Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-04-07 Hearing Transcript - Cellco Partnership USE 16-061WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT APRIL 7, 2016 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of CELLCO PARTNERSHIP dba VERIZON WIRELESS (USE 16-061) was called to order at 9:02 a.m. in the County of Hawaii Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii with Chairman Charles Heaukulani presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Charles Heaukulani, Donn Dela Cruz, Gregory Henkel, Donald Ikeda, Myles Miyasato, and Raylene Moses. ALSO PRESENT: Duane Kanuha (Planning Director), William Brilhante (Assistant Corporation Counsel for the Planning Director), Danny Patel (Deputy Corporation Counsel for the Windward Planning Commission), Maija Jackson (Staff Planner), Christian Kay (Staff Planner), Lucas Mead (Staff Planner), Sarah Hata-Finley (Commission Secretary), and Kim Tanaka (Secretary). And approximately 9 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: CELLCO PARTNERSHIP dba VERIZON WIRELESS (USE 16-061) Request for a Use Permit to allow the construction of an unmanned telecommunication facility, including a 105 -foot tall steel monopine and related facilities within a 1,050 square -foot portion of a one -acre parcel situated in the County's Agricultural -1 acre (A -la) zoning district. The property is located at 15-1506 3rd Avenue, approximately 540 feet northwest of its intersection with Kaloli Drive in Hawaiian Paradise Park Subdivision, Kea`au, Puna, Hawaii, TMK: 1-5- 053: Portion of 093. HEAUKULANL I guess we're ready for our first agenda item. Good morning, Christian. KAY: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, Commissioners. If I can direct your attention to the screen, our first application today is for a Use Permit, and the Applicant is Cellco Partnership doing business as Verizon Wireless. The subject one -acre parcel is located in the Puna District of Hawaii Island in the Hawaiian Paradise Park Subdivision, and it's generally this red parcel here. For reference, we have Kaloli Drive running generally north -south through the slide. And, access to the subject parcel is off of 3rd Avenue running generally east -west. Here's a closer view of the subject parcel. Again, for orientation, we've got Kaloli Drive north - south, and 3rd Avenue running east -west. Please note that the roughly 10,050 -square foot [sic] project area is indicated here toward the back of the parcel in the dashed black line. 1 EXHIBIT A The subject parcel and surrounding parcels are zoned Agricultural – 1 acre, and the uses in the area are generally residential, small farms, and vacant land. The State Land Use Boundary designation for the parcel and surrounding area is Agricultural, and the General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map designation is Rural for the subject parcel and much of the surrounding area. Here's some aerial photographs of the subject parcel on the left here. Again, outlined in red, we see that the subject parcel, again, Kaloli Drive running this way, and 3rd Avenue running this direction. On the right, we zoomed in a little bit. Sorry for the lack of clarity in the photo, but I just wanted to show, on the subject parcel, there's an existing single-family dwelling, a detached garage, and, again, in the dashed outline here is roughly where the project area will be. The Applicant is requesting a Use Permit to allow the construction of a new, unmanned telecommunication facility including a 105 -foot tall steel monopine with 8 -foot tall panel antennas and related facilities within a 1,050 -square foot portion of a 1 -acre parcel situated in the County's Agricultural – 1 acre zoning district. The monopine is a monopole, an antenna disguised with branches to resemble a pine tree. The reason for the request is, according to the Applicant, the majority of Hawaiian Paradise Park Subdivision has little to no wireless coverage. The objective of this project is to allow Verizon to expand wireless telephone and E911 services to the subdivision by adding several cell sites strategically placed to provide coverage to the majority of the residences of the area. Here are the Applicant's site plan and, again, sorry for the lack of clarity. On the left, we see the overall plot plan with 3rd Avenue running generally east -west toward the top of the image. Again, we've got the existing single-family dwelling, the detached garage, and here toward the back of the property is going to be where the project area is. According to the site plan, access will be through an existing gravel driveway on the parcel. And then on the right here, we've got just a zoomed in depiction of the monopine facility and related improvements. Here, elevations of the facility. Again, the monopine having the—the branches to try and disguise the monopole tower. Here is some images of the subject property. Here is again the driveway that will be accessing the tower site, the existing single-family dwelling, and in the back here, you can see the detached garage. From the other direction, again, existing single-family dwelling, detached garage, and this is roughly going to be the area where the, where the telecommunications facility will be located. Here, again, is, on the left, 3rd Avenue looking south with the subject property on the right, and 3rd Avenue looking north with the subject property