Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-11-05 Hearing Transcript - Cellco Partnership dba Verizon USE 15-055 WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT NOVEMBER 5, 2015 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP DBA A regularly advertised hearing on the application of VERIZON WIRELESS (USE 15-055) was called to order at 9:51 a.m. in the County of Hawai‘i Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawai‘i with Chairman Myles Miyasato presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Myles Miyasato, Donn Dela Cruz, Gregory Henkel, Donald Ikeda, and Raylene Moses. ABSENT & EXCUSED: Charles Heaukulani. ALSO PRESENT: Duane Kanuha (Planning Director), Danny Patel (Deputy Corporation Counsel for the Windward Planning Commission), Amy Self (Deputy Corporation Counsel for the Planning Director), Kelly Gomes (representing the Department of Public Works), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager), Jeff Darrow (Staff Planner), Lucas Mead (Staff Planner), Christian Kay (Staff Planner), and Sarah Hata-Finley (Commission Secretary). And approximately 19 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: CELLCO PARTNERSHIP DBA VERIZON WIRELESS (USE 15-055) Application for a Use Permit to allow the construction of a new telecommunication facility, including a 185-foot tall steel monopole with 8-foot tall panel antennas and related facilities within a 1,600 square-foot portion of a 17.824-acre parcel situated in the County’s Agricultural 5-acre (A-5a) zoning district. The property is located on the south side of Komo Street, across from the Ka‘awale Boulevard–Komo Street junction, ʻŌlaʻa Reservation Lots, Puna, Hawai‘i, TMK: 1-8-007:Por. of 045. MIYASATO: Item No. 5 on the agenda, Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless. MEAD: Good morning, Commissioners. MIYASATO/MOSES: Good morning. MEAD: This is Agenda Item No. 5, Cellco Partnership doing business as Verizon Wireless. This is for a Use Permit Application, 15-55. The subject property is located at 18-4253 Komo Street, and to orient the Commission, this is-- my shaky hand here is showing Volcano Highway, Highway 11, going from Keaʽau Town. More to the north, this is the Mountain View area. This right here is Oshiro Road which turns 1 EXHIBIT E into Komo Street right there. And this is the intersection there with Komo Street and Kaʽawale Boulevard. This is the subject property right here in blue. The County zoning for the parcel is Agricultural minimum five acres, and essentially, the surrounding properties have the same zoning. There is a subdivision to the east zoned Agricultural – 1 acre. The Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map identifies the property as Important Agricultural Lands. There’s a little bit of extensive agriculture up to the north, and Low Density Urban in the Olaʽa Reservation Lots Subdivision to the north. The State Land Use Designation for the property and all the surrounding properties is Agricultural. And, this is an aerial photo of the property. There is a dwelling located on the property right here, and a shed located right there. Again, this, to orient you, is Komo Street right here. This is Kaʽawale Street right here. At their intersection, there is a gate right here going onto the more unimproved portion of Komo Street. It’s worth noting that this portion of Komo Street here is a road-in-limbo. The applicant is requesting a Use Permit to construct at 185-foot tall steel telecommunications monopole with an 8-foot tall, twelve 8-foot tall antennas and related facilities on a 1,600-square foot portion of the 17.88-acre parcel. It’s situated in the State Land Use Agricultural District, and the County’s Agricultural – 5 acre zoned district. The reason for the request, the objective of the project is to improve coverage in the neighborhoods between the existing Mountain View and Glenwood Estates Verizon Wireless sites. Coverage will be improved to provide better call quality within homes as customers depend more and more on cellular service over land line telephone services here in Hawaiʽi. The proposed project will also increase the data speeds for Internet connections, video services, and phone applications in the area. The site plan for the 1,600-square foot lease shows the location here of the fenced off portion of the communications facility. The tower is located right here with the cabinets a little bit to the east. And, this right here is the back-up generator. There is also a proposed gravel driveway going from the Komo Street here to the north to access the facility. The elevations from the east and the north show the tower here with the twelve 8-foot tall antennas. Again, this is a 185-foot steel tower, and here is the enclosure of the facility. It’s enclosed—proposed to being enclosed by a 7-foot tall chain link fence. This is a view looking mauka. This, coming down here, is Komo Street. This is the Kaʽawale Street going this direction. This is the intersection. This is the single-family dwelling that’s currently on the property with the—it’s access to the dwelling. And, this is the gate going to the road-in-limbo portion of Komo Street. 