25-2-7, despite repeated extensions and a decade-long gap between approval and actual construction. 3. Conflict With New 600-Foot / 120% Setback Requirements (Bill 24 / HCC §25-4-12) In June 2025, the County Council adopted Bill 24, which requires freestanding telecom towers to be: o Set back at least 600 feet from any residence or school, and o Set back from all property lines a distance of at least 120% of the tower's height. Aloha State Daily+1 o Public reporting summarizing Bill 24 confirms exactly these setbacks -600 feet from homes and schools, and 120% of height from all property lines -as the trade-off for allowing broader siting of towers by Planning Director approval. Aloha State Daily+1 At 15-1839 32nd Ave: ■ The approved tower height is 150 feet, so the required setback from all property lines is at least 180 feet. ■ The tower is sited immediately adjacent to a residence and within a ~30 feet of both my residence and Aloha Academy (K-6 at Connection Point Church) - well under the 600-foot separation now required from both a home and a school. 1. In Kingsbury Country Day School v. Addison Township, a similar situation -a tower whose fall zone would reach a school playground -led the court to overturn the approval based on setback and safety concerns. Justia Law+1 That case underscores that placing children within a tower's fall radius is a legitimate zoning and safety basis to reconsider or deny a tower location. 6 Request: Has the Planning Department conducted a formal analysis of this tower's compliance with the 600-foot and 120% setback standards in §25-4-12 as amended? If so, please provide that analysis. If not, I respectfully request that you do so and confirm whether Planning intends to initiate revocation or modification proceedings under §25-2-67 based on non-compliance and safety risk. 2. Planning's Enforcement Authority -Not Just a DPW Issue While DPW appropriately handles building and grading enforcement, the validity of the underlying land-use approval and compliance with use-permit conditions is Planning's responsibility. In Curtis v. Board of Appeals, County of Hawai'i, the Hawai'i Supreme Court held that a cellular tower in an Agricultural district could not proceed without proper zoning approvals and that the County's Planning authorities were correct to require special permits and adherence to Chapter 25. Justia Law+1 In Yoshikawa v. City and County of Honolulu, the District of Hawai'i upheld a stop-work order where construction deviated from approvals; the court emphasized that when work violates permit conditions or code, the appropriate remedy is to halt construction until compliance is achieved. Justia Law+1 Those cases make clear: o A project does not become untouchable simply because paper permits were once issued; and o County departments, including Planning, may and should act when there is evidence that the use no longer complies with current law or permit conditions. Next Steps Requested To move this forward constructively, I am requesting that the Planning Department: 1. Confirm whether the required access easement on TMK (3) 1-5-017:084 has in fact been executed and recorded (with document number and date), as required by Condition 3. 2. Explain how Use Perm it 15-000056 remains valid under HCC §25-2-7 given the extended timeline and recent code changes. 3. Provide Planning's analysis of this tower's compliance with the current 600-foot and 120% setback requirements, and whether you intend to initiate action under §25-2-67 in light of the safety and compliance concerns. I appreciate that DPW must be involved for grading and building enforcement, and I will contact them separately. But those referrals do not resolve the core zoning and permit-condition issues that only Planning can address. Mahala for your time and for a written response to the specific questions above. Sincerely, Brandy Camacho 7 On Wed, Dec 3, 2025 at 7:31 AM Darrow, Jeffrey W.<jeff.darrow@hawaiicounty.gov> wrote: Aloha Ms. Camacho , Thank you for your email. There are a number of allegations in your email that have to do with building or grading, I would suggest sending a request to the Department of Public Works-Building Division and Engineering Division. As mentioned in my attached email, the applicant has secured the necessary permits from the Planning Department to proceed with construction. Thanx, Jeff Jeffrey W Darrow Planning Director County of Hawaii Planning Department 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, HI 96720 808-961-8158 County of Hawai'i 8 Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. Any review, use, disclosure, or distribution by unintended recipients is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. From: Brandy Camacho <> Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2025 7:19 AM To: Darrow, Jeffrey W.<jeff.darrow@hawaiicounty.gov>; Planning Internet Mail <planning@hawaiicounty.gov> Cc: Debra Greene <> Subject: Re : FW : URGENT: Request for Expedited Stop-Work Order on Non-Compliant Telecommunication Tower Construction in Keaau -Clear Violation of 600-Foot Setback Dear Director Darrow, I reviewed the information you provided on 12/2/2025 and now I write to formally request that the Planning Department immediately issue a Stop-Work Order halting all construction activities for the 150-foot telecommunications tower project located at 15-1839 32nd Avenue in Kea'au. This request is made on the grounds of multiple serious legal violations and public safety threats associated with this project. The tower's construction is proceeding in clear contravention of Hawai'i County Code requirements, permit conditions , and recently enacted safety setbacks. For the reasons detailed below, the County not only has the authority to intervene but a duty to do so to uphold the law and protect the community. I urge you to exercise that authority without delay when your offices open this morning. Key Violations of Law and Permit Conditions: 1. Failure to Record Required Access Easement. No record exists of the required access easement for this tower site, a fundamental prerequisite that was supposed to be secured before construction. The use permit and plan approval conditions for this project mandated that a legal access easement be recorded to ensure lawful ingress and egress. To date, the developer has not recorded the easement, meaning the project site lacks legally established access. Proceeding with construction under these circumstances violates the permit conditions and calls into question the very legality of the work being done. This failure to fulfill a basic condition is sufficient grounds for enforcement action: a permittee's non-compliance with conditions can trigger revocation of the permit. Hawai'i County Code §25-2-67 authorizes the revocation of a use permit when the permittee fails to uphold required conditions or "continual violations" occur. The easement condition violation is continuous and uncorrected, warranting immediate corrective measures by the County. 2. Unpermitted Grading and Site Work. Significant grading and site alteration have been conducted on the property without the necessary grading permits or any apparent erosion control measures in place. Neighbors observed heavy equipment clearing and leveling the site even before any building permit was issued. This unpermitted grading violates Hawai'i County Code and Public Works regulations that require prior permits and compliance with Chapter 10 (Erosion and Sediment Control) for any substantial earthwork. By performing 9 grading illicitly, the developer not only ignored the law but also created potential runoff, flooding, and environmental hazards. Such unlawful site work is subject to County enforcement (including fines and stop-work orders) independent of other issues. It also reflects disregard for County authority and rules, further justifying an immediate halt to the project. In combination with the easement issue, it demonstrates a pattern of non- compliance. Under HCC §25-2-67, a use permit can be revoked if the authorized use is carried out in a manner that "is creating a threat to the health or safety of the community" . Uncontrolled grading and the attendant safety risks (e.g. dirt pile collapse, sediment runoff) meet this criterion. A Stop-Work Order is imperative to prevent any further unpermitted work or irreversible harm while the County addresses these violations. 3. Expired and Excessively Extended Permit (Invalid Approval). The underlying Use Permit for this cell tower (Use Permit No. 15-000056) is no longer valid under standard timelines. The permit was originally granted years ago -it became effective on January 21, 2020 -and included a condition (Condition #2) requiring construction to be completed within a specified period. That timeframe has long since lapsed without completion of the tower. Instead of timely utilization, the project sat idle for years, and multiple extensions were sought. Notably, earlier this year the Planning Department granted an extraordinary five-year time extension on the permit (extending the build-out deadline to January 20, 2030), far beyond the norm. This protracted timeline flagrantly conflicts with the intent of Hawai'i County Code §25-2-7, which mandates that any permit or approval under Chapter 25 be utilized within two years or else be invalidated by the Planning Director. In other words, County law envisions a maximum two-year window (absent special conditions) for a project to commence or be completed -a limit vastly exceeded here. Even if the permit had a longer initial duration via conditions, the multiple extensions (totaling roughly ten years from the effective date) are far beyond "reasonable" and beyond standard practice. The County's own correspondence acknowledges this unusual extension; it was granted only by bending "past precedent" , suggesting that normal deadlines have been stretched to the breaking point. At this juncture, the permit should be deemed expired or void for lack of timely execution, and any associated approvals (building or grading permits) lack a valid foundation. Proceeding with construction under an effectively expired permit is unlawful. Courts have held that when permits lapse, any continued construction is unpermitted and subject to shutdown. The County should not allow a project to continue under a stale approval that should have been invalidated in accordance with HCC §25-2-7. To protect the integrity of our zoning process, the Planning Department must issue a Stop-Work Order and require the developer to cease work unless and until a valid, current permit is in effect (which at present it is not). 4. Violation of Updated Setback Laws (Public Safety Setbacks for Towers). Perhaps most critically, the location of this tower violates newly enacted County setback requirements designed to protect homes and schools from tower hazards. In June 2025 -amid growing public concern island-wide -the Hawai'i County Council adopted Bill 24 (2025), which amended the Zoning Code (Chapter 25) to strengthen setbacks for telecommunications towers. This new law took effect immediately upon adoption. It updated Hawai'i County Code §25-4-12 to require, at minimum: (a) a 600-foot distance from any residence or school building, and (b) a setback from all property lines of at least 120% of the tower's height . These standards apply to "telecommunication antennas and towers" countywide and reflect an essential public safety buffer -they ensure that towers are sited far enough away that if a catastrophic collapse or structural failure occurs, homes or classrooms won't lie within the impact zone. Director Darrow himself, in discussing Bill 24's implementation, confirmed that the 600-foot setback is measured from the tower to the nearest residence or school structure 10 The 15-1839 32nd Ave tower blatantly fails to meet these setback requirements. This 150' monopole is being erected immediately adjacent to my existing home -far closer than 600 feet - and it stands in direct proximity to a K-6 elementary school, Aloha Academy at Connection Point Church. In fact, the school's facility is only 30 feet away (well under the 600-foot minimum now required by law). Moreover, the tower is sited such that the distance to the nearest property lines is dramatically inadequate at 30 feet from my property. A 150' tower under Bill 24 must be at least 180 feet from all property boundaries (120% of height); by contrast, this tower's base is only a short distance from the parcel edge shared with my adjacent residence, and similarly too close to other parcel lines. In short, the project as located is in clear violation of Section 25-4-12's setback mandates. The new law does allow existing towers to remain, but for new construction (or permits extended into the new law's era) the 600-foot rule is binding. This project did not reach completion before the law changed and is now proceeding in defiance of the protective setback standards currently in effect. The setback violation is not a mere technicality -it presents a grave public safety concern. By placing the tower so near an occupied dwelling and an elementary school, the project endangers those occupants in the event of a structural failure or collapse. The fall radius of a 150' tower extends well into the school's property and the neighboring home's lot -indeed, those buildings lie within the tower's theoretical "fall zone," meaning they could be struck if the tower were to topple. This is precisely the type of hazard that the 600-foot setback law was intended to prevent. Proceeding with construction despite this known danger directly undermines the County Council's recent legislative judgment about community safety. It also exposes the County to liability for not enforcing its own ordinances. There is no question that continuing to build this tower in its present location violates the law and places the public at risk -both of which demand immediate cessation of work. Legal Authority for Stop-Work Order: The County of Hawai'i possesses both the authority and the obligation to issue a stop-work order or otherwise halt this project under these circumstances. The Hawai'i County Code provisions cited above are unequivocal: approvals that are not timely utilized are to be voided (HCC §25-2-7) , and use permits may be revoked for non-compliance or threats to public safety (HCC §25-2-67) . In this case, the record shows multiple, compounding violations that strike at the heart of those code sections -from an effectively expired permit, to unfulfilled conditions and illegal grading, to a direct violation of newly established safety setbacks. Each of these issues on its own would justify intervention; taken together, they make a compelling and urgent case for an immediate Stop-Work Order and permit revocation. Furthermore, legal precedent strongly supports the County's right to enforce its zoning and permitting laws in order to protect the public. Courts have consistently upheld stop-work orders or invalidation of projects that proceed under expired permits, in violation of zoning conditions, or in manners that threaten public welfare. For example: • In Kingsbury Country Day School v. Addison Twp. (Michigan Ct. App. 2020), a variance that allowed a nearly 200-foot cell tower to be built only 90 feet from a school -placing the school's playground inside the tower's potential fall zone -was overturned by the court as unlawful . The court recognized the unique danger and held the approval improper, underscoring that protecting schools and adjoining properties from such hazards is a fundamental zoning purpose. The parallel here is obvious: our County's new 600-foot rule was likewise meant to keep tall towers away from homes and schools, and this project flies in the face of that purpose. 