shown on the left. The Planning Director's recommendation is to approve the Use Permit with conditions. And, we did have a timely and complete application that was submitted prior to the hearing. We believe 2 EXHIBIT A or we received that from Robert DeDell, Jr. on March 28th, 2016, and we sent an acknowledgment of receipt back on March 30th, 2016. A few days after that, it came to our attention that the check submitted with the petition was inadvertently written out to the Windward Planning Commission and not to the Director of Finance. I contacted Mr. DeDell's son that day, and he indicated that he would be sending out a check to correct the issue. It was inadvertent, and we were able to confirm with Mr. DeDell's representative today that it was being sent out today to us. Despite the error, it wasn't intentional. We consider this filing to be complete and timely. With that, that completes my presentation. I'm happy to take any questions from the Commission. HEAUKULANL Commissioners, anyone have questions for Christian? Seeing none, thank you. KAY: Thank you. HEAUKULANL Will the Applicant or their representative please come forward? BEASON: You want the contested case representative? HEAUKULANL You know, both of you can come up at this time? Remain standing for just a second if you could. Both raise your right hand, and do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Windward Planning Commission? NELSON: I do. BEASON: Yes. HEAUKULANL Thank you. Could you please both pickup those microphones? You're welcome, Sarah. And, state your name and where you reside. Go ahead. NELSON: My name is Richard Nelson. I reside in Hawaiian Paradise Park and have lived there for 37 years. HEAUKULANL Good morning. NELSON: And I'm here today representing Mr. DeDell. HEAUKULANL Thank you. Sir? BEASON: Good morning. My name is Mike Beason. I live on Oahu in Honolulu, and I'm here representing Verizon. 3 EXHIBIT A HEAUKULANL Thank you, gentlemen. Good morning. Please have a seat. I guess we'll take up the petition for standing first at that point. Good morning, sir. I'm sorry, sir, did you say you were representing? NELSON: Yes, Mr. DeDell is in New York and unable to attend the meeting and has requested me to come and submit his, his testimony into the record today. HEAUKULANL Representing him in what capacity? I'm just trying to determine if you're an attorney. NELSON: Just a very close friend, family friend. HEAUKULANL Okay. NELSON: And he's unable—his father is gravely ill, and he's not able to fly back and forth from New York here to testify. HEAUKULANL Fair enough. Thank you. I'm ready to hear what you have to tell us on his behalf, and I just ask if you could focus on why standing should or should not be granted. And, we're not, at this point, we're not really looking at the merits of the application. We just need to know why he should have standing. Go ahead, sir. NELSON: All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, fellow Commissioners, and Counselor Patel. Mr. Robert DeDell is opposed to the proposed construction of a cell phone tower to be located on the fifth lot in from Kaloli on the mauka side of 3rd Street in Hawaiian Paradise Park. Mr. DeDell currently owns the second lot in from Kaloli on 2nd Street on the mauka side of the street. This places construction and operation of the tower within approximately 500 feet of his property. Mr. DeDell has planned to retire here in Hawaii, and plans to build his house on his lot. The two-story dwelling he has planned provided majestic views of both mountains, Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea. If this tower is built in this proposed location, his and his heirs' vista will be altered permanently. Placing the tower in this location robs him of the view that was one of the deciding factors in his original purchase of his land, a spectacular view. Mr. DeDell also believes that if he were to try to sell his property and relocate to a property that is void of towers, that any potential buyer will surely consider the tower when making any offer on the property. Mr. DeDell believes his property value will be diminished greatly if a tower is allowed to proceed in this neighborhood. Mr. DeDell is also concerned with potential beacons or flashing lights that may be required by FAA or other agencies. 4 EXHIBIT A Mr. DeDell understands the need for upgraded communication capability for residents out of the current service area, but feels that there is a more suitable location for cell towers to be built, not necessarily in the heart of a neighborhood. Thank you. HEAUKULANL I'm told to use this microphone. Is that better? HATA-FINLEY: No, actually, can you use Duane's? HEAUKULANL You're just messing with me, aren't you? Is that better? HATA-FINLEY: You can use that one. HEAUKULANL Okay, I think I'd like to hear from the Applicant with, and again, just narrowly with regards to whether you have any objections to the petition. BEASON: Thank you, Chair and Commissioners. Looking over the petition that was filed, I think the Portion C on property interests is incorrectly answered. The Petitioner does not have right to the property itself. There are—they're not an adjacent neighbor but they're a neighbor, a nearby neighbor, so there is not direct property interest in the filing. I think on the proximity question, I agree that they are right at the 500 feet from property, the propertya