2 EXHIBIT E And, this is looking east towards Highway 11, Volcano Highway, from along Komo Street. Again, here you can see the Kaʽawale Street intersection right on, on this side to the left. The Planning Director’s recommendation is approval with conditions. But, we understand that the--we understand that there is a request for standing in a contested case hearing that you folks, that the Commission has been presented with. As well, we also understand that the applicant is requesting or will be requesting a continuance. We do have a representative of the applicant here that can confirm. And that concludes the presentation portion. I’d be happy to answer any questions. MIYASATO: Commissioners, any questions for staff. Okay, thank you. Okay, first order of business regarding this agenda item is to determine whether to accept a petition for standing from Hezmut John McGuire received by the Planning Department on November 3, 2015. Rule 4-6(a) states in relevant part that a person seeking to intervene as a party shall file a written request on a form approved by the Planning Director and accompanied by a filing fee of $200 no later than seven calendar days prior to the Commission’s first meeting on this matter. rd As stated, the petition was submitted on November 3, 2015, two days prior to today’s meeting, the initial meeting on this matter. So, the petition is considered untimely. Rule 4-6(b) also states in relevant part that if a timely request is filed, standing shall be granted if the following criteria can be met. His or her interest is clearly distinguishable from that of the general public; a government agency whose jurisdiction includes land involved in the subject request; or that they have some property interest in the land or lawfully resides on that land or that even though they do they not have an interest different from the public generally, that the proposed action will cause them actual or threatened injury in fact. Or persons who are descendants of Native Hawaiians who inhabited the Hawaiian Islands prior to 1778, who practiced those rights which were customarily and traditionally exercised for subsistence, cultural or religious purposes. Okay, could I have the petitioner and the applicant or their representatives please come forward? Applicants or representative. SHAFFER: I’m the applicant. MIYASATO: You’re the applicant? SHAFFER: Yes, Corey Shaffer from Verizon Wireless. MIYASATO: Okay, do I have the petitioner? Is Mr. McGuire present? Could you please come forward? Okay, could you please all raise your right hand? Do you swear of affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawaiʽi County Planning Commission? SHAFFER: Yes, I do. MCGUIRE: I do, yes. 3 EXHIBIT E MIYASATO: Starting from my right, could you please state your name and residence? SHAFFER: Corey Shaffer. My address is 67-259 Kukea Circle in Waialua. MCGUIRE: My name is John McGuire. I live at 18-4173 Komo Street. SELF: Deputy Corporation Counsel Amy Self here to represent the Planning Director who is seated to my immediate right, Duane Kanuha. KANUHA: Duane Kanuha, Planning Director. MIYASATO: Okay, just as a reminder, we are, for this portion of this application, we’re here to focus on why standing should be granted or not granted, not the merits of the application itself. Just for the petition in standing, so, I’ll let the petitioner go first. MCGUIRE: I’ve never done this before. Should I read my statement or— PATEL: If you could speak into the mic. MCGUIRE: Oh, okay. I haven’t done this before, so I’m, I’m opposed to this proposed telecommunication facility installed by Cellco Partnership and Verizon Wireless Network Solutions for these reasons. First, Mastec is proposing to place the tower in the middle of a watershed flood plain that directly affects not only my property, but the subdivision. Second, they have not shown their plan to protect critical habitat for Hoary Bats or the Hawaiian Hawk who mate and live in this area and are protected by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife. Third, they’re assuming that my private driveway is a public access, and this unsightly tower will decrease my property value—18-4253 Komo Street began a flood prone 50-acre parcel that was subdivided. When it was subdivided into smaller parcels, no provisions were made by the County or anyone for drainage or management of the flood plain, which follows \[sic\] directly to the subdivision. And, the series of owners have been extremely poor stewards of this property and watershed lands. They have hired unlicensed, unpermitted heavy equipment operators to alter the flow of water, install fencing, and, subsequently, blocked the natural storm drains and causing new, severe flooding along Komo Street. When my wife and I first purchased this property over 15 years ago, this land was land locked and there was no drivable access. At