11 • In Curtis v. Board of Appeals, County of Hawai'i, 90 Haw. 384, 978 P.2d 822 (1999), the Hawai'i Supreme Court confirmed that a cellular tower is not an automatically permitted use in an agricultural zone and must adhere to zoning laws and procedures . In that case, a carrier attempted to erect a 140' tower in an agricultural district without a proper special permit; the court affirmed that such construction could be halted for failing to comply with land use regulations. Curtis establishes that telecom projects must play by the rules of our zoning code -a rule this Kea'au tower has flouted by ignoring setback law and other conditions. • In Greenbriar Village, L.L.C. v. City of Mountain Brook, 345 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir. 2003), a developer's land-disturbance permit for a controversial project expired, and the city issued a stop-work order to halt further site work. The federal appellate court noted that once the permit expired, "all work stopped" on the property by necessity . This illustrates that when a permit lapses (as the tower's use permit effectively has), the permittee has no right to continue construction -and the municipality is on firm ground to enforce a work stoppage. Here, the tower's approval timeline has long passed, meaning work must stop unless a valid permit is in place. • In Yoshikawa v. City & County of Honolulu, 2021 WL 54363 (D. Haw. Jan. 6, 2021 ), a federal court in Hawai'i upheld the City's issuance of a stop-work order on a residential construction project that was being built outside the scope of its permit. After a building inspector issued a Notice of Violation and Stop Work Order due to code violations, the owner appealed and then sued -but the court dismissed the claims, noting that the owner's own admissions showed his project "violated applicable code and regulations," which justified the enforcement action . Yoshikawa demonstrates that the courts will side with County officials who take action to stop unlawful construction in progress. The case reinforces that when a project exceeds what was allowed or poses legal problems, the proper remedy is to halt the work until compliance is achieved. In sum, both our County Code and abundant case law empower you as Planning Director to act decisively in this matter. In fact, given the multiple red flags, failing to act could be seen as an abdication of the County's responsibility to enforce its laws and protect its citizens. The tower developer here has had ample opportunity over many years to comply with requirements and proceed lawfully; instead, they have violated conditions, skirted permit deadlines, and are now defying a crucial safety ordinance. The County should not reward or enable that behavior. Issuing a Stop-Work Order is not only justified -it is required to prevent a potentially irreversible situation (a completed illegal tower) and to uphold the rule of law. Public Safety Concerns -Proximity to School and Homes: I want to especially emphasize the imminent public safety threat this tower poses if allowed to continue. The project's adjacency to a K-6 school (Aloha Academy, operating at Connection Point Church) and an existing residence is not abstract -it means children and families are in harm's way. The fall radius of a 150-foot tower (or even the collapse debris field in a worst-case scenario) could absolutely reach these occupied structures. Should this tower collapse or even drop components (as sometimes occurs in tower failures or during high winds), the result could be catastrophic. This risk was explicitly identified in Kingsbury as creating "unique damages" to the neighboring school, giving the school standing to challenge the tower's approval . In our case, the risk is equally egregious and unacceptable. Beyond structural failure scenarios, the tower's towering presence so near to a school and home also raises everyday concerns -from the audible noise of tower equipment, to the visual blight and potential property value impacts, to anxiety over safety that will burden these neighbors daily. The 12 County's updated setbacks implicitly recognized these as genuine quality-of-life issues worth preventing. By enforcing the setback now via a Stop-Work Order, the County will be acting to prevent a permanent public nuisance and hazard from being installed in blatant violation of the law. Respectful Demand for Immediate Action: For all the foregoing reasons, I respectfully demand that the Planning Department issue an immediate Stop-Work Order for the cell tower at 15-1839 32nd Avenue. This order should remain in effect unless and until the project is brought into full compliance with the law -which, as outlined, would require major changes (if it is even possible to cure these issues). At this juncture, the most appropriate course may be to invalidate or revoke the Use Permit entirely due to the violations, and require the developer to go back to the drawing board (under the new code requirements) if they wish to pursue a tower in this area. The immediate priority, however, is to cease construction now before the tower structure is completed or becomes operational, at which point the harm will be much harder to undo. I ask that you give this matter your highest priority at the start of the workday. The community is acutely aware of the ongoing construction and deeply concerned that each passing day brings us closer to an illegal and unsafe tower becoming a fixture in our neighborhood. Swift County action is critical to prevent that outcome. Request for Prompt Written Response: Please provide me, at your earliest opportunity, with a written response detailing the actions your Department will take in response to this letter. In particular, please confirm whether a Stop-Work Order will be issued and on what timeline, or if not, the reasoning for any other course of action. Given the urgency, I would appreciate a response within 5 business days. I am prepared to elevate this issue to higher authorities if necessary, but I trust that the Planning Department will recognize the merit and urgency of the concerns raised and act accordingly. Thank you for your prompt attention to this critical situation. By enforcing the law in this case, you will be protecting the safety of our keiki and community, upholding the integrity of the County's planning process, and reaffirming that even large corporate developers must follow the same rules as everyone else. I appreciate your time and consideration and look forward to your response. Sincerely, Brandy Camacho Appendix -Legal Authorities and References • Hawai'i County Code §25-2-7 (Utilization of Approvals within Two Years): Requires that any permit or approval issued under Chapter 25 (Zoning) be utilized within two years, or else the Planning Director "shall initiate proceedings to invalidate the permit or approval." This section reflects the County's intent that projects move forward in a timely manner and not linger indefinitely. The 15-1839 32nd Ave tower permit became effective January 21, 2020 but, without completion, was extended to 2025 and now 2030 -far beyond the two-year default window -directly contravening §25-2-?'s timeline . 13 • Hawai'i County Code §25-2-67 (Revocation of a Use Permit): Authorizes the Planning Commission to revoke a use permit, upon the Planning Director's request, if "(1) There have been continual violations of the use permit; or (2) The use ... is creating a threat to the health or safety of the community; or (3) The use ... has been abandoned for ... two years." All three grounds arguably apply here. The project's failure to record the required easement and unpermitted grading constitute continual violations. The unsafe siting near homes and a school creates a clear threat to health and safety. And effectively, the use (tower) was "abandoned" or not built for well over two years since initial approval. This Code section empowers the County to revoke the tower's permit and stop work. • Hawai'i County Code §25-4-12 & Bill 24 (2025)-Telecommunication Tower Setbacks: HCC §25-4-12, as amended by County Council Bill 24 (Draft 6, 2025), imposes stringent new siting standards on telecommunication towers. Notably, freestanding towers must be set back at least 120% of the tower's height from all property lines, and at least 600 feet from any residence or school building . Bill 24 was adopted on June 18, 2025, updating Chapter 25 to include these requirements . The 15-1839 32nd Ave tower fails to meet both of these setback rules. Its construction so close to a dwelling and a K-6 school is in plain violation of the 600-foot rule and the height-based property line setback. Continuing construction is therefore illegal under the current Code. (The ordinance exempts only certain first-responder facilities and existing towers; it does not grandfather in new towers with unexpired permits that had not been completed before adoption, especially when major permit extensions are sought post-adoption.) Enforcing the new setbacks is essential to public safety, and the Stop- Work Order is the mechanism to enforce it. • Use Permit No. 15-000056 -Time Extension Correspondence (County of Hawai'i Planning Dept.): In a letter dated April 23, 2025, the Planning Department acknowledged a request by the applicant (Verizon Wireless) to extend the time to complete construction under Use Permit 15-000056. The Department noted that a one-year extension was requested, but "based on the department's assessment and past precedent, a five-year extension is being granted instead. The new deadline to comply with Condition No. 2 is now January 20, 2030." This unprecedented extension illustrates the excessive lapse of time since approval. It also underscores that, absent this discretionary extension, the permit would have expired. Despite the extension, the County Code's two-year utilization rule (§25-2-7) indicates the permit should have been invalidated, and the project should not be proceeding . The extension letter does caution that any further extensions would require Planning Commission approval and a public hearing, highlighting that the administrative leeway has been exhausted. Any work beyond the approved period (or any violation of the new 600-foot setback law in the interim) provides grounds for invalidation and stopping the project. • Kingsbury Country Day School v. Addison Township, No. 347134 (Mich. Ct. App. Feb. 18, 2020) (unpublished) -A charter school challenged a variance that allowed a 197' cell tower on township land adjacent to the school, where the ordinance required a lot size of 20 acres and setbacks at least equal to tower height. The proposed tower was only 90' from the school's property, putting the school's playground within the tower's fall zone. The Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) had granted the variance, but the Michigan Court of Appeals agreed with the school and reversed the variance approval . The court held that the ZBA failed to make the required findings and that the variance violated the ordinance's intent. Importantly, the court found the school had standing as an "aggrieved party" because the proximity of the tower created unique potential harm (safety risks to children on the playground) . Kingsbury demonstrates judicial intolerance for siting towers too close to sensitive uses like schools, and it validates safety setbacks. By analogy, the Kea'au tower's encroachment within a 14 school's vicinity would likely be viewed as unacceptable by courts, just as it was in Kingsbury. The prudent course is to halt construction now, rather than face legal challenges or, worse, an actual safety incident later. • Curtis v. Board of Appeals, County of Hawai'i, 90 Hawai'i 384, 392-97, 978 P.2d 822, 830-34 (1999) -Neighbors and a landowner appealed the County Planning Director's approval of a 140' cell tower (as a minor permit) in a State Land Use Agricultural District in South Kana. The Hawai'i Supreme Court held that the tower was not a permitted use as of right in the agricultural zone and required a special permit or other proper zoning approval . The court affirmed the invalidation of the Planning Director's decision, emphasizing that zoning laws must be followed for telecom facilities. Additionally, the court addressed the permit's valuation under the Coastal Zone Management Act, but for our purposes, Curtis is instructive in underscoring that telecom towers are subject to zoning restrictions and cannot simply proceed on a flimsy or expired approval. The case supports the County's authority to halt or void a tower project that is not in full compliance with zoning (whether due to use classification, as in Curtis, or due to setback and permit-duration rules, as here). • Greenbriar Village, L.L.C. v. City of Mountain Brook, 202 F. Supp. 2d 1279 (N.D. Ala. 2002), aff'd, 345 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir. 2003)-This case involved a developer who obtained a land- disturbance permit to clear a site for a commercial development that had not yet secured proper zoning. The City of Mountain Brook issued a stop-work order when it became clear the developer was attempting to proceed under the guise of the grading permit without required zoning approvals. Subsequently, the city amended its ordinances to prevent such maneuvers. The Eleventh Circuit's opinion notes that after legal wrangling, on December 1, 2001, the permit expired and all work stopped on the property . The courts rejected the developer's due process claims, essentially holding that no vested right existed once the permit lapsed. Greenbriar shows that when a permit expires by its terms (or is lawfully terminated), the permittee cannot continue work, and a stop-work order is an appropriate mechanism to enforce that. In the present case, the tower's protracted timeline and new legal requirements mean the project cannot simply plod along as if nothing changed. The County is entitled to stop the work and require the developer to seek a fresh permit that complies with current law, rather than an out-of-date entitlement. • Yoshikawa v. City & County of Honolulu, Civil No. 18-00162 JAO-RT, 2021 WL 54363 (D. Haw. Jan. 6, 2021) -After the Honolulu OPP issued a building permit for a residential renovation, a City inspector discovered the work exceeded what was allowed (it encroached into the shoreline setback and deviated from approved plans). The City issued a Notice of Violation and Stop Work Order, and the Building Board of Appeals sustained it. The homeowner sued, alleging constitutional violations. The U.S. District Court for Hawai'i dismissed the homeowner's claims, upholding the City's enforcement action. The court noted that the plaintiff conceded that the project may have "violated applicable code and regulations," defeating his due process arguments . Because the owner had an opportunity to appeal the NOV through administrative channels (which he did, unsuccessfully), there was no procedural defect -just an owner unhappy with enforcement. Yoshikawa affirms that County officials can and should halt construction that is not in compliance, and doing so does not violate any vested rights when the construction itself is unlawful . This precedent gives further weight to the County's position in stopping the Kea'au tower -the developers have no entitlement to continue building an unlawful structure, and the proper course is to pause construction until all legal issues are resolved (if they can be). 15 Conclusion: The facts are clear and undisputed: the 15-1839 32nd Avenue cell tower project is moving forward in violation of multiple Hawai'i County Code provisions and poses an urgent public safety risk. The County has a robust legal foundation -under its own Code and supporting case law -to issue a Stop-Work Order and, if necessary, revoke the project's permits. I have provided the above references to underscore the legitimacy and necessity of such action. I earnestly hope the Planning Department will act swiftly to enforce the law. Our community's welfare and the integrity of the County's planning process depend on it. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require any further information. I am available to meet or provide additional documentation at your request. Mahala for your attention to this matter. On Tue, Dec 2, 2025 at 4:29 PM Brandy Camacho <> wrote: Aloha Jeff, I appreciate the time you're taking to research this. To clarify, construction only starting now at the end of 2025-1 O years after the original permit-this raises questions about whether the permit lapsed before the 2020 amendment, especially the 5-year inactivity from 2015 to 2020, potentially qualifying as abandonment under§ 25-2-67(b)(3) (revocation after 2 years) or§ 25-2-7 (invalidating unutilized permits after 2 years). Furthermore, the building permit was issued in May 2025, just weeks before Bill 24 passed in June, which questions applicability if re-approval was needed.Key facts from the data you provided:Timeline and Potential Lapse/Abandonment: The 2020 amendment set a January 21, 2025 deadline for construction (Condition 2). Construction started November 29, 2025-after this deadline-but a February 2025 request led to a 5-year extension (to January 20, 2030) under Condition 15. This highlights 5-year inactivity from 2015 to 2020 (pre-amendment), potentially qualifying as abandonment under§ 25-2-67(b)(3) and§ 25-2-7. The 10-year total delay exceeds standard 5-6 year limits for building permits. Conditions Not Fully Met: Condition 3 requires a recorded easement over TMK 1-5-017:084 before building permit issuance. Condition 2 mandates Final Plan Approval before construction, including stamped plans and landscaping to mitigate visual/noise impacts. If not completed, this is a violation-please verify. Extension Limits: Condition 15 limits extensions to one (not exceeding original 5 years). Grandfathering and Bill 24: Pre-Bill 24 permits are grandfathered if valid, but lapsed ones must comply with new rules(§ 25-1-5 requires active establishment). The 30-foot distances violate the 600-foot setback; the delay may force re-approval under Bill 24. Similar cases like Kauai Springs v. Planning Commission upheld expiration for unmet deadlines. Maha lo for your assistance, 16 Brandy Camacho On Tue, Dec 2, 2025 at 3:58 PM Darrow, Jeffrey W.<Jeff.Darrow@hawaiicounty.gov> wrote: Aloha Ms. Camacho, The Use Permit amendment granted in 2020 had a 5-year timeline to construct the tower. As they were not going to meet this deadline but had received approvals for Final Plan Approval and the Building Permit, they requested an administrative time extension as allowed under Condition No. 15. Condition No. 15 allows for a one-time administrative time extension for a period not to exceed the period originally granted (5 years), which was granted. These are standard conditions within Use Permits that have a construction timeline. Thanx, Jeff Jeffrey W Darrow Planning Director County of Hawaii Planning Department 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, HI 96720 17 808-961-8158 County of Hawai'i Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. Any review, use, disclosure, or distribution by unintended recipients is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. From: Brandy Camacho <> Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 2:25 PM To: Darrow, Jeffrey W.<Jeff.Darrow@hawaiicounty.gov> Cc: Subject: Re: FW: URGENT: Request for Expedited Stop-Work Order on Non-Compliant Telecommunication Tower Construction in Keaau -Clear Violation of 600-Foot Setback Aloha Jeff, Thank you for your prompt response and the details on Use Permit No. 15-56. I truly appreciate the time you're taking to research this. 18 To clarify, the original approval was in 2015, with an amendment in 2020 for additional time and access via the adjoining parcel. However, standard conditions for telecommunication use permits in Hawaii County require completion within 5 years of the effective date, as seen in similar approvals (e.g., PL-USE-2022-006). With construction only starting now in 2025-1 O years after the original permit-this raises questions about whether the permit has expired or if extensions were granted beyond the typical limits. Could you please provide the full permit history, including all extension dates and any documentation confirming it's still valid under current zoning rules? The tower's proximity (30 feet from my property line and <100 feet from my children's room) clearly violates Bill 24's 600-foot setback from residences, and if the permit lapsed, re-approval would be needed.I've lived right next door for five years and was never informed about this project until construction started, which has left me furious. I want to protect my property and family--imagine this was your home and children. Maha lo for your assistance, Brandy Camacho On Tue, Dec 2, 2025 at 1 :54 PM Darrow, Jeffrey W.<Jeff.Darrow@hawaiicounty.gov> wrote: Aloha Ms. Camacho, We have received your emails and have been doing research on this tower. 