little further away from the tower itself, but the way we look at these things, it's from the property. So, I have looked at that, and I would agree that they're at that point. I question that the aesthetics or the element that falls under contested case because the petitioner and anyone else in the public would have the opportunity today or when we have this hearing to oppose the project during the hearing, and I think that, that could be held normally as opposed to being held as a contested case. If you do decide to have a contested case, I'd ask that the Planning Commission take that up and hold it at your next meeting to keep a timely application. We have both State and Federal rules that we're trying to maintain—timelines and not get into other issues on, on process. So, if you do feel that this is something you want to hold, then I would ask that we do that at the next meeting. Thank you. HEAUKULANL I think I'd like to hear from the Director, please. Good morning, gentlemen. BRILHANTE: Good morning, Chair Heaukulani and fellow Planning Commission members. At this time, the County of Hawaii is going to, the Planning Department is going to oppose the applicant's request for standing in this matter. I think the rules, the Planning Commission Rules, specifically Rule 4-6(b), Section B, Subsection B, is clear as to the requirements that must be met in order for an applicant to be granted standing. I just want to pull your attention 5 EXHIBIT A specifically to Subsection No. 1 where it says that an applicant's interest must be clearly distinguishable from that of the general public and that under Number 4 that even though they did not have an interest different than the public, that the proposed action will cause them actual or threatened injury. I think it's clearly indicated on the visual picture behind me where the cell tower is located on the mauka portion of Road 3 or 3rd Avenue, I believe. And, it's in the back of a one -acre long parcel, and the requested intervenor's property is makai of that on Road 2, and there's a, you know, a significant amount of space between the proposed tower site and the applicant's property, the Intervenor's property. I'm kind of confused as to what view, diminishing of what view the applicant is identifying, because like I said, this parcel is makai of the proposed tower site. Secondly, when you look at the two claims that were made by the Intervenor, he said in his application is (1) that the project is an eyesore and (2) it decreases the value of the land around. - think those two requirements or those two concerns do not raise to the level of it being unique or distinguishable from that of the general public. I would proffer that the properties that are adjacent to the proposed site would have more of a claim or at the very least, the same type of claim. So, these concerns raised by the Intervenor do not distinguish him from anybody else in the area of the proposed tower site. Second, there's again, the proposed actual harm to the Intervenor is lacking as well. I haven't seen any demonstration. Property values? I would even argue that the incorporation of a cell tower in an area that is underserved for cell phone connection and provide the surrounding neighborhood the opportunity to utilize cell phone service would maybe arguably enhance the value of the area. And, I haven't seen any information to discredit that provided by the applicant. So, again, the County requests that the application for intervention be denied for lack of standing. HEAUKULANL Thank you, Mr. Brilhante. Commissioners, do you have questions for the Petitioner, for the Applicant, and/or Mr. Brilhante and the Director? Hearing none, I will entertain a motion, and again, narrowly on the issue of standing, so I'm going to entertain a motion to either grant or deny standing of the Petitioner. MIYASATO: Chair, you know, I do have a question for the Petitioner if I can? HEAUKULANL Certainly. MIYASATO: Okay, Mr. Nelson? NELSON: Yes. 6 EXHIBIT A MIYASATO: Do you know, I guess a little follow up to the County's comments. Do you have documentation that a cell tower that was previously erected had devalued an appraisal for a property? Do you have that? NELSON: No, I don't have any documents to state that. That's just a feeling that if a cell tower were built next to a property that you owned, that it would not enhance the property value. That's our assumption—is that it wouldn't. We haven't seen any documentation say from counsel here that states that cell, building a cell tower next to a residential lot increases its value, so I guess you could flip that argument on its head if you like. MIYASATO: Okay, thank you. NELSON: Sure. Can I make an additional comment, sir? HEAUKULANL Certainly, sir. NELSON: The cell tower is proposed to be a 105 feet tall. That's three stories taller than Hilo's tallest building. I would say that it would be visible from many areas in the park including Mr. DeDell's lot, which as I said in my testimony, he purchased for its mountain views and vistas. We just, I think that he feels that building a cell tower in the middle of a neighborhood has to do with one person, and that's the landowner and the potential gain he stands to make from a long-term lease through Verizon. So, we were questioning the value of the two projects the peace sanctity and land ownership of private landowners in a private subdivision versus a