the time of sale, we were provided with a paper road access. The County had no interest in providing the road nor helping. At great cost to over three hundred thousand, we surveyed with Murray—Murray Surveyors, and created our driveway. Our driveway is not Komo Street. Komo Street ends at Kaʽawalo \[sic\] Boulevard and is part of the subdivision. Our access was never part of the subdivision. The owners of 18-4253 Komo 4 EXHIBIT E Street, UH Properties and Joan Grill Trust, who also own adjoining properties to this, did not want to cost share because they said they had pavement access from the subdivision roads at the time. We maintained it, and gated our driveway for over 15 years. Subsequently, property owners who have purchased land on this road have benefitted by the access, but it is not a public nor available for commercial use. If the County wishes to call my driveway Komo Street and provide public access, and assume the liability, then they can simply reimburse me for my investment into this drive, driveway and 15 years of maintenance prior to any right-of-way. I believe that the County should respect the land, and also I think they should honor Section 46-1.5, five of the Hawaiʽi Revised Status \[sic\], and they should also honor Section 46-11.5 which obligates the County to provide for and maintenance of channel streambeds. I guess you folks have copies of this, right? But, thank you. MIYASATO: Okay, applicant, do you have any objections to this petition? SHAFFER: I—I was listening earlier, and it sounded like he didn’t meet the requirements for standing, the seven days’ notice. Is that correct? th MCGUIRE: I didn’t receive notice until the 29— HATA-FINLEY: --Microphone-- MCGUIRE: --from David Lyman— MIYASATO: Excuse me, use the microphone, please. th MCGUIRE: I did not receive notice until the 29, and I came into your office and talked to one of your representatives at the Planning Department, and the lady said all I had to do was turn in a letter, and I didn’t need to spend $200 to just to submit a letter because this was just a general hearing. And, if I did have to file a legal petition, I will pay the $200. MIYASATO: Okay, do you have anything further? SHAFFER: No. MIYASATO: Okay, staff do you have any? SELF: Yes, we, on behalf of the Planning Director, we would object to this petition for standing. He did file a petition for standing in a contested case hearing on the Department’s form. He filed rd it on November 3 which of course does not meet the seven-day deadline pursuant to Planning Commission Rule 4-6(a). In addition, he did not pay the $200 filing fee that’s supposed to be submitted along with the application. So, on that basis, we would object to his standing as an intervenor. 5 EXHIBIT E PATEL: Mr. Chair, if I can, just for clarification, could we put the map of the subject property back up? So, I see that Mr. Hezmut is basing his petition on his interest is clearly distinguishable from the general public. Where would Mr. Hezmut’s property be in relation to the subject parcel? MCGUIRE: Can I get up and point at that? I have two pieces of property. I own parcel 39 and parcel 80. PATEL: Yes, staff if— MIYASATO: You need to use the microphone-- MCGUIRE: I actually have two pieces that are affected by this property. I own parcel 39 and parcel 80. I’ll get up and point to them. I own parcel 39 right here and also parcel 80 right here, so I own on both sides of this property, that I own. PATEL: Okay, thank you. Commissioners, if you would like, I’m prepared to, you know, entertain an executive session if you have questions about the procedure or process that are related to the petition and contested case proceedings. MIYASATO: Commissioners, you have any questions for staff, the petitioner, or the applicant? If not— IKEDA: --Mr. Chairman. MIYASATO: Commissioner Ikeda. IKEDA: Daryn, are you going to answer the questions? ARAI: Either of us. Go ahead and ask. IKEDA: Okay, I have concern because according to Mr. McGuire, he has a private road and Komo Street doesn’t—I don’t know even where the Komo Street ends on the map. ARAI: And Luke will back me up in case I misrepresent anything, but Komo Street is this alignment here, and actually it extends all the way past the project site, with the project site outlined in blue. Now, at this intersection, it turns into a road-in-limbo which is basically a, still a government owned roadway but it remains currently unimproved. And, the project site is indicated here in dashed lines, will provide, as currently proposed, the driveway will connect to that unimproved section of Komo Street. IKEDA: Oh, okay, that’s all I wanted. Thank you. 6 EXHIBIT E MIYASATO: Commissioners, any further questions? Okay, thank you. Go ahead. MCGUIRE: The maps that you folks are using— MIYASATO: Use your mic, please— MCGUIRE: Oh, the maps that you folks are using do not show the flood plain nor the flood drains that the USDA Farm Service installed in there in past years. And, a lot of these storm drains have not been maintained