19 This particular tower was originally approved by the Windward Planning Commission under Use Permit No. 15-56 in 2015 , and then amended in 2020 to allow more time to construct and add the adjoining parcel to allow access from 31 st Ave. They had received Plan Approval and a Building Permit to construct the tower. These approvals were well before the recent changes in Chapter 25-4-12 of the Zoning Code approved by the Council, which required enhanced setbacks. There are conditions attached to the Use Permit, which the applicant must follow , but did not have an increased setback from property lines or residences. Thanx, Jeff Jeffrey W Darrow Planning Director County of Hawaii Planning Department 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, HI 96720 808-961-8158 20 County of Hawai'i Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. Any review, use, disclosure, or distribution by unintended recipients is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. From: Ley, Rachelle <Rachelle.Ley@hawaiicounty.gov> Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 1:25 PM To: Darrow, Jeffrey W.<Jeff.Darrow@hawaiicounty.gov> Subject: FW: URGENT: Request for Expedited Stop-Work Order on Non-Compliant Telecommunication Tower Construction in Keaau -Clear Violation of 600-Foot Setback From: Brandy Camacho <> Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 1:12 PM To: Planning Internet Mail <planning@hawaiicounty.gov> Subject: Re: URGENT: Request for Expedited Stop-Work Order on Non-Compliant Telecommunication Tower Construction in Keaau -Clear Violation of 600-Foot Setback New observation: Construction equipment and tractors are accessing the site via Parcel TMK 1-5- 017-084 (behind the church property). An access road appears to have been developed on this 21 parcel, but I could find no public records linking it to the tower project, such as permits for grading, easements, or related development.This raises concerns about additional unpermitted activity in violation of county codes, tied to the ongoing tower construction. I took pictures as I seen a contractor grade the parcel and walk to the equipment at the tower location behind the church. Please include this in your investigation and expedite a site inspection. Thank you for your attention-I'm available at Sincerely, Brandy Camacho On Tue, Dec 2, 2025 at 7:59 AM Brandy Camacho <> wrote: Dear Hawaii County Planning Department, I am Brandy Camacho, the resident who hand-delivered a formal complaint on December 1, 2025, regarding the telecommunication tower at 15-1839 32nd Ave., Kea au, HI 96749. As construction continues unabated, I am writing to urgently request an expedited investigation and stop-work order under Hawaii County Code Section 25-4-12 (Bill 24), which mandates a minimum 600-foot setback from residences and schools. The tower is positioned less than 100 feet from my children's bedroom window and only 30 feet from my property line, posing immediate concerns for my family's safety and well-being. The ongoing construction noise is severely agitating our household and neighboring properties, disrupting daily life and exacerbating stress amid potential health risks from proximity of the site. Given the clear violation and active work, please prioritize this for immediate inspection and enforcement. I am available at for any questions. Thank you for your swift action. Sincerely, Brandy Camacho 22 23 REC'D HAND DELIVERED C •H s LPNNING DEPT DEC+.ry T2ee DEC1202_'+H4 0:22 Electronically Filed THIRD CIRCUIT PROPOSED ORDER GRANTINCtDEC 002050499 TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 0 -3,© AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT STATE OF HAWIAII BRANDY CAMACHO, Plaintiff. v. COUNTY OF HAWAI`I - PLANNING DEPARTMENT; COUNTY OF HAWAII - DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS; VERIZON WIRELESS (CELLCO PARTNERSHIP); HAWAI' I PACIFIC DISTRICT CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE; DOE CONTRACTOR ENTITIES 1-10; and HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC LIGHT COMPANY (HELCO) interested Party Only), Defendants. Case No.: Omer Civil Action) I do hereby certify that the foregoing is a fuii, true and correct copy of the official court record of the Courts of the State of Hawaii. Dated at: Hilo, Hawaii 12-DEC-2025. Is/ Cheryl Saimo, Clerk of the Third Judicial Circuit, State of Hawaii PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION FINDINGS The Court, having reviewed Plaintifrs: Verified Complaint for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and Permanent Injunction; Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Declaration of Brandy Camacho; Exhibits A—S; And having considered the imminent risk of irreparable harm; FINDS THAT Plaintiff has demonstrated a substanftai tikelihood of success on the merits, including that: Mandatory Condition 3 of Use Permit No. 15-000056 (requiring execution and recording of a perpetual access/utility easement prior to issuance of a building permit) has not been satisfied; The project did not lawfully vest prior to enactment of Bill 24 (2024), 0 Ongoing construction activity is occurring without demonstrated compliance with mandatory permit conditions. 2, Plaintiff has demonstrated immediate and irreparable harm, including: Ongoing construction of a 150-foot telecommunications tower within the foreseeable fall radius of Plaintiffs residence and an adjacent K-6 school: Permanent alteration of land, access routes, and utilities, 0 Risks to public safety that cannot be remedied by monetary damages, 3. The balance of hardships favors Plaintiff, as a temporary halt preserves the status quo while legal compliance is adjudicated 4 The public interest favors enforcement of nd-use taws. permitconditions, and public -safety protections. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED 1. Temporary Restraining Order GRANTED A Temporary Restraining Order is hereby GRANTED, effective immediatety upon entry of this Order 2. Immediate Stop -Work Directive All Defendants, including their agents, contractors, subcontractors, employees, and assigns, are hereby ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from performing any further work related to the telecommunications tower project associated with Use Permit No. 15-000056, including but not limited to: Grading or earthwork, Roadway construction or modification; Utility installation or pole placement; Foundation preparation or concrete Equipment staging or site preparation; Survey -directed construction activity; on parcels including, but not limited to, TMKs (3) 1-5-017:084 and 118, and any associated access routes, pending further order of this Court, 3. Preservation of Evidence Defendants shall preserve all documents, surveys, permits, correspondence, recordings, photographs, videos. and electronically stored information related to: Boundary determination; Easement preparation or recording; Permit issuance or compliance: Construction activity occurring from November 29, 2025 to present. 4. No Determination on the Merits This Temporary Restraining Order is issued solely to preserve the status quo and does not constitute a final determination on the merits of Plaintiff's claims, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 5. Order to Show Cause re Preliminary injunction Defendants are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why a Preliminary Injunction should not be issued enjoining the above -described activities pending final resolution of this action. 6. Hearing Date A hearing on the Order to Show Cause shall be held on: Date: Time: Location: Circuit Court of he Third Circuit, State of Hawaii SECURITY 7. Bond Pursuant to HRCP Rule 65(c), the Court finds that no bond or a nominal bond is appropriate given the public -safety nature of the relief sought. L No bond required Bond in the amount of $ SERVICE 8. Service of Order Plaintiff is authorized to serve this Order by personal service, electronic service, and any method reasonably calculated to provide notice, IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: , 2025 Hilo, Hawaii Judge of the Circuit Court Third Circuit, State of Hawaii Electronically Filed THIRD CIRCUIT VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR 3CCV-25-0000499 12-DEC-2025 TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 0 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT STATE OF HAWAII BRANDY CAMACHO, Plaintiff, COUNTY OF HAWAI`I — PLANNING DEPARTMENT; COUNTY OF HAWAII — DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS; VERIZON WIRELESS (CELLCO PARTNERSHIP); HAWAII PACIFIC DISTRICT CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE; DOE CONTRACTOR ENTITIES 1-10; and HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC LIGHT COMPANY (HELLO) as Int('restedParty Only), Defendants. Case No: Other Civil Action) VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION I do hereby certify that the foregoing Is a full, true and correct copy of the official court record of the Courts of the State of Hawaii. Dated at: Hilo, Hawaii 12-DEC-2025, ts/ Cheryl Salmo, Clerk of the Third Judicial Circuit, State of Hawaii Declaratory Relief Requested Exhibits A-S I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Brandy Camacho is the owner and resident of directly adjacent to the site where Defendants seek to construct a 150-foot telecommunication tower under Use Permit 15-000056 CUP 15-056") 2, On November 29, 2025, construction activity commenced, including grading, roadway cutting, equipment staging, and preparations consistent with imminent tower foundation installation. Work continues as of filing. Plaintiff seeks emergency injunctive relief because construction is proceeding illegally, without compliance with mandatory Use Permit conditions —most critically Condition 3, which requires a recorded accesslutility easement prior to issuance of a budding permit 4 No recorded easement exists. HELCO confirmed on December 8, 2025 that it is only in the process of recording an easement," proving Condition 3 remains unmet today. 5 Because mandatory conditions were not satisfied before issuance of Building Permit PW.B2024-000080, the County unlawfully vested the project. 6. VVithout vesting, the tower must comply with Bill 24 (2024), enacted in June 2025. which requires: 120% of tower height setback from all property lines, and 600 feet minimum setback from any residence or school. 7. Plaintiffs home and a K-6 school are within 30-80 feet of the proposed tower —well inside the fall -zone hazard. 8. Construction continues despite: No recorded easement (Condition 3 violation) HELCO boundary/easement hold Evidence of survey -confirmed encroachment HPD Report 25-109032 (trespass) Multiple County cornplainls (DPW25-589) No agency action or response Immediate court intervention is required. II. PARTIES 9. PlaintiffBrandy Camacho resides at TMK (3) 1-5-017:116, immediately adjacentto the tower site and directly within the tower fall zone. 10. Defendant County of Hawaii — Planning Department administers and enforces zoning regulations and Use Permit 15-000056 11. Defendant County of Hawaii — Department of Public Works (DPW) is responsible for grading permits, building permits, engineering review, access verification, and safety compliance 12. Defendant Verizon Wireless (Cellco Partnership) is the real party in interest constructing the telecommunication tower. 13. Defendant Hawaii Pacific District Church of the Nazarene owns the property on which the tower and proposed access route are located 14. Defendant DOE Contractor Entities 1-10 represent the unknown survey, grading, and construction entities performing site work. 15, Hawaiian Electric Light Company (HELCO) is named as an Interested Party Only because it controls electrical energizing of the tower. Plaintiff does not allege wrongdoing by HELCO III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 16. This Court has jurisdiction under HRS § 603-21.5 and 603-21.9 o grant injunctive and declaratory relief. 17. Venue is proper in the Third Circuit (Hilo) because all acts, omissions, and properties at issue are located in Hawaii County. IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS A. Mandatory Condition 3 Was Never Satisfied 18. Use Permit 15-000056, Condition 3, states: A recorded access/utility easement shall be executed and recorded and a copy submitted to the Planning Department prior to issuance of a building permit." 19. No such easement exists in the Bureau of Conveyances. 20. The only recorded document is Land License T-11439181 (2018), a revocable, private license, not a perpetual easement running with the land. 21 HELCO confirmed in writing on December 8, 2025: 4HELCO is in the process of recording an easement with the landowner.(see Exhibit R) 22. A process of recording is not a recorded easement and cannot satisfy Condition 3 as written. 23. Despite knowing Condition 3 was not fulfilled, the County issued Building Permit PW.B2024-000080, and construction is ongoing. B. The Project Never Vested — Grandfather Status Expired 24. Because Condition 3 was neveraever fuififled, the building permit never lawfufly vested the 2015 use permit approval. 25. Under Hawaii law, a project cannot vest if mandatory preconditions remain unsatisfied 26. In June 2025, the Hawal`i County Council enacted Bill 24 (2024), establishing modem tower -safety setbacks: Bill 24 Requirements 120% of tower height from all property lines 600 feet from any residence or school 27. The proposed tower site fails both standards: 30 ft from Plaintiff's parcel line 30 ft from a K-6 school structure 80 ft from Plaintiff's home 28. Without vesting, the project must comply with current law. 29. The Planning Department's April 23, 2025 extension letter addressed only Condition 15 (time extension); it did not: O Evaluate Condition 3 Find Condition 3 satisfied o Waive the need for a recorded easement 30. Thus, the project did not —and does not —have grandfather protection. C. Active Construction Occurring Illegally 31. From November 29 through December 11, 2025, workers conducted: Grading 0 Roadway cutting Heavy equipment activity 0 Survey staking i Pole placement for tower energizing 32. Plaintiff documented with drone imagery, ground photos, and survey references that A utility pole installed for tower energization appears to be partiafly or entirely on Plaintiff's property. 33. Survey markers (DLB & Associates) show a boundary up to 8 feet away from the pole. contradicting contractor placement, 34. This demonstrates: Potential trespass o Encroachment Unsafe siting o Construction without legal access rights o Lack of recorded easement compliance D. County Agencies Have Failed to Act 35. Plaintiff hand -delivered two complaints to DPW on December 3, 2025, logged as DPW25-589. 36. Plaintiff submitted full evidence packets to o Planning Department DPW Building Division DPW Engineering Division Mayor's Office 37. No agency has responded to the Condition 3 issue. 38. No stop -work order has been issued. 39. No investigation update has been provided. 40. Construction continues despite known violations. On December 10, 2025, Plaintiff received a response from the County Building Division stating only that inquiries should be directed to Planning, without addressing whether the mandatory recorded easement existed or whether construction was authorized. No County agency has provided a substantive response confirming compliance with Condition 3. E. Irreparable Harm 41. Without immediate court intervention, Plaintiff faces: Risk to life and safety from tower collapse Hazard to children at the adjacent K-6 schoo Devaluation of property Impaired habitability o Permanent grading and environmental damage Loss of use and quiet enjoyment of property Stress, anxiety, and health impacts 42. Money damages would not remedy these harms. V. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF COUNT I — Injunctive Relief (HRS §603-21.9) 43. Plaintiff incorporates all previous allegations. 44. Defendantsactions violate mandatory permit conditions, zoning requirements, and safety standards, 45. A Temporary Restraining Order is necessary to prevent imminent and irreparable harm. COUNT II Declaratory Judgment (HRS §632-1) 46. Plaintiff seeks declarations that: Condition 3 re ins unmet O The project never vested O Bill 24 setbacks apply p The building permit was issued improperly o Any construction without a recorded easement is unlawful COUNT III Violations of Haw County Code 47. Defendants violated: Zoning and Use Permit conditions Mandatory safety satbacks Grading and access -approval requirements Permit -issuance procedures VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Plaintiff respectfully requests: A. Temporary Restraining Order halting all construction immediately, B. Preliminary Injunction pending resolution. C. Permanent Injunction prohibiting construction unless all requirements are fully satisfied, D. Declaratory Judgment that. Condition 3 is unmet Use Permit 15-056 did not vest Bill 24 setbacks apply Building Permit PVV.B2024-000080 is invalid or must be suspended E. Attorney's fees and costs (if represented), F. Any other relief the Court deems just and proper, legal VII. VERIFICATION I, Brandy Camacho, declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, Executed this day of December 2025, in Kea'au, Hawari, Brandy Ca acho Plaintiff Lft) RUJ EC 1 2 425 Form 2-A. MIL INFORMATION SHEET STATE OF HAWAII CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CIRCUIT CIVIL INFORMATION SHEET t) P NTIFF(S) Camacho, Brandy Aciewonal e(s) attach I (8), DEFENDANT(S) County ot Hawaii - Planning Department County of Hawaii — Department of Public Works Verizon Wireless (Celle° Partners/11P) Hawaii Pacific District Church of the Nazarene DOE Contractor Entities t-1 0 Additionat Page(S) II LA) PLAINTIFF'S(S)Arr RNEY NAME'NUMBFF Self -Represented (Pro Se) Additional page ttached NATURE OF SUIT 0 Contract O Motor Vehicle Tort D Assault 8 Battery O Construction Defects O Medical Malpractice O L. .1 Malpractice O Product Liability C3 Other Non -Vehicle Tort ED Condemnation O Foreclosure O Agreement of Sate Foreclosure O Agency Appeal O Declaratory Judgrrent Z3 Other Civil Action Ci Environmental Court C3 Asbestos O Consumer Debt Collection 0 Quiet Title DATE 12/11/2025 RESERVE FOR COURT USE CIVIL NO. vii CLASS ACTION 0 YES t)K1 NO Electronically Filed THIRD CIRCUIT 3CCV-25-0000499 12-DEC-2025 08:22 AM Dkt. 3 CIS II,(B) DEFENDANT'S (S) ATTORNEY (NAME/NUMBER) Aeliaortai page(slahachee IV, ORIGIN 183 (A). Original Proceeding 0 (B). Transfer from District Court CIV. NO, 0 (C). Transfer from another Circuit CIV. NO, VI. JURY DEMAND O YES NO IX RELATED CASE(S) JUDGE CIVIL NUMBER ATTORNEY NAME/PARTY NAME Self -Represented (Pro Se) V. DEMAND Temporary fiestrainong Preemineuy tniunator Norminent aounction and Da:iarstory Rag VIII REQUEST TO EXEMPT FROM ARBITRATION al YES 0 NO In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and other • icable state and federal laws, if you require reasonable accommodation for a dtsability, please contact the ADA Coordinator at the Circuit Court Administration OfficeonOAHU-Phone No 808-539-4400, TTY 808-539-4853, FAX, 539-4402. MAUI-Phone No 808-244-2929, FAX 808-244- 2777 HAWAII-Phone No, 808-961-7424, TTY 894-96.1-7422, FAX 82LV e74,1;ii,M;elyNit, •:No 80bY-1 Bie-2511,4110;466"-4811661!ilfiriN rf61140k.thifYiyept eouyouiltearing r apposnHawari12-DEC-2025, is, cheryl Salina, Cleric of the Third Judicial Circuit, State ot ai INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE CIVIL INFORMATION SHEET The civil information sheet and the information it contains neither replace nor supplement the filings, the service pleadings or other documents as required by law, except as provided by the rules of court. form is required for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil information sheet is required for each civil complaint filed. The attorney/party filing a civil complaint shall complete the form as follows: 1. PLAINTIFF(S)/DEFENDANT(S) List names: last, first, middle initial. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, indicate the full name. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official of a government agency, first indicate the agency name and then the official's name and title, If the space provided is insufficient, attach additional page(s) and check the box so indicating. PLAINTIFF'S(STDEFENDANT'S(S1 ATTORNEY Indicate the attorney name and license number. If the space provided is insufficient, attach additional page(s) and check the box so ndicating. III. NATURE OF SUIT Place a "V" (check mark) in the appropriate box, If more than one category applies, select the one category that best describes the action. Do not select more than one category. For cases arising under Hawaii Revised Statutes, section 604A-2, place a "V" (check mark) in the Environmental Court box. ORIGIN A) Original Proceedings: cases originating in the circuit court. B) Transfer from District Court: cases transferred from district court under Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 604-5 (Supp. 2006), 633-31 (1993). C) Transfer from another Circuit: cases transferred from another circuit under Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 603-37, -37.5 1993) V. DEMAND Indicate the remedy being demanded (e,g., damages, preliminary injunction, etc,) VI. JURY DEMAND Indicate whether a jury is being demanded VII. CLASS ACTION Indicate whether the action is brought as a class action. VIII. REQUEST TO EXEMPT FROM ARBITRATION Indicate whether a "Request to Exempt from Arbitration" is filed.. IX. RELATED CASES List the civil number and the assigned judge for related pending cases. X. SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OR PARTY nte and sign the civil information sheet. Oa/ /21) DEC a STATE OF HAWAII CIRCUIT GMT OF THE ThbCIRCUiT SUMMONS TO ANSWER CIVIL COMPLAINT Electronically Filed THIRD CIRCUIT 3CCV-25-0000499 12-DEC-2025 08: 23 AM Dkt. 5 SUMM CASE NUMBER P$.A(NTFF'S NAME ALDRESS, TEL. NO, Brandy Camacno PLAINTIFF ` . Brandy Cama DEFENDANT(S) County of Hawaii, et ai. TO THE ABOVE -NAMED DEFENDANT(S) You are hereby summoned and required to file with the court and serve upon s attorney, whose address is stated above, an answer to the complaint which is herewith served upon you, within 20 days after service of this summons upon you, exclusive of the date of service. if you fail to do so, judgment by default will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. THIS SUMMONS SHALL NOT BE PERSONALLY DELIVERED BETWEEN 10:00 P.M. AND 6:00 AM, ON PREMISES NOT OPEN TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC, UNLESS A JUDGE OF THE ABOVE -ENTITLED COURT PERMITS, IN WRITING ON THIS SUMMONS, PERSONAL DELIVERY DURING THOSE HOURS. A FAILURE TO OBEY THIS SUMMONS MAY RESULT iN AN ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST THE DISOBEYING PERSON OR PARTY, DATE iSSUED DEC 1 2 2025 CLERK Ci LAT COURT CLERK The original document is filed in the Judiciary's electronic case management systern h is accessible via eCourt Kokua at: http,iwww.courts.state.hi,us In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and other appticabie state and federal lows, if you require a reasonable accommodation for a disability, please contact the ADA Coordinator at the Circuit Court Administration Office on OAHU- Phone No, 808-539.4400, TTY 808-539-4853. FAX 539-4402; MAUI- Phone No. «-t,R 244.2929, FAX 808-244-2777; HAWAII- Phone No. 808-961-7424, TTY 808-961-7422, FAX • 1-741 ; KAUAI- Phone No, 808-482-2365, TTY 808-482-2533, FAX 808-482-2509, at least ten (10) working days prior to your hearing or appointment Gate. do hereby certify that the foregoing ie #uli, Ira e and correct copy of the official court record of the Courts of the State cif Hewer i. 44- 744Pa ` jk ry'tp5, is, Cheryl Saimo, Clerk of the Third Judicial Circuit, State of Hawaii RE DEC 1 MOTION FOR TEMPORARY Electronically Filed THIRD CIRCUIT 3CCV-25-0000499 RESTRAINING ORDER, AND FQ ,°25 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: Dkt.MOT PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT STATE OF HAWAI'I BRANDY CAMACHO, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF HAWAII - PLANNING DEPARTMENT; COUNTY OF HAWAI'I - DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS; VERIZON WIRELESS (CELLCO PARTNERSHIP); HAWAII PACIFIC DISTRICT CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE; DOE CONTRACTOR ENTITIES 1-10; and HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC LIGHT COMPANY (HELCO) (Interested Party Only), Defendants. Case No.: Other Civil Action) MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, AND FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION TO THE HONORABLE COURT: Plaintiff Brandy Camacho ("Plaintiff ), by and through self -representation, respectfully rr}o this Court for entry of a Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO") immediately halting ail construction and site work related to the 150-foot wireless telecommunications tower project do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of the official court record of the Courts of the State of Hawai Dated at Hilo. Hawaii 12-DEC.2025, Is/ Cheryl Saimo, Clerk of the Third Judicial Circuit, State of Hawaii ves associated with Use Permit No, 15-000056, pending a hearing on Plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction. This Motion is made pursuant to the Court's authority to issue injunctive relief and to preserve the status quo to prevent imminent and irreparable harm. This Motion is based on: (1) the Verified Complaint for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction. and Permanent Injunction; (2) the Declaration of Brandy Carnac.ho; (3) Exhibits A—S including Exhibits P, Q, R, and S): (4) the records and filings referenced therein; and (5) such other matters as the Court may consider. I. RELIEF REQUESTED Plaintiff requests an order that, effective immediately upon service: 1. Stops all work on or relating to the tower project, including but not limited to grading, excavation, roadway/access work, drilling, concrete work, monopole foundation work, utility pole work for tower energization, staging, and any further survey or boundary activity conducted in furtherance of the project: 2. Prohibits Defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from entering or utilizing Plaintiff's property, and requires all work to remain within lawful boundaries and authorized access areas only; 3. Sets an Order to Show Cause hearing on Plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction 4. Grants any additiona reief necessary to preserve public safety and prevent irreparable harm II. FACTUAL BASIS (SUMMARY) This matter concerns active construction of a 150-foot wireless telecommunications tower at or near TMKs (3) 1-5-017:084/118, immediately adjacent to Plaintiff's residence at TMK (3) 1-5-017.116 and in dose proximity to a neighboring K-6 school. Mandatory Use Permit Condition 3 remains unmet Condition 3 requires execution and recordation of an access/utility easement and submission of the recorded easement prior to issuance of a building perrnit. No recorded easement exists. HELCO confirmed on December 8, 2025 that it is 'in the process of recording an easement with the landowner.' (See Exhibit R; HELCO Email (Dec 8).pdf.) Despite this, construction began November 29 2025 and has continued, with heavy equipment work, grading, access preparation, survey stakingand utility -related activity —suggesting imminent foundation installation. Plaintiff has repeatedly sought clarification and enforcement from County agencies, but has received deflection and no substantive response addressing Condition 3 or confirming lawful authorization to proceed. (Exhibit R.) Plaintiff also documented survey activity and boundary indicators showing the utility pole placed for tower energization may be on or within inches of Plaintiff's property, and survey markers indicate a boundary discrepancy of up to approximately eight feet relative to pole placement. Exhibit P; Declaration, Exhibits/photos ) Additionally. Hawaii County's 2025 Bill 24 (2024) establishes modern safety setbacks for telecommunications towers unless a project has lawfully vested prior to enactment. Plaintiff contends the project did not lawfully vest because mandatory Condition 3 was unmet at the time of building permit issuance, and therefore the tower must comply with current safety setbacks. Plaintiffs home and the nearby K-6 school are approximately 30-80 feet from the proposed tower base —placing occupied structures well within the foreseeable fall zone of a 150-foot structure. (Exhibit S,) III. LEGAL STANDARD A TRO is appropriate to prevent imminent irreparable injury and to preserve the status quo pending further proceedings. Where the balance of hardships favors the moving party and there is a likelihood of success on the merits (or, at minimum, serious questions going to the merits), and where irreparable harm is likely absent relief, the Court may issue a TRO. IV. ARGUMENT A. Plaintiff Is Likely to Succeed on the Merits (or, at Mini u , Raises Serious Questions) 1, Condition 3 is a mandatory prerequisite The Use Permit requires a recorded access/utifity easement prior to issuance of a building permit. The record establishes no recorded easement exists, and HELCO confirms an easement is still pending. (Exhibit R: HELCO Email (Dec 8).pdf) 2, A revocable license is not a perpetual recorded easement: The Land Court -recorded Land License (T-11439181) is term -limited and revocable. It is not a recorded easement running with the land "for the life of the facility" 3. Proceeding without satisfying mandatory conditions undermines lawful vesting, If the building permit issued without satisfaction of mandatory preconditions, the project cannot claim lawful vesting/grandfather protection to avoid modern safety requirements. 4. Public safety setbacks under current law are implicated: If vesting is absent, the tower must comply with current safety setback requirements, which the site does not meet given proximity to a residence and K--6 school, (Exhibit S.) B. Plaintiff Will Suffer Immediate and Irreparable Harm Without a TRO Absent immediate intervention, Plaintiff faces. A physical public -safety hazard from a 150-foot ructure's potential collapse/fall zone impacting her home and a nearby school, Irreversible site alterations (grading, excavation, concrete pours) that cannot be undone by later relief: Loss of quiet enjoyment and habitability, and severe ongoing stress impacts documented in Plaintiff's declaration; Potential encroachment/trespass impacts if utilities or work are placed on or within Plaintiff's boundary without legal rights. Money damages cannot restore safety, undo major construction, or adequately remedy these harms C. The Balance of Equities Strongly Favors Preserving Safety and the Status Quo A TRO temporarily pauses work to allow the Court to determine whether the project is proceeding lawfully. Defendants' claimed harm is delay in construction: Plaintiff's harm is risk to life/safety and irreversible construction impacts. Equity favors preventing unsafe or unlawful work. D. The Public Interest Favors Enforcement of Permit Conditions and Protection of Children and Residents The public interest is served by: Ensuring compliance with use permit conditions intended to protect lawful access and long-term enforceability; Preventing construction that places residences and a K-6 school within a fall -zone hazard absent clear lawful authorization; Maintaining trust in land use and safety enforcement. V. NOTICE / REQUEST FOR EX PARTE RELIEF Plaintiff requests that the Court grant a TRO on an emergency basis, Plaintiff has made repeated good -faith efforts to obtain administrative clarification and enforcement but has received deflection or non -response while construction continues. (Exhibit R.) The immediacy of ongoing construction and risk of irreversible work supports emergency relief. VI. REQUESTED ORDER AND NEXT HEARING Plaintiff requests that the Court Issue the TRO immediately; Set an Order to Show Cause hearing regarding preliminary injunction at the earliest available date; and Require Defendants to appear and show why a preliminary injunction should not be entered. BRANDY CAMACHO, Plaintiff (Pro Se) czez z 330 (tn) Ain.7‘31,1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT STATE OF HAWAI'I Electronically Filed PROPOSED ORDER GRANTI NOc' IRD CIRc of9912- DEC-2 1 25 08: 29 AM Dkt. 9 PORD BRANDY CAMACHO, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF HAWAII — PLANNING DEPARTMENT;. COUNTY OF HAWAII — DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS; VERIZON WIRELESS (CELLCO PARTNERSHIP); HAWAII PACIFIC DISTRICT CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE; DOE CONTRACTOR ENTITIES 1-10; and HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC LIGHT COMPANY (HELCO) (interested Party Only), Defendants, Case No: Other Civil Action) PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING TEMPORARY RES SHOW CAUSE RE: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION INING ORD R AND ORDER TO Upon consideration of Plaintiffs Verified Complaint, Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Declaration, and Exhibits, and for good cause shown, the Court finds that immediate and irreparable injury may occur before Defendants can be heard, and that temporary injunctive relief is necessary to preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable harm. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of the official court record of the Courts of the State of Hawai Dated at: Hilo, Hawaii 12-DEC-2025, Is/ Cheryl Salmo, Clerk of the Third Judicial Circuit, State of Hawa 1. Temporary Restraining Order Granted. Effective immediately upon service of this Order, Defendants, their agents, contractors, employees, and all persons acting in concert with them are TEMPORARILY RESTRAINED AND ENJOINED from conducting any construction, grading, excavation, road/access work, drilling, concrete placement, foundation work, monopole installation, utility pole installation for tower energization, equipment staging, or any other site work in furtherance of the 150-foot wireless telecommunications tower project associated with Use Permit No, 15-000056, including work on or relating to TMKs (3) 1-5-017:084 and/or 1-5-017:118, and any associated access corridors. 2. No Trespass Boundary Compliance. Defendants and persons acting in concert with them shall not enter Plaintiffs property (TMK (3) 1-5-017:116) and shall not place or maintain any improvements, markers, poles, equipment, or materials on Plaintiffs property absent lawful authority and Court approval, 3. Preservation of Evidence. Defendants shall preserve all records related to boundary verification, surveys, easement preparation/recordation, permit compliance, and construction activities, including but not limited to survey field notes, maps, communications, contractor fogs, and photographs. 4. Order to Show Cause Hearing. An Order to Show Cause hearing re: Plaintiffs request for Preliminary Injunction shall be held on: Date: 2025 Time: Location: 5 Service. Plaintiff shall promptly serve this Order, the Motion, Declaration, Verified Complaint, and Exhibits on Defendants by (method(s) of service) and shall file proof of service. 6. Duration. This IRO shall remain in effect until the Order to Show Cause hearing or further order of the Court. IT IS SO ORDERED, DATED: Hito, Hawaii, , 2025, JUDGE OF THE ABOVE -ENTITLED COURT Electronically Filed THIRD CIRCUIT DECLARATION OF BRANDY 3CCV-25-0000499 12-DEC-2025 CAMACHO IN SUPPORT OF 08:32AM Dkt. 13 DEC VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT STATE OF HAWAI`I BRANDY CAMACHO, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF HAWAN - PLANNING DEPARTMENT; COUNTY OF HAINAI`N - DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS; VERIZQN WIRELESS (CELLCO PARTNERSHIP); HAWAVI PACIFIC DISTRICT CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE; DOE CONTRACTOR ENTITIES 1-10; and HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC LIGHT COMPANY (HELLO) Interested Party Only), Defendants. Case No.: I do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of the official court record of the Courts of the State of Hawaii. Rated at: Hilo, Hawaii 12.DEC•2025, is/ Cheryl Saimo, Clerk of the Third Judicial Circuit, State of Hawaii Other Civil Action) DECLARATION OF BRANDY CAMACHO I, Brandy Camacho, declare as follows 1 am the Plaintiff in this action. I reside at 15- I am the owner and occupant of the residential property identified as TMK 3) 1-5-017:116. 