commercial application for communication towers in the area. HEAUKULANL Commissioners, any other questions? Questions for the Petitioner, the Applicant, or the Director? Hearing none, I would entertain a motion to grant or deny standing to the Petitioner in this matter. MIYASATO: Chair, I'd like to make a motion to deny standing. HEAUKULANL A motion by Commissioner Miyasato. MOSES: Second. HEAUKULANL Second by Commissioner Moses. Discussion? PATEL: If I could, Mr. Chair? HEAUKAULANL Please, Mr. Patel. PATEL: For Commissioner Miyasato, what would the basis for the motion be? 7 EXHIBIT A MIYASATO: The basis for the motion would be hold on. PATEL: So, would it be based on the arguments presented today? MIYASATO: Based on the arguments presented today. Correct. PATEL: With respect to Verizon MIYASATO: With respect to the County's position and Verizon and that I do not find an interest that it's clearly distinguishable from that of the general public. HEAUKULANL Okay, so we have a motion to deny standing for the Petitioner by Commissioner Miyasato; second by Commissioner Moses. Any additional discussion? Christian, can I ask you to take a roll call for the vote, please? KAY: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Miyasato? MIYASATO: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Moses? MOSES: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Dela Cruz? DELA CRUZ: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Henkel? HENKEL: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Ikeda? IKEDA: Aye. KAY: And Chair Heaukulani. HEAUKULANL Aye. KAY: Okay, motion carries six, nothing. HEAUKULANL Thank you, gentlemen. We're gonna move onI'm sorry? Please if you would, Mr. Brilhante? We'll move onto if the Applicant has any further presentation to make? Anything beyond what you've already stated. 8 EXHIBIT A KAY: Mr. Chair? I apologize. If I may, based on the decision not to grant standing, I did have one other piece of, issue that I wanted to bring up. When we went out the other day to take photographs of the subject parcel, we noticed a second driveway located on an adjacent parcel to the subject parcel also owned by the same owners, the Yost's. It looks as though there was a secondary driveway that connects to the driveway on the subject parcel, and it looks almost like a turnaround. We wanted to be very clear and ask Verizon to state on the record that access to the tower would only be through the subject parcel and not the adjacent parcel. I spoke with Verizon's representative this morning, and they stated it was their intention to always do that, but in the application, it wasn't stated clearly, so just to make sure that we have all our "I's" dotted and "T's" crossed, I wanted to bring that up. HEAUKULANL Thank you, Christian. KAY: Thank you. HEAUKULANL Anything further, sir? BEASON: I can confirm that, that is the case. We're going to use the subject parcel for access and follow the requirements of the Fire Department which were quite lengthy. I think I'd just add on we've, Verizon has made an effort to design a tower that can provide co -location without being too tall, which is always a balance between how many carriers can we fit for co -location should somebody else come along, and also not so high that it's, it's even taller than what's proposed, and, of course, the tree pole. That's an upfront proposal by Verizon. It's a much more expensive project because of that, but we feel it's important for the aesthetics in Hawaii. Thank you. HEAUKULANL Thank you. Have you received the Planning Director's Background Report and Recommendation Reports? BEASON: Yes, I have. HEAUKULANL All right. Do you agree with the Recommendation? BEASON: Yes. HEAUKULANL Any—any further comments regarding the Background Report or the Recommendations? BEASON: No, I don't think so. HEAUKULANL And you've reviewed the list of proposed conditions? BEASON: Yes, I have. 9 EXHIBIT A HEAUKULANL Are those acceptable? BEASON: Yes, they are. HEAUKULANL Thank you. Commissioners, any questions for the Applicant with regards to the application itself? Seeing none, thank you, sir. I do not have anyone signed up from the public to testify on this matter. Is there anyone here that would like to be heard on this agenda matter? Seeing none, Commissioners, I'll consider a motion for action. MIYASATO: Chair, I'll make a motion. I move that the application for a Use Permit, Docket No. USE 16-061 be approved based on the Planning Director's findings, recommendations, and proposed conditions which shall be adopted. HEAUKULANL Thank you, Commissioner Miyasato. MOSES: Second. HEAUKULANL Second by Commissioner Moses. Commissioners, any discussion? Hearing none, Christian, if you would. KAY: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Miyasato? MIYASATO: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Moses? MOSES: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Dela Cruz? DELA CRUZ: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Henkel? HENKEL: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Ikeda? IKEDA: Aye. KAY: And Chair Heaukulani. HEAUKULANL Aye. 10 EXHIBIT A KAY: Thank you. Motion carries six, nothing. HEAUKULANL Thank you, sir. You'll be notified of the Commissioner's decision in writing. The discussion ended at 9:27 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sarah Y. Hata-Finley, Secretary Windward Planning Commission 11 EXHIBIT A