by the County and have been covered by non-licensed equipment operators over the years. I have filed suit in the past against the County which I withdrew in 2000 and 2006, and, you know, Stacy Higa was the honorable chairman. I think that you guys are trying to shove this under the rug, and I find it very disturbing because I’m being taken advantage of because I spent the money to install that road, and it wasn’t Komo Street at the time. Komo Street was part of the subdivision. That paper road was never Komo Street, and I can show you documentation. MIYASATO: Mr. McGuire, we, at this present time, we are trying to seek if your, you have standing for a contested case hearing. A lot of your testimony might be more relevant when we take the application up with itself, okay? MCGUIRE: Okay, thank you. Appreciate it,— MIYASATO: --Okay— MCGUIRE: --sorry— MOSES: Mr. Chair— MIYASATO: Yeah, go ahead. MOSES: I’d like to request for executive session to ask and clarify the, the process and procedure that is before us regarding this request. PATEL: So, that’s to consult with the Commission’s counsel? MOSES: Yes. PATEL: On issues related to the Commission’s powers, duties, privileges— MOSES: Yes, thank you. MIYASATO: Do I have a second? DELA CRUZ: Second. 7 EXHIBIT E MIYASATO: All in favor? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. MIYASATO: Any opposed? We are in executive session. Will you please excuse us? At 10:11 a.m., it was moved by Commissioner Moses and seconded by Commissioner Dela Cruz 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 Sections 92-4 and 92-5. A voice vote was taken of all Commissioners present, and motion carried with five aye votes. At 10:15 a.m., the Commission went into executive session. At 10:21 a.m., it was moved by Commissioner Moses and seconded by Commissioner Dela Cruz 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 reconvened for regular session at 10:23 a.m. MIYASATO: Okay, I’d like to call this meeting back to order. Commissioners, again, any further questions for the petitioner, applicant, or staff? MOSES: Yes, I’d like to see the notification that you received. MCGUIRE: Can I get up and walk to you? MIYASATO: Yes, you may. MCGUIRE: This is the notification that I received from Mastec. I don’t know if David Lyman works for Mastec or for the County. I think it’s a conflict of interest if he works for both. th MOSES: Okay, so this one—yeah, I’ll pass it down. October 16 is when that was printed— th MCGUIRE: --Yeah, but it wasn’t mailed until the 19 here-- MOSES: --And maybe staff can clarify what Mr.— th MCGUIRE: --It wasn’t mailed until the 17, I’m sorry-- HATA-FINLEY: --Stay there-- MCGUIRE: --I’m not trying to be rude. th MOSES: October 17— 8 EXHIBIT E MCGUIRE: --Thank you— MOSES: So notification was given— th MEAD: It was mailed on--October 17, is when it was mailed. th MOSES: October 17. MOSES: So, you notify when the application, is—is, is made and then you receive this notification as well prior to the hearing. Is that correct? MEAD: Correct. MIYASATO: Commissioners, any further questions. I just have one for Mr. Shaffer. Was, you know, you need to have notification for the residents within a certain amount of distance— SHAFFER: --right— MIYASATO: --from your improvement. Was that done? SHAFFER: I believe so, yes. I’m an engineer who works for Verizon. The consultant, Mastec, is the real estate acquisitions, and they send out the notices, but that’s typical and they’re aware of that so I assume they did, but I did not do that personally. MIYASATO: Okay. Any further questions, Commissioners? If not, thank you. You may all sit down. MCGUIRE: Can I have my letter back? MIYASATO: Yeah, sure. MCGUIRE: Thank you. Thank you so much. I wasn’t trying to be rude to you. MIYASATO: Okay, we will now allow public testimony. Mr. McGuire, you are signed up for public testimony at this time. Dr. Carl Oguss and Stephen Branco. Could you all please come forward? Could you all please raise your right hands? Do you all swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawaiʽi County Planning Commission? MCGUIRE: I do. BRANCO/OGUSS: Yes. MIYASATO: Mr. McGuire, you may go first. If you have anything to add to what you have previously stated, please re-state your name and residence. 