2 My residence directly abuts or lies immediately adjacent to the parcels where Defendants are constructing a 150-foot telecommunications tower under Use Permit No. 15-000056, 3. have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein, and if called as a witness, I could competently testify to them. Construction Activity and Safety Concerns 4 On or about November 29, 2025, I observed the commencement of construction activity associated with the tower project, including grading, earthwork, roadway cutting. heavy equipment staging, survey staking, and utility -related work, 5. Construction activity has continued through at least December 11, 2025, despite my repeated written and in -person notices to County agencies regarding unresolved permit conditions and public -safety risks 5. The proposed tower is approximately 150 feet in height. Based on visual reference, drone imagery, and site observation: The tower base is approximately 30 feet from my property line; Approximately 80 feet from my residence, including sleeping areas: Approximately 30 feet from an occupied K--6 school building 7 These distances place my home and the school well within the foreseeable fall or collapse radius of the proposed structure. have serious concerns for life safety, including the safety of my family, my child, and schoolchildren who occupy the neighboring property daily. Condition 3 — Missing Recorded Easement 9 Use Permit No. 15-000056, Condition 3, requires that a recorded access/utility easement be executed and recorded, and a copy submitted to the Planning Department prior to issuance of a building permit. 10. To my knowledge, no recorded easement exists in the Bureau of Conveyances satisfying Condition 3. 11. The only document on record is Land License T-11439181 (2018). which is a revocable, term -limited license, not a perpetual easement running with the land. 12. On December 8, 2025, Hawaiian Electric Light Company (HELCO) confirmed to me in writing that it is "in the process of recording an easement with the landowner." 13. This confirmation establishes that: No recorded easement existed at the time construction began: Condition 3 remains unmet: The building permit was issued without satisfaction of a mandatory precondition. Survey Activity and Boundary Concerns 14. On December 8, 2025, a licensed surveying company (DLB + Associates, LLC) conducted survey activity in the vicinity of my property without prior notice to me. 15. During that survey activity, a surveyor identified and uncovered a legal boundary marker located inside my yard near my fence line, confirming that my fence lies within my property boundary, not on it. 16. Survey markers placed by the surveyors indicated that a utility pole installed for tower energization is positioned either directly on or partially within my property boundary. based on visual alignment and measured reference points. 1T|documented these findings using photographs, drone imagery, and contemporaneous notes, which are included in the exhibits submitted to the Court. 18,|did not interfere with surveyors or contractors. My actions were limited to observation and documentation from my own property. Agency Contacts and Non -Response 19. Between December and December 11, 2025^ |: Hand -delivered complaints to the Department of Public Works; Submitted written notices 10the Planning Deparlment,DPW Building and Engineering Divisions. the Mayor's []ffice, and e|ectedofficia|s FUodHIPD Report No. 25- 09032concwrningtm*apaonandunautMonzedachvitx 20. Despite these efforts: Noagency has confirmed that Condition 3has been satisfied; No stop -work order has been isouecl Construction activity has continued. 21 On December 11, 2025, the County Building Division responded only that I should inquire with the Planning Department,' without addressing whether construction was lawfully authorized, Irreparable Harm 22. | fconstruction continues, | face irreparable harm, including'. Ongoing aayo1y risk from a 15U'hootstructure within the fall zone ofnnyhome" Risk tochildren attending the adjacent K-6schmo| w Permanent alteration mfland and access mmutmm Loss of quiet enjoyment and habitability of my home: Stress, anxiety, and health impacts caused by the ongoing uncertainty and danger. 23. Monetary damages cannot remedy these harms. 24. I seek this Court's intervention solely to preserve safety and lawful process, not to harass or obstruct lawful development. Declaration I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Hawaii that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Executed on this day of December 2025, at Kea'au, flawai`i co Plaintiff EXHIBITS A-S IN SUPPORT OF VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER Plaintiff: Brandy Camacho Property: Use Permit: 15-000056 Electronically Filed THIRD CIRCUIT 3CCV-25-0000499 12-DEC-2025 08:34 AM Dkt. 15 EXH do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of the official court record of the Courts of the State of haw Dated at: Hilo, Hawaii 12-DEC-2025, is/ Cheryl Salrno, Clerk of the Third Judicial Circuit, State of Hawaii TABLE OF CONTENTS Exhibit A — Use Permit 15-000O56 Exhibit B—Land License T-11439101 EnhibdC— HELCO Email (C>ec8 2025) Exhibit D—Planning Extension Letter (Apr 23.2025\ Exhibit E— DPW Complaint Confirmation (DpW25-589) Exhibit F—HPDReport No. 25'1Q9032 ExhibitG— SurvmyAcUvdvPhohos Exhibit H—Boundary Marker Discovery ExhibitP— Encnoaohn»entEvidenoa Exhibit 0—Active Construction During Review Euhibi| R—AoanoyNan-Rempmnamand Deflection Exhibit 8 — Public Safety Fall Zone (nnpeCt EXHIBIT A USE PERMIT NO. 15-000056 (2015) Description: Use Permit No. 15-000056 issued by the County of Hawaii Planning Commission approving construction of a 150-foot wireless telecommunications tower, subject to mandatory conditions. Key Conditions: Condition 3: Requires execution and recording of an access/utility easement and submission of the recorded document prior to issuance of any building permit. Condition 15: Establishes construction timelines and allows a one-time administrative time extension limited to duration only, Compliance Status: No recorded access or utility easement exists in the Bureau of Conveyances. The only recorded document is a revocable land license (see Exhibit B). HELCO has confirmed it is currently "in the process of recording an easement." confirming Condition 3 remains unmet. Relevance: This permit establishes the controlling conditions for the project. Failure to satisfy Condition 3 prevents lawful vesting and defeats any claim of grandfathered status Harry Kirn Mayor Roy Takernoto Afarlagiog nowt), County of Hawaii WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION Aupunt Center • 101 Pauaki Street, Suite 3 • Hilo, Hawiti't 96720 Phone (808)961-8288 • Fax (808)961-8742 JAN 2 1 2020 Ms. Danette Martin General Dynamics 76-6357 Kololia Street Kailua4Cona, H1 96740 Dear Ms, Martin; Joseph Clarkson, Chair Thomas Raffipiy, Vice Chair Gilbert Aguinaldo Dean Au Donn Dela Cruz John Replogle SUBJECT: Use Permit No. USE 15-000056 Applicant: Cella) Partnership dba Verizon Wireless Request: Revise Access to Previously Approved Telecommunication Facility And Five -Year Extension of Time to Condition No. 2 (Complete Construction) Tax Map Key: 1-5-017:084 and 1-5-017:118 The Windward Planning Commission, at its duly held public hearing on January 8, 2020, voted to approve the above -referenced request to amend Usc Permit No, USE 15-000056 to change access to the telecommunication facility so access is from 31Avenue over TMK 1-5-017:084 and allow a five-year time extension to Condition No. 2 to complete construction of the facility. The properly is located between 315' Avenue and 32nd Avenue, about 2,160 feet southeast of the Paradise Drive intersection, Hawaiian Paradise Park, Puna, Hawaii. Approval of this amendment is subject to the following conditions: 1 The applicant, its successors or assigns shall be responsible for complying with all stated conditions of approval. Construction of the monopole shall be completed within five (5) years from the effective date of this amended permit. Prior to construction, the applicant, successors or assigns shall secure Final Plan Approval for the proposed development from the Planning Director in accordance with Section 25-2-71(c)(3), 25-2-72, 25-2-74 and 25-4-12, Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Hawaii County Code. Plans shall identify proposed structures, fire protection measures, access easements and any fencing associated with the use. Landscaping shall also be indicated on the plans along northeast and northwest corner of Parcel l 18 for the purpose of mitigating any adverse noise or visual impacts to adjacent properties. The plans shall identify existing landscaping and new landscaping in the areas that do not currently have landscaping in place, The antenna plans shall be stamped by a structural engineer, vo* w,htplarotnaticnt-com Hai', County it an Equal Opportunity Provider and Ent,oloyvr plannamhat•a)tcoutILYS0v JAN 2 1 2020' Ms. Danene Martin General Dynamics Page 2 3. The applicant shall execute and recur d an easement over Parcel 84 to provide access to the telecommunication site on Parcel 11 for the duration of the life ofthe telecommunication facility. A copy ofthe recorded easement shall be provided to the Planning Department prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the telecommunication facility. 4, All earthwork activity, including grading, grubbing and stockpiling, shall conform to Chapter 10, Erosion and Sedimentary Control, of the Hawai`i County Code, To protect any Hawaiian hoary bats in the vicinity of the property, barbed wire fencing shall not be used in the permit area and woody vegetation over 15 feet in height shall not be disturbed, trimmed or removed during bat birthing and pup rearing season of June 1st to September '1 Sth without first conducting surveys for bat nests and coordinating with US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) ifnests are found, Surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. To protect any Hawaiian hawks in the vicinity of the property, ground clearing, grubbing activities and construction shall not occur in the permit area during hawk breeding season of March 1st to September 30th without first conducting surveys for hawk nests and coordinating with l)SFWS if nests are found. Surveys shall be conducted by a qualified ornithologist and are only valid for 14 days. Ground clearing or construction shall not occur within 1,600 feet ofany active Hawaiian hawk nest during the breeding season. Regardless of the time of year, trimming or cutting trees containing a hawk nest is prohibited. 7. To protect any seabirds (Hawaiian petrels, Newell's shearwaters and band-rumped storm petrel) in the vicinity of the property, any lighting shall be fully shielded so that the bulb can only be seen from below bulb height. The lights shall be turned off when human activity is not occurring in the lighted area. To prevent the spread of Rapid 'Ohi`a Death, a survey of the proposed site shall be conducted two weeks prior to any tree cutting to determine if there are any infected ')hi'a trees. If infected 'bhi'a are suspected at the site, the applicant shall contact the appropriate agencies at UH-Hilo and USDA for further guidance. If °ahi`a trees will be cut during construction, the applicant shall follow procedures as described in the comment letter from US Fish and Wildlife Service, dated January 6, 2020. 9, To prevent the spread of harmful invasive species, the applicant shall follow biosecurity protocols as described in the comments letter from US Fish and Wildlife Service, dated January 6, 2020. 10, Co -location of antennas upon the existing tower and expansion of related support equipment within the project site may be allowed within the parameters of the tower height as approved by the Planning Commission, provided that ground lease areas of co -locating carriers are adjacent to the existing ground lease area and not located within the open yard setback areas. Ms. Danette Martin General Dynamics Page 3 11. Prior to the issuance of Final Plan Approval, the applicant shall secure and finalize any building permits for the subject property required by the Department of Public Works Building Division. 12. Within 120 days of the permanent abandonment ofthe tower, cite applicant shall remove the tower and its antenna and accessory structures (including the equipment building and the fence), down to, but not including, the concrete foundation, The applicant shall immediately provide written notification to the Planning Director of the termination of the telecommunication tower and related improvements and the removal of all structures. In the unlikely event that surface or subsurface historic resources, including human skeletal remains, structural remains (e.g. rock walls, terraces, platforms, etc.), cultural deposits, marine shell concentrations, sand deposits, or sink holes are identified during the grading or construction work, work shalt cease in the immediate vicinity of the find, the find shall be protected from further disturbance and the State Historic Preservation Division shall be contacted at (808) 933-7651 or (808) 692-8015. 14. Comply with all applicable rules, regulations and requirements ofthe affected agencies for the proposed development, including the Federal Aviation Administration and Federal Communications Commission. All exterior lighting shall be shielded. 15. An initial extension oftime for the performance of conditions of this amended permit may be granted by the Planning Director upon the following circumstances: A. Non-performance is the result of conditions that could not have been foreseen or are beyond the control of the applicant, successors or assigns, and that are not the result oftheir fault or negligence. B. Granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the Gen Zoning Code. a Plan or the C. Granting of the extensionwould not be contrary to the original reasons for the granting of the permit. D. The time extension granted shall be for a period not to exceed the period originally granted for performance (i.e., a condition to be performed within one year may be extended for up to one additional year). Should any of the conditions not be met or substentialty ct mplied with in a timely fashion, the Director may initiate procedures to revoke the permit, Ms. Danette Martin General Dynamics Page 4 This approval does not, however, sanction the specific plans submitted with the application as they may be subject to change given specific code and regulatory requirements of the affected agencies. Note: Ramseyer versior avai!able upon request.] Approval of this permit is based on the reasons given in the attached Findings Report. Should you have any questions, please contact Maija Jackson of the Planning Department at 961-8159. Sincerely, Joseph Clarkson Wit* t3121 17 2I1>58 .10 ar Joseph Clarkson, Chairman Windward Planning Commission LCeltrapitruiershipArnead USE I 5-056%pc Enclosure; PC Findings Report cc wienclosures: Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless Department of Public Works Department of Water Supply County Real Property Tax Division - Hilo Department of Land & Natural Resources -HP[.) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service GIS Section COUNTY OF HAWAUI PLANNING DEPARTMENT PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS CELLCO PARTNERSHIP DBA VERIZON WIRELESS AMENDMENT TO USE PERMIT NO. 15-000056 Based on the following c,onsiderations, an amendment Use Permit No. 15-000056 to change access to the telecommunication facility and to provide a 5-year time extension to complete construction is approved. On November 19, 2015, the Windward Planning Commission issued a Use Permit to allow the construction of a new telecommunication facility, including a 150-foot tall steel monopole with 8-foot tall panel antennas and related facilities within a 1,600-square foot portion of a 2-acre parcel situated in the County's Agricultural 1-acre (A-1a) zoning district. Condition No. 2 of the permit required completion of construction by November 19, 2020. As of this writing, plan approval and a building permit has not been issued nor has construction begun on the tower. CELLCO PARTNERSHIP DBA VERIZON WIRELESS is requesting an additional 5 years to complete construction of the telecommunication facility because they will not be able to secure plan approval, secure a building permit, and construct the facility by the November 2020 deadline. The applicant is also proposing to revise the 12-foot wide gravel access to the facility from 31 Avenue over parcel 84, which is a vacant lot owned by the same landowner as parcel 118, where the telecommunication facility will be located. Originally the access was proposed from 32 Avenue into the church parking lot and between the playground equipment area and multi -purpose building. The subject property is situated between 31" Avenue and 32'd Avenue, about 2,160 feet southeast of the Paradise Drive intersection, Hawaiian Paradise Park, Puna, Hawai`i, TMKs (3) 1-5-017:84 and 1-5-017: Portion of 118. The non-performance is the result of conditions that could not have been foreseen or are beyond the control of the applicant, successors or assigns, and that are not the result of their fault or negligence. The applicant became aware of the conflict between the original proposed driveway access and children's playground after the original permit was granted in 2015. The proposed change in access has caused delay in securing plan approval and building permits for construction of the facility. Granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the General Plan or Zoning Code. Since the original permit was granted in 2015 there have not been changes to the General Plan, the Puna Community Development Plan, or the Zoning Code that affect telecommunication facilities, thus the amendment request remains consistent with these plans and the zoning code. Granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the original reasons for the granting of the permit. The reasons for granting the original permit have not changed; the only change is the location of the proposed driveway access in order to create a safer environment for children playing on and around the playground equipment on Parcel 118. The proposed use will not have any significant adverse effects on surrounding properties and will not substantially alter or change the essential character of the land and the present use. The change in driveway access location from Parcel 118 to Parcel 84 will not adversely affect surrounding properties, primarily because of the very low volume of traffic that will use this driveway. In the original application, the applicant estimated about one to four visits to the site would occur on a monthly basis for the applicant to maintain the unmanned facility. It should also be noted that although the landowner of Parcel 118 also owns Parcel 84, the proposed driveway access on Parcel 84 cannot be used for church traffic unless Special Permit No. 607, which permitted the church in 1985, is amended by the Planning Commission. The Planning Director also recommends a condition be added to the permit to ensure access is provided during the life of the telecommunication facility over Parcel 84, even if the parcel is sold to another owner by the landowner. Lastly, this approval is made with the understanding that the applicant remains responsible for complying with all other applicable governmental requitements in connection with the approved use, prior to its commencement or establishment upon the subject properties. Additional governmental requirements may include the issuance of building pennits, the installation of approved wastewater disposal systems, compliance with the Fire Code, installation of improvements required by the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), among many others. Compliance with all applicable governmental requirements is a condition of this approval; failure to comply with such requirements will be considered a violation that may result in enforcement action by the Planning Department and/or the affected agencies. 