9 EXHIBIT E MCGUIRE: My name is John McGuire, and I— MIYASATO: Use the mic, please. MCGUIRE: My name is John McGuire. I live at 18-4173 Komo Street. MIYASATO: Just a quick note, yeah, you have three minutes. MCGUIRE: Yeah, I basically said what I said, but I think that the County should address Section 4-6 of your guys’ laws, you know, before any of this is done. The property needs to be flood free again. MIYASATO: Okay, thank you. Mr. Oguss? Dr. Oguss? OGUSS: Yes. MIYASATO: You have three minutes. Please state your name and residence. OGUSS: Dr. Carl Frederick Oguss. My primary residence is 121 Banyan Drive. I am interested for two reasons. One is, there is another application from Verizon for the Fern Forest area, and I have 271 acres immediately adjacent to that location, and I wanted to come to this meeting to get a feeling for what the process was going to be like, what the meetings were going to be like. In addition, my background is—I’m a psychologist, and my field was doing research in moral development, and I can say two things. The more open this process is, the better it’s going to be received by the community. Attempts to, for instance, challenge standing on the basis of a formality of filing date is an attempt to find an excuse not to listen to a member of the community. Whether he lives adjacent or whether he lives nearby shouldn’t really much matter. The process should be very open to everyone who feels that they may be directly affected by these towers. The effects are deemed to be safe under Federal standards, but you really need to look into this issue. The rest of the world does not take the same position on cell phone towers that the United States and the UK does. There have been landmark lawsuits in Germany, France, Italy, and India so far proving after years of legal battle, that there have been long-term, very serious negative effects. I don’t say this lightly. I actually started looking into the research with the assumption that it’s probably safe. And my only concern might be public perception, because even things that seem safe like GMO’s may be perceived to be unsafe and that affects the market value of those products. Well, my 271 acres is zoned Ag-3. There’s a tremendous of value there. The Fern Forest community is a very large community. A lot of people own property there that’s their primary investment. The perceived value of those properties when a large cell phone tower goes in that is highly visible is a real issue. And, beyond that, there are aesthetic issues. People just not wanting the area to look so industrial. 10 EXHIBIT E I originally thought my only concern was going to be that the tower should be set back so that it’s far enough away from the highway and far enough hidden from the rest of the community that it wouldn’t be an eye sore, and would not cause people stress, worrying about the effects of cell phone towers. After having looked into the research for the past week, I have to tell you, the World Health Organization has taken the position that there seems to be a documented minimal health risk as far as cancer goes with cell phone transmissions. The US standards are based on data taken from over 20 years ago. If this council is going to take the position that everything they’re told by the applicant is true, and limit input from other people in the community, or limit their awareness of other data, that is an extremely biased position. It’s morally offensive and it’s probably imprudent. As you know, granting permits to things like telescopes and inter-island ferries is not the end of the story here in Hawaiʽi. If people feel that they have been in some way violated or harms can be done, they will object. They will stop the process. They will frustrate our efforts. The way to avoid that is you have meetings from Verizon in the communities, preferably several meetings in each affected community. Allow for maximum input and educational opportunity, and I think that that would help the process along. If you folks on the board are not aware of the health risks that the rest of the EEU and most of the developing world sees from evidence, from actual harm done to \[sic\] cell phone transmission towers, I suggest you do a little bit of a Google search and check it out. We can’t assume that just because something seems safe that it is safe. Lead in gasoline was determined a 100 percent safe at one point in time by the best scientific knowledge. The government thought it was great. Well, we know what the consequence of that was. Same thing with corn syrup as a sweetener. That was proven safe. I’m a social scientist. I know what proof means. It’s an on-going process. You gotta look at the data. So, thank you very much. MIYASATO: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? Oh, excuse me, after you. BRANCO: Hi. My name is Stephen Branco. I reside at 18-4361 Komo Street. May I go up and point where I live? MIYASATO: Can we have that slide back up? BRANCO: Please. This is, this is where I reside. I use Komo Street. I’m one of the, only one of two residents that use that. I, I own this. I own the— MIYASATO: Excuse me, sir. We’re going need the microphone, yeah? Yeah, we need to record for the minutes. BRANCO: Sorry. So, I own right there. I use this road, Komo Street. I’m in the process of buying this lot, right here, which is 49.38 which is directly our neighbor to that. I also have the lease for this property that borders them from the east and the south. Komo Street, Komo Street which has been, has been verified by legal counsel, 1997, I have the records. I will leave copies. I didn’t realize we had to do that before. Was, was a road, a County road that the County 11 EXHIBIT E couldn’t take care of. I’ve been in many times to talk to the Planning Department. I’ve spoken with Bruce McClure. He advised me, yes, it is a County road, and they didn’t have the funds, and whatever we could do to maintain it would be nice. That’s also in the letter that I have. Have lived there since 2005. Besides my equipment, I have not seen one. I do not gain anything by that cell phone tower being put up. What I do know is that, that subdivision does not have very good cell phone service, and there is many times that I’ve had to come down through the front gate and people are standing there trying to get service. Every one I’ve talken \[sic\] to in that community is very happy that this cell phone tower is gonna go up. I heard about the application, the, putting up the notification. That was up a while. I do work with the USDA and NRCS. For the record, there is no endangered species up there. I have records for that, and I can submit that, too. What I would like to get clear about this, this—this project is that, that road means a lot to me. I—I really wouldn’t want this to get out of hand where that front gate was taken down seeing as how the crime rate inside that subdivision is. That’s the main reason why I’m here. When I look at the project, I just think it benefits everyone in the subdivision, you know. I have no special interest in it. I have my own satellite for my own cell phone, ‘cause I had the same problem. And, I just want to go on record saying that I think this is good. And, with that, I’ll close. MIYASATO: Commissioners, any questions for any of the testifiers. I have one question— BRANCO: --Sure— MIYASATO: --Mr. Branco. What—what are you speaking of when you say the gate. BRANCO: Can we put the thing back up? MCGUIRE: \[inaudible\] BRANCO: Listen, I said this wasn’t about this. MCGUIRE: You thought it was \[inaudible\]. BRANCO: Okay, you see the road in question? I have, now, Cellco--right beyond that, there’s a drainage problem. In fact, at one point, the water was coming down to the left of the house and going down the driveway. So, I made it so it goes back where the water used to drain. So, the cell phone company has offered to put in a culvert and maintain that section of road. That’s about the only thing I benefit from this whole thing. But, it’s not why I came here. You know, so I would like that front gate to remain because should the County decide that they want to take out that front gate, then I’m going to have issues with, with them not maintaining 12 EXHIBIT E the road. Because right now, it’s a personal cost to me to maintain that whole road all the way up to my sub—I mean to my parcel. Nobody else helps me. MIYASATO: So, is that gate locked and only certain people have the keys or is— BRANCO: --Only the people that own properties in there. MIYASATO: Okay, thank you. MCGUIRE: Thank you, Steve. Can I add to that, please? MIYASATO: No, we—it’s not a debate out here. MCGUIRE: I’m not trying to debate. I just, it’s something the County Council or the Corporation Counsel should know. If you see where the boulder— MIYASATO: Excuse me, you need to use— MCGUIRE: This has nothing to do with Mr. Branco, but you see where the boulder is in front of the gate? To the left of that boulder used to be a storm drain that went all the way down along Komo Street all the way down to a concrete culvert that the USDA installed, not Mr. Branco, but the previous owners of this red house. The previous owners. What they did was they filled it all in, in order to put up their fence. It wasn’t, not Mr. Branco, but the previous owners of this. And, what’s happened is now the water comes, comes on to our joint driveway that we’re talking about. But, there used to be a culvert where that, where that concrete slab goes in into their gate. There used to be a culvert there, like a, a metal circle. Anyways, it just needs to—you guys need to know what it used to look like. Anyway, thank you very much for your time. MIYASATO: Thank you. MCGUIRE: Thank you, Stephen. MIYASATO: Okay, you may all have a seat. Thank you. Oh, excuse me, I thought you was referring to Stephen Branco— HATA-FINLEY: No— MIYASATO: Sorry, we have one more testifier, Steve. DALRYMPLE: This is a little confusing, but— MIYASATO: Please have a seat and raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawaiʽi County Planning Commission? DALRYMPLE: Yes, I do. 13 EXHIBIT E MIYASATO: Please use the microphone and state your name and residence, and you’ll have three minutes. DALRYMPLE: Well, I’m Steve Dalrymple, and I have, actually have my address on Kahakai Boulevard, but I have land near this, near the cell phone tower that’s about to go up. Anyway, you know, I just wanted to say that they have not informed the people who live—let’s just say, here’s a road where they’re putting in the cell phone tower, and the people right behind on the next street are actually closer to the tower than the people here, but nobody on this street that I know of have ever got informed about it. So, whatever your requirements are to send notices out to people, are, it’s inadequate. People