2- Coun a WINDWARD PLANNING COM :SS/O 51 Aupuni Center • 101 Paw6i Sued, Seite 3 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Phone l °) 9634238 • Fu OW 9614742 NQY 1 9 2015 Mr. David Lyman Master Network Solutions 123 Terrace Drive Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Mr. Lyman: SUBJECT: Use P ftAppliestion (t. SE Applicant: Cato Partnerrs Request: Allow the C TelecomraW = f _ , Tow r d provements Tat : .17: The Windward Planning Commission, at its duly he public hearing on November 5, 2015, voted to approve the above -referenced request to allow the construction ofa new telecommunication facility, including a 150-foot tall steel monopole with 8-foot tall panel antennas and related facilities within a 1,600 square -foot portion ofa 2-acre parcel situated in the County's ° 4 'cultural 1-acre (A-1 a) zoning district The project site is situated on the northeast side of 32rd Avenue approximately 2,160 feet southeast of the Paradise Drive — 32nd Avenue intersection, Hawaiian Paradise Park Subdivision, Kea'au, Puna, Hawaii. A Petition for S Yuk Wah Wo The Commissi Approval of this it is subject to H g wasreceived from y licant, its successors, o litions of approval. Comrai requ Shun Kwan and on this matter. ible for complying vitir all 2, Construction of the monopole shall be completed within five (5) years from the effective date of this permit. Prior to construction, the applicant, successors or assigns shall secure Final Plan Approval for the proposed development from the Planning Director in accordance with Section 25-2-71(c)(3), 25-2-72, 25-2-74 and 25- 4-12, Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Hawaii County Code. Plans shall identify proposed structures, fire protection measures, access easements and any fencing associated with Hawaii County is an Equal Oppomrnfty Provider and NOV 2 A 2015 Mr. David Lyman Master Network Solutions Page 2 ping shall also be indicated on the plans along northeast and ofthe property for the purpose of mitigating any adverse noise or to adjacent properties. The plans shall identify existing and new landscaping in the antes that do not currently have landscaping in pd antenna plans shall be stamped by a structural engineer. Co -location of antennas upon the existing tower and expansion ofrelated support equipment within the project site may be allowed within the parametan of the tower height as approved by the Planning Commission, provided that lease areas of co -locating carriers are adjacent to the existing ground lease area and not located within the open yard setback areas, 4. Prior to the issuance of Final Plan Approval, the applicant shall re and `finalize any bui permits for the subject property required by the Department of Public Works Building Division. Within 120 days of the permanent abandonment of the tower, the applicant shall remove the tower and its antenna and accessory structures (including the equipment building and the fence), down to, but not including, the concrete foundation. The applicant shall immediately provide written notification to the Planning Director of the termination of the telecommunication tower and related improvements and the removal of all structures. b. Should any unidentified sites or ' s such as lava ,artifact, bone, or charcoal deposits, human burials, rock or coral all ts, pavirr, or walls be encountered, work in the immediate area shall cease and the # ,: of d and Natural Resources --Historic Preservation Division (DLNR-HPD) shall tams uec lately notified. Subsequent work shall proceed upon an archaeological c c:.e from the DLNR-HPD when it finds that sufficient mitigative measures have been 7. Comply with all applicable rules, regulations and requirements of the affected agencies for the proposed development, including the Federal Aviation Administration and Federal Communications Commission. All exterior lighting shall be shielded. An initial extension of time for the performance of conditions of the permit may be granted by the Planning Director upon the folio mg circumstances. A. Non-performance is the result of conditions that could not have been foreseen or are beyond the control of the applicant, successors or assigns, and that are not the result of their fault or negligence. L.,._._ Mr. David Lyman Mastec Network Solutions Page 3 B. would not be cantragry to the General Plan or C. Gtisr of the extension would not be con f the permit. D. original reasons for the The extension granted shall be for a pzod not to exceed the period originally granted for performance (i.e., a ttdfu ion to be performed within one year may be extended for up to one additional ye&). Should any of the conditions not be met or substantially {.- A with in a tely fashion, the Director may initiate procedures to revoke the permit. This approval does not, however, sanction the specific plans submi with the application as they may be subject to change given specific code and regulatory requirements crfthe affected agencies Approval of this xezt is :, .: on the reasons given in the attached F "+ Report. Should you have any questioner please contact Jeff Darrow of the Planning Department at 961-8158. Sincerely, Myl W indwar i P L,rettcopertnnippSa 15-0Sfi Enclosure: PC Findings Cel e° P Departt o Departt of County Real Property Tax Division - Hilo Department of Land & Natural Resources - HPD Mr. Gilbert Bailado CEL PA COUNTY OF HAWAI`I PLANNING COMMISSION FINDI iGS RSH11P DBA tti'L RtZON WIRELESS USE PERMIT APP .1CATION (USE I.S-000056 Based on the following, Use Permit No. 15-000056 is hereby issued to allow the on of a new telecommunication facility, including a 150`foot tall steel monopole with panel antennas and related facilities within a 1,600 square -foot portion of a 2-acre parcel is approved by the Planning Commission. CELLCO PARTNERSHIP DBA VERIZON WIRELESS is requesting a Use P allow the construction of a new telecommunication facility, including a 150-foot tall steel monopole with $-foot tall panel antennas and related facilities within a 1,600 square -foot portion of a 2-acre parcel situated in the County's Agricultural 1-acre (A-1 a) zoning district. The property is located on the northeast side of 32°d Avenue approximately 2,160 feet southeast of the Paradise Drive — 32°' Avenue intersection, Hawaiian Paradise Park Subdivision, Kea'au, Puna, Hawai `i, TMK: 1-5-07: Portion of 118. The applicant, Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless, is requesting a Use Permit to construct a 150-foot tall steel monopole with twelve (12) 8-foot panel antei nas mounted on top of the monopole. The monopole would be desito also accommodate the placement of other carriers (co -location). In addition to the monopole, the 1,600 square foot (40' x 40') leased area would be for accessory ground facilities, which includes electronic radio and battery equipment cabinets and an outdoor emergency generator on a concrete slab. The leased area would be fenced with 8-foot high chain link security fencing with locked gates. The proposed facility would be unmanned, and maintenance and repair activities will be performed by a technician on a periodic basis. The pole will be constructed of structural galvanized steel and built to withstand 105 mph wind. The applicant will comply with all Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) rules. Additionally, the monopole will not interfere with the County's public safety radio system. The objective of this project is to improve coverage in the neighborhoods for Hawaiian Paradise Park, covering the southwestern part of the neighborhood. Coverage will be improved to provide better call quality within the homes as customers depend more on cellular service over land -line telephone services in Hawaii. Lastly, the pro + :$ project will increase data for intemet connection, video services and phone applications. Telecommunication towers and antennas previously required a Special Permit to operate within the State Land Use Agricultural District. In 2007, the State Le ' ; =es - adopted Act 171 allow the construction and operation of wireless communication antennas and towers as permitted uses within the State Land Use Agricultural District In 2010, the Hawai`i County Council approvedOrduaneeNo. 10-17 to require a Use Permit for telecommunication antennas and towers in the County's Agricultural zoned district. As the applicant is proposing to construct a new tower in the County's Agricultural (A-1 a) zoned district, a Use Permit is required. In considering a Use Permit for any proposed use, Rule 7 of the Planning Commission relating toUsePermits, requires that such action conform to the following guidelines: A. The ling of the proposed use shall be consistent with the general purpose of the zoned district, the intent and purpose of the Zoning Code and the County General Plan; B. The granting of the proposed use shall not be materially detrimental to the public welfare nor cause substantial adverse impact to the community's character or to surrounding properties; and C. The granting of the proposed use shall not unreasonably burdens public agencies to provide roads and streets, sewers, water, drain school improvements, police and fire protection and other related infrastructure. The proposed request meets the guidelines for approval of a Use Permit, for the reasons outlined below: The granting of the proposed use shrill be consistent with the general purpose of the zoning district, the intent and purpose of the Zoning Code and the County General Plan. The Use Permit process provides an avenue to review and analyze a proposed pmject on a case - by -case basis relative to infrastructure and impacts on surrounding properties and existing uses, as well as consistency with the goals and polices of the General Plan. The Zoning Code allows for telecommunication antennas and towers to be a permitted use within the County's Agricultural zoned district if a Use Pemut is approved by the Planning Commission. The Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map component of the General Plan is a representation of the document's goals and policies to guide the coordinated growth and development of the County. It reflects a 'c depiction of the physical relationship among the various land uses. The LUPAG Map = tail ah the basic urban and non -urban form for areas within the County. The _ ; k Plan desi ;a . «`on for this property is Rural, which includes existing subdivisions in the State Land Use Agricultural and Rural districts that have a significant residential s ' Typical lot sizes vary from 9,000-square feet to two acres. These subdivisions may contain small farms, wooded areas, and open fields as well as residences. Allowable uses within these areas, with appropriate zoning, may include commercial facilities that serve the residential and agricultural uses in the area, and community and public facilities. The Rural designation does not necessarily mean that these areas should be further subdivided to smaller lots. Most lack the infrastructure necessary to allow further subdivision. Telecommunication facilities may be allowed in this area with the approval of a Use Permit from the Planning Commission. The telephone is an essential m ofvoice communication for the majority of residents in Hawaii County. However, over the last decade, the County has seen acceleration in the development of telecommunication technology and a transformation of the telecommunications industry. In addition to traditional phone communication, the telecommunications industry now includes technologies such as wireless cellular and digital mobile phones, the internet and World Wide Web. During the last decade, wireless telecommunications has experienced a dramatic decrease in cost and a phenomenal increase in availability. Changes in technology and competition in the industry have made wireless communication more affordable to the general public. Advances in telecommunications are not without cost or concerns. One such concern is the construction and location of telecommunication towers. Telecommunication towers are the physical structures to which antennas are attached to facilitate wireless communication. Because of the need for a clear line -of -site, telecommunication towers are usually located in areas with minimum obstructions between the tower and its area of service. Line -of -site refers to the 2- obile phone antenna and a telecommunication tower. If there are im mats the mobile phone antenna and the telecommunication tower, there may be loss. For example, the loss of line -of -sight occurs when a person uses a mobile phone while driving through a tunnel. Most often, communication is lost or unclear. The line -of -sight requirement often necessitates the conspicuous lotion of many teleconununication towers. Consequently, the telecommunications tower is usually much taller than the surrounding structures or vc 'on and may ne.tively impact the scenic nature of a given area. A standard in the Public Utilities element of the General Plan states that in the development and placement of telephone facilities, such as lines, telecommunications and cellular towers, poles, and substations, the design of the facilities shall consider the existing environment, and scenic view and vistas shall be considered and preserved where possible. The tower site is located on a small portion of a 2-acre property. There is significant . e lic benefit to be t,%i by the installation of the proposed telecommunication tower for the residents in this area. Therefore, approval of this request will not run contrary to the goals, policies and standards of the General Plan. Lastly, the Puna Community Development Plan (CDP) was adopted by the Hawai`i County Council on September 10, 2008. The request is consistent with Action 3.4.3.(e) under the Public Safety and Sanitation Services section in the plan, which states "Encourage enhancement of cell phone service to expand coverage to more remote areas." Based on the above, the request is consistent with the general purpose of the zoned district, the intent and purpose ofthe Zoning Code and the County General Plan. The granting of the proposed use shall not be materially detrimental to the public welfare nor cause substantial, adverse impact to the community's character or to surrounding properties. The project site is a 1,6000 square -foot (40' x 40') portion of a 2-acre property. There is an existing church facility on the property, which includes the church hall, office -classroom building and parting area. Special Permit No. 607 was approved by the Planning Commission on October 15, 1985 to allow the establishment of a church and related improvements on 2 acres of land. The remainder of the property is undeveloped. The surrounding properties are similarly zoned A-1 a and consist of scattered dwellings, agricultural uses and vacant land. The nearest dwellings are located on the adjacent properties to the east and to the north. There are also several dwellings across 32 id Avenue just west of the subject property. To help mitigate possible visual impacts in the immediate area, a condition of planapprovalwillbetomaintainand/or place landscaping along the northeast and northwest corners of the subject property where the tower will be located. If there is landscaping in place, the applicant will just be required to identify the landscaping on the site plan and make sure it ismaintainedinplace. If landscaping is not in place, the applicant will need to identify the new landscaping in that area on the site plan, and install and maintain the new landscaping. It is anticipated that the approval of the telecommunication tower will be beneficial to the community as it will provide increased cell phone coverage in the area and will be a sip*'ficant resource for emergency services. Therefore, based on the above, the proposed use shall not be materially detrimental to the public welfare nor cause substantial, adverse impact to the community's character or to surrounding properties. The granting of the propo ed use will not unreasonably burden public agencies to provide roads and streets, sewer, water, drainage, school improvements, police and fire protection and other related infrastructure. The desired use shall not unreasonably burden public agencies to provide roads and streets, sewers, water, drainage, school improvements, and police and fire protection. Only electrical telephone services are required for the use and they are already available to the property, Access to the will be from 32'd Avenue Uhaloa Avenue), which is a private road that has an approximately 20-foot