don’t even know that there’s gonna be a cell phone tower coming up. And, this kind of thing here where some people want it, some don’t, well, you know, it’s always somebody gets run over. It’s unfortunate. The other silly thing about this is probably all these cell phone towers are going to be obsolete in a couple years and everybody using satellites, so, it’s, it’s, I guess I just gotta sit back and laugh for some of this. But, I, my main thing I want to tell you is that your requirements for not--giving notice to people are inadequate. When you say that to tell the neighbors, well, it’s not a big enough thing cause people on the next road who are actually closer don’t get any notice at all. I think it could be, the cell phone tower could fall on their house even or they’re like within a hundred feet of it, and they don’t even know it’s coming up. MIYASATO: Commissioners, any questions? Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this application. If not, can I have a motion to close public testimony? MOSES: I make a motion to close public testimony. DELA CRUZ: Second. MIYASATO: All in favor? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. MIYASATO: Any opposed? I call a close to public testimony on this application. Commissioners, on the matter of standing for this petition, do I have a motion? MOSES: Can I just get one more question on clarification again? Sorry, Chair, regarding notification. MIYASATO: Go ahead. MOSES: Notification to the public. Can I get clarification on how that is and what that is and when that is. 14 EXHIBIT E DARROW: Commissioner Moses, for notifications for Use Permits and Special Permit applications, it’s a requirement of 500 feet from each of the—not the project site—but actually the property boundary. So, from all boundaries of the property, it goes out 500 feet, and they’re required to notify those property owners of this application. It’s, it’s required to do two notifications, one when they submit the application and one prior to the Planning Commission hearing. The second notice will inform the surrounding property owners of the date, time, and location of the hearing. And both notifications will give them an opportunity to file a contested case if they so choose. MOSES: Thank you. Can you tell me when was the second notification for this— th DARROW: Second notification was October 17. MOSES: Thank you. th DARROW: Our, our notice to the applicant went out on October 12 informing them to send th out the second notice. They sent it out five days later on October 17. MOSES: Thank you, Jeff. MIYASATO: Commissioners, if no further questions, can I have a motion for standing to this petition? MOSES: I make a motion to deny petition for standing in a contested case hearing. HENKEL: Second. MIYASATO: Okay, I have a motion by Commissioner Moses, second by Commissioner Henkel. Any discussion on this motion? If not, can we call the roll? MEAD: Okay, there’s a motion to deny standing for Mr. McGuire in the contested case hearing. Commissioner Moses? MOSES: Aye. MEAD: Commissioner Henkel? HENKEL: Aye. MEAD: Commissioner Dela Cruz? DELA CRUZ: Aye. MEAD: Commissioner Ikeda? 15 EXHIBIT E IKEDA: Aye. MEAD: Commissioner Miyasato? MIYASATO: Aye. MEAD: And Commissioner Heaukulani is excused. Motion to deny passes five, zero. MIYASATO: Okay, we’ll move on to considering this application. May I have the applicant come forward? Earlier you mentioned a request for continuance. SHAFFER: That’s correct. MIYASATO: Would you like to? SHAFFER: Yes, we’d like a continuance. The landlord, excuse me, is on the mainland at this time, and he’d really like to be at the hearing, so that’s, that’s why we’re requesting the continuance. MIYASATO: Okay, Commissioners, any questions on the continuance? Commissioners, the applicant is requesting a continuance. Do I have a motion to grant continuance or would you like to take this matter up today? I’ll accept any discussion or motion at this time. MOSES: I’m going to make a motion to grant continuance at this time. DELA CRUZ: Second. MIYASATO: Okay, I have a motion by Commissioner Moses, and a second by Commissioner Dela Cruz. Is there any discussion on the continuance? You can call the roll. MEAD: Okay, this is regarding the motion to continue. Commissioner Moses? MOSES: Aye. MEAD: Commissioner Dela Cruz? DELA CRUZ: Aye. MEAD: Commissioner Henkel? HENKEL: Aye. MEAD: Commissioner Ikeda? 16 EXHIBIT E IKEDA: Aye. MEAD: And Chair Miyasato. MIYASATO: Aye. MEAD: Commissioner Heaukulani is excused. Okay, so the—the motion passes five, zero. MIYASATO: Just for clarification, for the continuance, it’ll be to the call of the Planning Department, yeah? MEAD: Excuse me? MIYASATO: The continuance will be to the call of the Planning Department, not the very—not necessarily— MEAD: --Yes— MIYASATO: --the next agendized meeting. Okay, thank you. SHAFFER: Thanks. The discussion ended at 10:48 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sarah Y. Hata-Finley, Secretary Windward Planning Commission 17 EXHIBIT E