gravel road within a 50-foot right -of --way. As traffic is anticipated to be minimal, the access to the site on the property is adequate. Fire and police services are available to the project area in Kea'au and Phoa. Finally, the applicant will be required to meet all applicable agency requirements, including the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Aviation Administration. In addition to the criteria for granting a Use Permit, the request b not contrary to Chapter 205A, newel Revised Statutes, relating to Coastal Zone Management Area. The subject property is located over four (4) miles to the nearest shoreline and is not located in the Special Management Area, and therefore will not be impacted by coastal hazards and beach erosion. There are no identified coastal recreational resources, coastal scenic and open space resources, coastal ecosystems, and beach or marine resources in the area. Thus, the proposed request will not adversely impact coastal resources. Additionally, there is no record of a designated public access to the shoreline or mountain areas that traverses the property. Lastly, this approval is made with the understanding that the applicant rem tins responsible for complying with all other applicable governmental requirements in connection with the approved use, prior to its commencement or lishment upon the subject properties. Additional governmental requirements may include the issuance of building permits, the installation of approved wastewater disposal systems, compliance with the Fire Code, installation of improvements required by the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), among many others. Compliance with all applicable governmental requirements is a condition of this approval; failure to comply with such requirements will be considered a violation that may result in enforcement action by the Planning Department and/or the affected agencies. EXHIBIT B LAND LICENSE T-11439181 (2018) Description: Recorded land license between Hawaii Pacific District Church of the Nazarene and Verizon Wireless. Key Characteristics: Revocable Term -limited Personal to the parties Does NOT run with the land NOT a perpetual easement Relevance: Demonstrates failure to satisfy Condition 3 of Use Permit 15-000056, which requires a recorded easement "for the life of the facility." STATE OF HAWAII OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR RECORDED April 27, 2021 801 AM Doc No(s) T - 11439181 on Cert(s) 802364, 187072 issuance ofCert(s) s/ LESLFE T KOBATA Picg 11760861 YH ASSISTANT REGtSTRAR FILED FOR RECORD AT REQUEST OF AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: Tock & Corl, PLLC Attn: S. Ward 1425 Western Ave., Suite 104 Seattle, WA 98 101 1111- SR 7Q'S---46 t.0 LAND COURT REGULAR SYSTEM Ares above reserved for recording information) AFTER RECORDATION, PLEASE RETURN BY MAIL Memorandum of Land License Agreement Grantor Hawaii Pacific District Church of the Nazarene, an eleemosynary Hawaii corporation Grantee: Celli Partnership d/b/a Venzon Wireless Legal Description: Tax Map Key No(s). III3 MALAMALAMA 4837-5333-6126 v4 005205 County of Hawaii, State ofHawaii Official legal as Exhibit A TMK #(3) 1-5-017-118 and (3) 1-5-017-084 ENT CONTAINS 7 PAGES MEMORANDUM OF LAND LICENSE AGREEMENT THIS MEMORANDUM OF LAND LICENSE AGREEMENT evidences that a Land License Agreement ("Agreement") was entered into as of 2010, by and between Hawaii Pacific District Church of the Nazarene, aeleemosynary Hawaii corporation ("Licensor"), and Cellco Partnership dlbla Verizon Wireless ("Licensee"), for certain real property located at 15-1839 32d Avenue, Kea'au, County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii, TMK 3) 1-5-017-118 and #(3) I -5-017-084, within the property ofLicensor which is described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto ("Legal Description"), together with a right of access and to install and maintain utilities, for an initial term offive (5) years cornmencing as provided for in the Agreement, which term is subject to Licensee's rights to extend the term ofthe Agreement as provided in the Agreement. REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] 1113 MALAMALAMA 4817.5333-6126 r4 0351)51-000032 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Licensor and Licensee have duly executed this Memorandum of Land License Agreement as ofthe day and year last below written, LICENSOR: Hawaii Pacific District Church of the Nazarene, a el Hawaii corporation By: Name: %almond Seamon Title: Vo.3J-0r Date; el ha /17 LICENSEE: Cetico hip dlbla Verizon Wireless By: same: Title: Date: Exhibit A — Legal Description Hi) MALAMALAMA 4817-5333-6126 v4 0052051-000032 LICENSOR AC STATE OF COUNTY OF t4Zi On this 1 in and for the State known to me (or proved executed this instrument, on acknowledged it as the Pacific District Church atTe 201 1 before me, a Notary Public personally appeared Raymond Seaman, personally basis ofsatisfactory evidence) to be the person who at he was authorized to execute the instrument, and of Hawaii voluntary act and deed ofsaid party for t IN WITNESS WHEREOF, 1 hav first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC CERTIFICATIONP. Stt } i Judici. Circuit F{13 MALAMALAMA 4817,5333-6 t 26 v4 00521$ I -000032 Ieemosynary Hawaii corporation, to be the fret and uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. hereunto set my hand and official jai the day and year NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State +f residing at 11t13 M} appointment expires l Print Name Pj shims 4 STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING On this day of (-Cert. , 201$, before me, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, personally appeared Gordon Cook, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person who executed this instrument, on oath stated that he authorized to execute the instrument, and acknowledged it as the ce'' Cellco Partnership, d/b/a Verizon Wireless, to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and year first above written. r 3. 3 3 3 3. i,.3... 3. ®.. AIL. Air JANNETTELCLARK Notary Public State of Washington Commission # 173345 My Comm. Expires Aug 74, 2022 EXHIBIT "A" (Paie 1 of 2) LEGAL DESCRIPTION All of that certain parcel of land situate at Keaau, District of Puna, Island and County tate of Hawaii, described as follows: LOT 8988, area 2,000 acres, more or less, BLOCK 8, as shown on Map 308, filed in the Office of the Assistant Registrar of the Land Court of the State of Hawaii with Land Court Application No. 1053 amended) of W. H. Shipman, Limited; Together with an easement over the following roadway lots to be used in common with others entitled thereto, for roadway and utilities purposes only, subject, however, to a power in favor of Hawaiian Paradise Park Corp., its successors and assigns, to convey said roadway lots or any of them, to appropriate governmental authority for use as public roadways, or to convey undivided interests therein to the owners ofall lots requiring or for whom it would be convenient to have access over the same, and upon any such conveyance said easement over the roadway lots conveyed shall terminate; Lot 1508-A, in Block 8, as shown on Map 69; Lots 1509, 1510, 1511 and 1512, in Block 8, as shown on Map 60; Lot 1638-H, in Block 7, as shown on Map 63; Lots 1559 and 1560, in Block 9, as shown on Map 64; and Lot 1, in Block 11, as shown on Map 66, of said Application No, 1053 ended); and Lot 4-C, as shown on Map 2 of Land Court Application No. 1689; Being the land(s) described in Transfer Certificate of Title No. 187,072 issued to }IA All PACIFIC DISTRICT CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE, an eleemosynary Hawaii corporation. BEING THE PREMISES ACQUIRED BY LAND COURT DEED GRANTOR : HAWAIIAN PARADISE PARK CORP. a Hawaii corporation GRANTEE HAWAII DISTRICT OF THE CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE, a eleemosynary Hawaii corporation DATED December 1, 1976 FILED Land Court Document No. 792334 H13 MA LAMA LAMA 48174333.6126 v4 W52051-000032 EXHIBIT "A" (rip 2 of 21 All of that certain parcel of land situate at Keaau, District of Puna, Island and County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii. described as follows: LOT 243, area 1.000 acre, more or less. BLOCK 8, as shown on Map fiE), filed in the Office of the Assistant Registrar of the Land Court of the State of Hawaii with Land Court Application No. 1053 amended) of W, H. Shipman, Limited; Together with an easement over the following roadway lots to be used in common with others entitled thereto, for roadway and utilities purposes only, subject, however, to a power in favor of Hawaiian Paradise Park Corp., its successors arid assigns, to convey said roi way lots or any of them, to appropriate governmental authority for use as public roadways, or to convey undivided interests therein to the owners of all lots requiring or for whom it would be convenient to have access over the same, and upon any such conveyance said easement over the v.:Away lots conveyed shall terminate, Lot 1508-A, in Block 8, as shown on Map 69; Lots 1509, 1510, 1511 and 1512, in Block 8, as shown on Map60; Lot 1638-H, in Block 7, as shown on Map 63; Lots 1559 and 1560, in Block 9, as shown on Map 64; and Lot 1, in Block 11. as shown on Map 66, of said Application No. 1 Lot 4-C, as shown on Map 2 of Land Court Application No. 1689; nded); and Being the land(s) described in Transfer Certificate of Title No. 802,364 issued to HAWAII PACIFIC DISTRICT CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE, a Hawaii non-profit corporation. Note: Roadway Lot 1508-A,, Block 8, as shown on Map 69, was subdivided into Lots 1508-A-I And I508-A-2, Block 8, as shown on Map 466, as set forth by Land Court Order No. 98608, filed July 11, 1990. Roadway Lot 1508-A-2 has been conveyed to the State of Hawaii. BEING THE PREMISES ACQUIRED BY LAND COURT DEED GRANTOR • YOSHIHIRO SUGANE and KAZUYO SUGANE, husband and wife GRANTEE HAWAII PACIFIC DISTRICT CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE, a Hawaii 22071-prOfit corporation DATED • April 3, 2006 FILED : Land Court Document No 3419553 F113 MALAMALAMA 4817-5333.6126 v4 0052051-OG0032 7 EXHIBIT C HELCO EMAIL CONFIRMING NO RECORDED EASEMENT December 8, 2025) Description: Email correspondence from Hawaiian Electric Light Company (HELCO) confirming that no recorded access or utility easement exists for the tower project and that HELCO is currently in the process of recording an easement with the landowner.' Key Statements: HELCO confirms an easement has not yet been recorded. HELCO states the easement is still pending No recorded easement existed at the time construction activities were underway. Compliance Status: Confirms non-compliance with Condition 3 of Use Permit No, 15-000056 Demonstrates that the mandatory easement requirement was not satisfied prior to issuance of the building permit. Establishes lack of lawful vesting at the time construction commenced. Relevance: This exhibit constitutes independent, third -party confirmation that the required recorded easement does not exist. lt directly contradicts any assertion that Condition 3 has been fulfilled and supports the necessity of immediate injunctive relief, Gmait Brandy Can -who a Im ate Notice — No Utility Easement Exists for *OAK 3-1-5-017-084 or 118 (HELCO Cannot En me Tower Facilities) 3eals, Leila <> Mon, Dec 8, 2025 at 1'24 PN foBrandy Camacho <brandycamacho@gmad. Ms. Camacho, Please direct your questions to the County of Hawaii: they regulate land use, rev ew and approve the building permits and can better assist you. HELCO is in the process of recording an easement with the landowner and regardless of its absence, has no effect on what is currently going on at the property now. I also don't have any additional updates fbr you. Thank you, BEALS 896- 8497 iQuottvi hidden] EXHIBIT D PLANNING DEPARTMENT EXTENSION LETTER April 23, 2025) Description: Letter issued by the Hawaii County Planning Department granting a one-time administrative extension of time to commence construction under Use Permit No. 15-000056. Key Statements: Grants a time extension pursuant to Use Permit Condition 15. Addresses only the construction timeline Does not reference Condition 3 or recorded easement compliance. Does not make any finding that mandatory permit conditions were satisfied. Compliance Status: The extension pertains solely to timing and does not cure or waive any unmet conditions. No recorded access or utility easement is identified or relied upon. No determination of vesting is made, Condition 3 remains outstanding and unfulfilled. Relevance: This exhibit demonstrates that the Planning Department's administrative extension did not address, satisfy, or override Condition 3 of Use Permit No. 15-000056. It confirms that no County action has validated easement compliance or lawful vesting, despite construction now proceeding. C. Kimo Alameda, PhD. Aiwor William V. tinWaite, Jr. Managing nwool West liewsi't Office 74-5044 Ane Keobokilole Hwy Kailua-Kona. Hawaii 96140 Phone (80S) 323-1770 Fax (808) 327-3563 April 23, 2025 Danette Martin General Dynamics 76-6357 Kololia Street Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 VIA EMAIL Dear Danette Martin: County of Hawaii PLANNING DEPARTMENT Jeffrey W, Datmw Director Melt* S. Ahn Deputy Director Fast Hawaii 046cr it» Pauatu Street, Suite 3 Efikk Hawaii 96720 Phone (008)961-8298 Fax (*08) 961437412 Use Permit No. 15-000056 (USE-15-000056) Applicant: Galen Partnership dba Verizon Wireless Request: Construct a Telecommunication Facility Subject: Administrative Time Extension for Condition 2 TMK: (3)1-5-017:084 and 1-5-017:118. Hawaiian Paradise Park. Puna, Havi This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated February 15, 2025, requesting a one-year administrative time extension to comply with Condition No. 2 (Time to Complete Construction) of Use Permit No. 15-000056, which became effective on January 21, 2020. After reviewing your request and the reasons provided, the Planning Director acknowledges that you have requested a one-year extension. However, based on the department's assessment and past precedent, a five-year extension is being granted instead. The new ito: *line to comply with Condition No. 2 is now January 20, 2030. Please be informed, however, should you need an additional extension of time to comply with Condition No. 2, your request and reasons shall be forwarded to the Planning Commission with a 250 filing fee. A public hearing will be held by the Planning Commission. www.planning.14% gov Howe' t Cower is on Equal Opportunity border and Engiltiwr plann vsghawaucouutY-go, Darlene Martin General Dynamics April 23, 2025 Page 2 If you should have further questions, please contact Tracie Camero of this office at ( 8166 or via email at Traciptee.crnero@hawaiicounry. toy. Sincerely, Yefi%jW .row Jeffrey Da w ikiv, 23 2024.14 HSI) JEFFREY W. DARROW Planning Director TLC:mads hawaiienunty 4ov;depts \PL1p -2025 55JOSE_TE Aac EXHIBIT E DPW COMPLAINT CONFIR December 4, 2025) Description: ATIONDPW25 Email confirmation from the County of Hawaii Department of Public Works acknowledging receipt, processing, and internal forwarding of Plaintiffs hand -delivered complaints regarding tower construction activity associated with Use Permit No, 15-000056, Key Statements: Confirms Plaintiffs complaints were received and processed. Assigns official complaint number DPW25-589. States the complaints wore forwarded to both the Building Division and Engineering Division. Does not indicate that any stop -work order, inspection, or enforcement action was taken. Compliance Status: DPW formally acknowledged the complaints. No determination of compliance or non-compliance was issued. No clarification was provided regarding: Condition 3 (recorded easement requirement), Building permit validity, Grading authorization, Site safety or fall -zone risks, Relevance: This exhibit establishes that Plaintiff properly exhausted administrative remedies by formally notifying DPW of suspected violations and public -safety concerns. Despite acknowledged receipt and internal forwarding, construction activity continued without enforcement action or written findings, supporting the necessity of immediate judicial intervention, OF NT: Unauthorized Utility Pole installed on I Property by Tower Contractor — Ih..,.Jate Stop -Work Requested Viendonca, Ashiee<Ashiee.Mendonca©hawaiicounty.gov> ro: Brandy Camacho < Hi Brandy, Thu, Dec 4, 2025 at 11:16 AN The 2 complaints that you hand -delivered to our office yesterday was PROCESSED and forwarded to both our Building and Engineering Division. Complaint # is APW25-589. Thank you! g{sfi(ee Mencrnca Administrative Assistant County of Hawai'i, Department ofpublic Vt orks 101 Pauahi Street. Suite 7 Hilo. HI 96720 808.961.8783 Main: 808.96l.8321 Fax: 808.61-g630 h wai r y.;.gc From: Brandy Camacho < Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2025 11:58 AM To: Planning Internet Mail <planning@hawaiicounty.gov>: Building Division Internet Email cahbuild@hawancounty.gov>; DPW Eng <dpweng@hawaiicaunty.gov>; public works email publiccworks@hawailcounty.gov> helco@hawaiianelectric.corn <helco@hawaiianelectric.corn> Cc: Darrow, Jeffrey W. <Jeff.Darrow@hawaiicounty,gov>, Planning WPC Testimony WPCtestimany c@hawaiicounty.gov>; Debra Greene <> Subject: URGENT: Unauthorized Utility Pole Installed on My Property by Tower Contractor — Immediate Stop -Work Requested EXHIBIT F HAWArl POLICE DEPARTMENT REPORT NO. 25-109032 Filed December 3, 2025: Supplemental Submissions December 4-11, 2025) Description: Official Hawaii Police Department (HPD) report documenting allegations of trespass, unauthorized construction activity, and boundary -related concerns associated with the telecommunication tower project proceeding under Use Permit No 15-000056. Key Components: Initial HPD report filed by Plaintiff regarding suspected trespass and unauthorized activity. Supplemental written statements submitted by Plaintiff documenting: o Continued work after notice, o Unauthorized survey activity, o Contractor coordination with survey crews, Boundary discrepancies involving utility pole placement, Ongoing construction during agency review and HELCO hold, Photographic and contemporaneous documentation referenced in support of the report. Key Facts Established: HPD formally accepted and logged the report. Supplemental evidence was hand -delivered and accepted into the case file Construction and survey activity continued during the pendency of the HPD investigation, Boundary -related concerns were sufficiently credible to warrant police docu entation, Compliance & Enforcement Status: HPD acknowledged receipt of the report and supplemental evidence. As of the date of filing, no resolution or enforcement outcome has been communicated Construction activity continues despite an open law -enforcement record. Relevance: This exhibit establishes that Plaintiff escalated concerns beyond administrative agencies to law enforcement after observing potential trespass, boundary encroachment, and unauthorized survey activity. The continued construction activity during an open HPD investigation underscores the urgency of court intervention and supports findings of irreparable harm, lack of effective administrative remedies, and disregard for legal process, Copy of HPD Report 25-109032 Power on myy er Proper line pin ems. z4.11. EXHIBIT G UNANNOUNCED SURVEY ACTIVITY & PHYSICAL BOUNDARY EVIDENCE DLB + Associates Survey Activity — December 8-11, 2025) Description: Photographic and documentary evidence of unannounced survey activity conducted by DLB + Associates, LLC at and adjacent to Plaintiff's property, including the discovery of a true boundary pin within Plaintiff's yard and survey markers contradicting the placement of a newly installed utility pole intended to serve the proposed telecommunication tower, Key Components: Photographs taken December 8-11, 2025 documenting: Exposed legal boundary pin located inside Plaintiff's property. Survey stakes and markings placed near the utility pole location. Survey crew activity conducted without prior notice to Plaintiff, Business card identifying the surveying firm (DLB + Associates, LLC). Ground -level imagery correlating survey markers with pole placement. Key Facts Established: Surveyors confirmed that a pink -painted pin located in the roadway is not a legal property boundary marker but a utility reference point. The true legal boundary pin was uncovered inside Plaintiff's yard, confirming that: Plaintiff's fence is set within her parcel Plaintiff's property extends beyond the fence toward the roadway. The utility pole installed to support tower energization appears to be: In tailed on or straddling the property boundary; or Installed partially within Plaintiff's parcel, Relationship to Permit Compliance and Access Rights: The placement of a utility pole on or within Plaintiff's property occurred: O Without a recorded easement; Without verified boundary confirmation; o During an acknowledged easement -creation process. This activity directly implicates: o Trespass and encroachment concerns; Improper reliance on incorrect survey references; Violation of Use Permit Condition 3, which requires lawful, recorded access rights for the life of the facility. Relevance: This exhibit demonstrates that construction -related survey and utility preparation activities are proceeding without verified boundaries or lawful access rights. The evidence supports Plaintiff's claims of noncompliance, lack of vesting, ongoing trespass, and the necessity of immediate court intervention to halt further activity pending lawful resolution, Boundary pin and survey stake photographs 2. Survey stake photographs 3 Survey crew activity photographs 4. DLB + Associates business card photo dib + associates, C LAND SURVEYING • MAPPING • CONSULTING Daniel L. Berg, PLS11245 Phone. 808-966.4206 Errs ktband*ssOc.catn Web: www,dtbandassOc.cOm PO Box 49.2281, Kea`au, HI 96749 EXHIBIT H BOUNDARY MARKER DISCOVERY AND LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE Narrative Exhibit — Referencing Physical Evidence in Exhibit G) Description This exhibit documents the discovery and legal significance of the true property boundary marker uncovered on December 8, 2025, and explains how prior reliance on an incorrect roadway utility pin resulted in improper utility placement, potential trespass, and unsafe construction activity related to the proposed 150-foot telecommunications tower, Purpose of Exhibit Exhibit H is submitted to explain the legal and factual implications of boundary findings that are physically documented in Exhibit G (Survey Activity Photos), including: Misidentification of a roadway utility pin as a legal boundary marker Discovery of the true parcel boundary pin within Plaintiff's yard Improper reliance by contractors and/or utilities on incorrect boundary assumptions Resulting encroachment risk, trespass, and permit noncompliance This exhibit provides context and analysis, not duplicate physical evidence, Referenced Physical Evidence All photographs, survey images, and visual documentabon referenced herein are contained in: Exhibit G — Survey Activity Photos and Boundary Evidence Specifically Exhibit G, Photograph 1 — Uncovered legal boundary pin near Plaintiff's fence line Exhibit G, Photograph 2 — Contextual placement of utility pole and site work Exhibit G, Photographs 3-4 — Survey crew activity and surveyor identification No photographs are duplicated in this exhibit. Relevance to TRO and Injunctive Relief This exhibit supports Plaintiffs claims of Failure to comply with Use Permit 15-000056, Condition 3 (no recorded easement) Potential trespass and encroachment onto Plaintiffs parcel Unsafe siting of utilities and tower infrastructure Likelihood of success on the merits Irreparable harm absent Immediate court intervention Relation to Other Exhibits Exhibit G — Physical boundary and survey evidence Exhibit C — HELCO Email (Dec. 8, 2025) confirming easement is still pending Exhibit B — Land License T-11439181 (non -easement) Exhibit R Agency non -response and deflection EXHIBIT P ENCROACHMENT EVIDENCE AND CONTINUING PROPERTY INVASION Synthesis Exhibit — Referencing Exhibits G, Ff, and C) Description This exhibit documents evidence of encroachment and continuing unauthorized use of Plaintiff's property arising from survey activity, utility pole placement, and construction actions associated with the proposed telecommunications tower project under Use Perrnit 15-000056. Purpose of Exhibit Exhibit P is submitted to consolidate and contextualize evidence demonstrating that: Utilities and/or contractors relied on incorrect boundary assumptions; Infrastructure associated with the tower project appears to encroach upon Plaintiff's parcel; No recorded easement exists authorizing such use; and Construction activity continues despite unresolved boundary disputes and pending easement creation: This exhibit is intended to show ongoing harm, not merely historical discrepancies. Referenced Evidence This exhibit relies upon and incorporates, by reference, the following: Exhibit G — Survey Activity Photos and Boundary Evidence Exhibit H — Boundary Marker Discovery and Legal Significance Exhibit C — HELCO Email (Dec 8, 2025) confirming an easement is still "in the process" of being recorded No duplicate photographs are included herein. Encroachment Findings Based on the combined evidence: A utility pole installed to energize the tower appears to be located partially on, or directly adjacent to, Plaintiffs parcel boundary; Survey markers placed by DLB + Associates indicate the true boundary lies approximately eight (8) feet from the installed pole; Plaintiff did not grant permission, license, or easement for use of her property, No recorded access or utility easement exists as required by Condition 3 of Use Permit 15-000056. Legal Significance The apparent encroachment demonstrates: Trespass and unauthorized use of private property Violation of mandatory permit conditions Lack of lawful access rights necessary for construction Immediate risk of continued harm absent court intervention Because the encroachment is ongoing and tied to active construction, monetary damages would be inadequate. Relevance to TRO and Injunctive Relief This exhibit supports findings of: Likelihood of success on the merits Irreparable harm Failure of administrative remedies Necessity of immediate judicial relief to prevent continued property invasion Submitted in support of Plaintiff's Verified Complaint and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. EXHIBIT Q ACTIVE CONSTRUCTION DURING ONGOING COUNTY REVIEW AND UNRESOLVED PERMIT DEFECTS Description This exhibit documents continued construction activity associated with the proposed telecommunications tower project under Use Permit No. 15-000056, occurring while mandatory permit conditions remain unmet and while County review, agency inquiries, and enforcement complaints are pending. Purpose of Exhibit Exhibit Q is submitted to demonstrate that Defendants and their contractors have proceeded with active construction despite. An unresolved violation of Condition 3 (no recorded access/utility easement); Ongoing County revew initiated by Plaintiff's written notices and complaints: HELCO's confirmation that a required easement is still "in the process" of being recorded; Open administrative and law -enforcement matters relating to boundary, access, and trespass. This exhibit supports findings of irreparable harm, lack of regulatory compliance and the need for immediate court intervention Observed Construction Activity Between December 9 and December 11, 2025. Plaintiff personally observed and documented Heavy equipment operation at the rear tower parcel, Continued grading and site preparation; Equipment staging and access -route activity; Construction activity occurring at the precise location where a perpetual easement is required but has not been recorded. This activity occurred while County agencies had been notified and while no agency had confirmed that construction was lawfully authorized to proceed. Context of Ongoing Review At the time of the documented activity: Plaintiff had submitted written notices and evidence to the Planning Department, DPW Building and Engineering Divisions). the Mayor's Office. and County Counsel; Complaints had been logged by DPW (Complaint No. DPW25-589), An HPD report concerning trespass and unauthorized activity (Report No. 25-109032) was open; No agency had issued a determination confirming compliance with Condition 3 or authorizing continued work. Legal Significance Active construction under these circumstances demonstrates: Disregard for mandatory permit conditions: Construction without confirmed lawful access rights; Increased public -safety risk while legal compliance remains unresolved; A likelihood that continued activity will frustrate enforcement and judicial review. Such conduct weighs strongly in favor of immediate injunctve relief. Relevance to TRO and Injunctive Relief This exhibit supports the Court's findings regarding: Likelihood of success on the merits (ongoing noncompliance); Irreparable harm (continued physical alteration of the site): Balance of equities (construction proceeds at Plaintifrs expense and risk); Public interest (safety near residences and a K-6 school). Submitted in support of Plaintiff's Verified Complaint and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. EXHIBIT R AGENCY NON -RESPONSE AND DEFLECTION DESPITE ACTIVE CONSTRUCTION Description This exhibit documents the failure of County agencies to provide substantive responses, enforcement action, or clarification regarding mandatory permit compliance —specifically Condition 3 of Use Permit No. 15-000056 despite repeated written notice; escalating public -safety concerns, and ongoing construction activity. Purpose of Exhibit Exhibit R is submitted to demonstrate that: Plaintiff has made repeated, good -faith efforts to resolve the matter administratively; County agencies have failed to provide meaningful responses or enforcement; Responsibility has been deflected among agencies while construction continues; Plaintiff has no adequate administrative remedy remaining; Immediate judicial intervention is necessary to prevent irreparable harm. This exhibit supports findings relevant to a Temporary Ro relief r and injunctive Summary of Plaintiff's Notices Between December 3, 2025 and December 11, 2025, Plaintiff contacted the following regarding the tower project associated with Use Permit No, 15-000056: County of Hawaii Planning Department; Department of Public Works (Building Division and Engineering Division); Mayor's Office; County Corporation Counsel: Hawaiian Electric Light Company (HELCO) Plaintiff's communications raised specific, documented concerns, in tiding: Failure to satisfy Condition 3, requtnng a recorded access/utility easement prior to issuance of a building permit; Loss of project vesting and applicability of current public -safety setback standards; Active construction occurring while mandatory permit conditions remain unresolved: Public -safety risks to Plaintiff's residence and a neighboring K-6 school located within the tower's fall zone, Agency Responses and Deflection 1. HELCO Confirmation of Missing Easement On December 8, 2025, HELCO confirmed in writing HELCO Is in the process of recording an easement with the landowner See Exhibit C — HELCO Email (Dec, 8, 2025).) This statement confirms that no recorded easement currently exists, and that Condition 3 remains unsatisfied, despite ongoing construction activity, 2. Planning Department Non -Response Despite direct written inquiries, the Planning Department did not provide a written response addressing: Whether Condition 3 has been satisfied; Whether a recorded easement exists or was relied upon prior to issuance of the building permit; How a revocable, term -limited land license could satisfy a permit condition requiring a recorded easement for the life of the facility. No documentation, enforcement notice, or clarification has en issued by Planning. 3. Department of Public Works Deflection On December 11, 2025, the Department of Public Works — Building Division responded onty: Please inquire with the Planning Department." No investigation status, enforcement determination, or permit- Hance confirmation was provided, despite DPW having logged Plaintiff's complaint as DPW25-589. Continued Construction During Non -Response During this same period of agency non -response and deflection: Construction activity continued; Heavy equipment and site preparation proceeded; Survey -related and utility -related activity occurred; No agency issued a stop -work order or enforcement notice. Construction proceeded without confirmation that mandatory permit conditions were satisfied. Conclusion As of the date of filing: Plaintiff has received no substantive agency determination: No enforcement action has been taken, No written confirmation exists that Use Permit No. 15-000056 is being lawfully co plied with; Construction continues despite acknowledged defects. This pattern of agency non -response and responsibility -shifting —combined with HELCO's confirmation that a required easement is still pending —has left Plaintiff without any meaningful administrative remedy and necessitates immediate judicial intervention to protect public safety and prevent irreparable harm, Submitted in support of Plaintiffs Verified Complaint and Motion for Tem Restraining Order. EXHIBIT S PUBLIC SAFETY FALL ZONE IMPACT APPROXIMATE DISTANCES Description This exhibit consists of an aerial photograph captured by Plaintiff on December 11, 2025, using a consumer drone, with annotated distance approximations illustrating the proximity of the proposed 150-foot telecommunications tower to surrounding occupied structures. Purpose of Exhibit Exhibit S is submitted to demonstrate the public -safety impact and foreseeable fall -zone hazard posed by the proposed tower location, and to visually illustrate why immediate injunctive relief is necessary. This exhibit supports findings relevant to: Irreparable harm Public -safety risk Inadequacy of administrative remedies Applicability of modem setback standards Necessity of a Temporary Restraining Order Summary of Observations Based on contemporaneous aerial imagery and ground -reference landmarks, the proposed tower base is located at approximately, 30 feet from Plaintiff's property line Approximately 80 feet from Plaintiff's residence, including children's bedrooms Approximately 30 feet from an occupied K-6 school building These distances place; Plaintiff's home; and A functioning elementary school well within the foreseeable collapse and fall radius of a 150-foot monopole tower, Methodology and Limitations The distance approximations shown in Exhibit S are based on: Drone imagery captured from above Plaintiffs property, Visible rooflines, fence lines, and parcel features, Known parcel geometry and publicly observable landmarks Plaintiff has not entered neighboring parcels and does not claim survey -grade precision However, the approximations are conservative, visually verifiable, and sufficient to demonstrate clear and immediate public -safety risk. Relevance to Relief Requested Even assuming conservative collapse modeling, a 150-foot structure located within tens of feet of residences and a school presents a foreseeable and unacceptable safety hazard. Exhibit S visually corroborates The absence of meaningful setbacks; The failure to protect adjacent occupants: The urgency of halting construction pending legal determination. Attached Material e Aerial photograph with annotated distance appraxlmations Submitted in support of Plal Verified Complaint and Restraining Order. of o r Temporary DEC Electronically Filed THIRD CIRCUIT 3CCV-25-0000499 12-DEC-2025 08:36 AM Dkt. 19 NCAS NOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT CASE NO. 3CCV-25-499 CASE NAME: BRANDY CAMACHO, PLT v. COUNTY OF HAWAII ET AL HAS AS BEEN ASSIGNED TO: JUDGE PETER K. KUBOTA TO SET A COURT HEARING, PLEASE CONTACT THE APPROPRIATE JUDGE'S STAFF AT: JUDGE PETER K. KUBOTA (DIVISION 1) 808) 961-7464 JUDGE HENRY T. NAKAMOTO (DIVISION 2) 808) 961-7454 JUDGE KAUANOE A. JACKSON (DIVISION 3) 808) 443-2210 JUDGE WENDY M. DEWEEST (DIVISION 4) 808) 322-8755 i do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of the official court record of the Courts of the State of Hawai Dated at: Hilo, Hawaii 12-DEC-2O25, is/ Cheryl Saima. Clerk of the Third Judicial Circuit, State of Hawaii Electronically Filed THIRD CIRCUIT 3CCV-25-0000499 17-FEB-2026 04:12 PM Dkt. 98 ORD Electronically Filed THIRD CIRCUIT 3CCV-25-0000499 17-FEB-2026 04:14 PM Dkt. 100 ORD