Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PCPLUED 2025/03/06 (2024-2026)Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and Economic Development 51h Session Hawaii County Building 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii March 6, 2025 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and ORDER: Economic Development was called to order at 1:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, Hilo, by Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Chair. Present: Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Chair Ms. Michelle M. Galimba, Vice Chair Mr. James E. Hustace, Member Mr. Holeka Goro Inaba, Member Ms. Jenn Kagiwada, Member Ms. Heather L. Kimball, Member Mr. Dennis "Fresh" Onishi, Member Ms. Rebecca Villegas, Member (via video conference from Kona) Absent & Excused: Mr. Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Member STATEMENTS The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of FROM THE business, Statements from the Public on Agenda Items. PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS: The following individuals registered to speak on Bill 24, Draft 2 (Comm. 110.9), and came forward when called by the Chair: Jason W.K. Robello: In opposition. Leilani Smith: In opposition. Cindy Evans: Comment. Jaerick Medeiros: In opposition. Lehuanani Akan: In opposition. Norman Kawabata: In opposition. PCPLUED-5 March 6, 2025 Gene Tamashiro: Comment. Judith S. McDanniel: Comment. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you very much. Mr. Clerk, if we could please move on to Bills for Ordinances. BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, ORDINANCES: Bills for Ordinances. Bill 24: AMENDS CHAPTER 25, ARTICLES 1, 2, 4, 5, AND 7, OF THE HAWAPI (Draft 2) COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO TELECOMMUNICATION ANTENNAS AND TOWERS (Planning Director Initiated) The Windward and Leeward Planning Commissions forward their favorable recommendations to remove the requirement for a use permit to establish telecommunication antennas and towers in certain zoning districts, add application requirements, and amend standards for the establishment of telecommunication antennas and towers. Reference: Comm.110.9 Intr. by: Council Member Kierkiewicz (B/R) Postponed: February 4 and 18, 2025 (Note: There is a motion by Council Member Inaba, seconded by Council Member Hustace, to recommend passage of Bill 24 on first reading.) CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you Mr. Clerk. Could I just call leadership up from Planning Department, and since we have a really captive audience, I just wanted to use this as an opportunity for you folks to do high-level overview of why we have to advance this particular bill. Then, I also just want to explain to members of the public, if you're looking at bills and you see the letters B/R next to a Council Member's name, that means this piece of legislation was not something we authored. This is being introduced by the request of the Administration. Because we are the legislative body, only one of these nine members can introduce any legislation for us to talk about. So. I want to be very clear that folks know this is not my bill. It's coming from the Planning Department. We actually had two telecommunication bills that we were considering. One was introduced by former Council Member Cindy Evans. And the decision of the body was, we cannot advance two because there were some conflicts. Page 2 March 6, 2025 So, we were going to advance one and amend one. And that's why we are left with Bill 24. Folks if you could just do me a favor, introduce yourselves for the record and explain the legal necessity for why we needed to make changes to Chapter 25, related to telecommunication regulations. (Note: At this time, Planning Director Jeff Darrow and Planner V Tracie-Lee Camero came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. DARROW: Sure, thank you, Chair Kierkiewicz; Vice -Chair and members of the committee. My name is Jeff Darrow with the Planning Department. With me is Planner Tracie-Lee Camaro, who's been assisting on the drafting of this particular bill. This has been ongoing for some time now. The reason why these bills; both the Planning Director initiated, as well as the County Council initiated bills, were brought forth is because of a change in State Law 46-89. What that particular law did, was it placed a time limit on the time to approve, approve with modifications, or to deny a request for a telecommunication tower that comes into the County. Our process consistently was through a Use Permit which, once it is submitted and accepted, the process allowed the Planning Department ninety days to prepare an application and background recommendation, and to forward that to the Planning Commission either for approval or denial. It also allowed for the ability for the public to participate in a contested case, which once that occurs, the timeframe can go on for quite some time. So, this particular law puts a lot of pressure because if it is not approved, denied, or approved with modifications, it's automatically approved without conditions; it's just automatically approved. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: So, Director, just high-level summary. Our current Code is in conflict with Federal and State law. •Correct. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Where we, the County, must make a decision within sixty days. ILVA1-.0ana elyiiW • • CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: So, we're removing the Special Permitting process, which we like because there's a public hearing; there's a public engagement process. So, we're removing that and we're trying to make sure that we are Page 3 PCPLUED-5 March 6, 2025 strongly encouraging, mandating the applicant to engage community members. J7I-noma CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Should they petition you for locating a tower or antenna on Hawaii Island. MR. DARROW: Thus, the strict regulations that you see within this bill of minimum lot size of increased setbacks of a number of requirements that the applicants need to comply with before submitting, as well as continuing as they operate. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. And I see that we have Fire, too, here. Thank you for joining us. At the last Committee hearing, I did mention I wanted to advance some amendments related to work for with Fire Department. One was evidence of a Fire Safety Plan being submitted and received by the department. And the other was related to vegetation management and an executed agreement to access the building site. That is in review. If there are any other changes that members would like our office to work on, we can. I do believe that Council Member Evans did bring up additional good points that are worth exploring further. And Council Member Villegas did reach out to my office to see if we could have a little bit more time. She was also interested in working on some amendments. So, with that being said, I'm going to ask someone to make a motion to postpone this measure till April lst. I want to give us enough time to make sure that we are going through this bill line by line and resolving the community concerns that have been brought forth today. I do want to address something that Dr. Akau asked about earlier, which was the windspeed piece. We had a lot of discussion around that particular section of the bill. And the reason why we changed it to meeting the requirements of the Building Code was it includes the windspeed piece and everything else in the Building Code. So, that actually strengthens the requirement and the responsibility for industry to build according to every single law that is in the Building Code. Anything else that you would like to offer Tracie and Director Darrow? I'm so sorry, Mr. Tamashiro. We cannot engage Council Members and members of the public in this format, I appreciate it. Director Darrow, you have the floor. Page 4 PCPLUED-5 March 6, 2025 MR. DARROW: Thank you, Chair. Whenever we have these hearings regarding telecommunication towers, there's a lot of concern about health risks. I think we're all completely aware of that. But a number of you are very familiar with the Federal laws that restrict government boards and commissions to be able to make decisions based on health risks. And that's been the ongoing practice with the Planning Commission. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: I'm going to have to put us into recess if I have another outburst or I'm going to ask you to leave. We are in recess. Recess: At 2:04 p.m., the Chair called for a recess. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 2:11 p.m. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Hi everyone, we are back on the record from our recess, it's 2:11 p.m. I've asked Fire to come forward and just provide us with an overview of some things that you would like this body to consider as we work on amendments. You had a chance to review some of the concepts that I had sent over to Chief Todd. And so, Chief Volpe, if you could just introduce yourself for the record and give a high-level overview of the three items that you would like us to consider. Go ahead, thank you. (Note: At this time, Deputy Fire Chief Daniel Volpe came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. VOLPE: Thank you members. My name is Daniel Volpe, Deputy Fire Chief, Hawaii Fire Department. So I just wanted to discuss onto the towers themselves, wherever they ended up being built. The language in the bill that talks to that, the tower should maintain the Building Code. I would like to recommend that it meets specifically, NFPA (National Fire Protection Association) 76, which is the standard on telecommunication towers. That's going to speak to the ability of the tower itself. That's from fire expression, some fire detection, and resiliency to the tower to maintaan the integrity of the tower, recognizing the role that it plays on public safety. Number two is going to be —the second thing I want to discuss is just the ability for some of the towers to maintain some space to put other equipment that perhaps can do some fire detection and smoke detection out in the environment. Again, increases the time to detection, increases the time for response; so that we can respond to emergencies faster. The third thing I wanted to talk about, and I didn't see it specifially mentioned within the bill, the concept of power redundancy. So, obviously the tower itself requires electricity to operate. Understanding the importance for public Page 5 PCPLUED-5 March 6, 2025 safety and 911 calls being made from a tower or from a phone. Also, emergency messaging coming in through the phone. If conditions exist where there's a power shutoff or there's a fire in the area or other emergency and we lose primary power to these towers, we would recommend some redundancy in power generation to maintain service to the towers to keep the towers up to maintain that conduit of public safety messaging in and out through the towers. That summarizes what I wanted to discuss. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. Chief Volpe thank you. So, I want to make sure I have this correctly. Make reference to NFPA Standard 76; ensure that there's language around power redundancy, so there's two-way communication, right, going into and out of the community; and then monitoring systems. MR. VOLPE: Correct. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, wonderful. Then our office will work with the Fire Department on exact language in consultation with Planning. Thank you for being here to represent the department. MR. VOLPE: Thank you very much. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Council Member Kagiwada, you had a question for Planning leadership? MS. KAGIWADA: For Planning Director, please. I just wanted to go back to what one of the testifiers brought up, which was how notifications to neighbors are currently done and verification on support. She said that her name was listed in support of neighbors, and that she did not give her support. So, I just want to understand the process on how that might have happened. MR. DARROW: What we think is being referenced is the actual list within the file that identifies who was supposed to be notified. So, it's a list of people that the applicant has to submit to the Planning Department to confirm that they did the notification to surrounding property owners within 500 or 300 feet, whatever the zoning district is. MS. KAGIWADA: Okay. So, there's no current requirement for applicants gathering support for or against and submitting that information to you? MR. DARROW: It's not a requirement. I mean, as we all see applications come in, and they will generate support, or we'll see tremendous opposition. Normally, those aren't a list or anything. It's normally testimony that's Page 6 March 6, 2025 submitted that identifies whether or not they're in support or in opposition. That's why it appears that it very well could be the list of identifying the people that were required to be notified. MS. KAGIWADA: Okay, so just to clarify, it was a list of who the notifications went out to. Not if they supported the project or not. MR. DARROW: Again, that's why we're thinking without looking. MS. KAGIWADA: That's what you're guessing based on it being a list and not being individual. Okay. MS. KAGIWADA: In this current proposal, in the current draft, would the notifications change? Are they still the same kind of requirements, or are things different in this draft around that specific issue? Because I think we've got people that are concerned about that. MR. DARROW: So, plan approval normally does not require notification to surrounding property owners. That's across the board. There is a notification of applications that come in through our public notifications that we submit to the paper. And there have been comments that, oh that's only a small —that's how the paper is. We also place it on our website; those notifications of all the applications that come into the Planning Department. But it's not anything similar to the process before with the Use Permit. Additionally, there's a Section under 25-2-74, Number (8), that talks about documentation of proactive efforts made to notify, meet with, inform, and engage adjacent landowners and the affected community regarding the proposed use. MS. KAGIWADA: That's right, and I believe somebody else spoke to that particular item. And I'm just wondering, do we know that this means? Documentation of proactive efforts. I mean, do we have a little more that people can understand what that means? MR. DARROW: I think that was our best effort at this point in trying to figure out how to do this without doing a notification process. In the past, when we've had towers come in a particular area, we've requested them to conduct a community meeting. Then they've come back with the information that they received through that community meeting. Page 7 IEQa all a�3.y March 6, 2025 And, the effort was to try to —if there were issues, to try to work to see how they could somehow resolve whatever its use might be. But again, this is a difficult situation for all of us in the sense that we've been required by law to have to expedite this process in a manner that is going to essentially stop our process from being able to do what we did before to allow public engagement as much as we did previously. MS. KAGIWADA: Okay. Alright, I'm going to look a little closer at this, and I can reach out to Council Member Kierkiewicz around this if need be. guess, just this is one last question. So, there are many testifiers here from Kaumana City who are concerned about that cell tower. So, are you saying there was a public meeting for that particular cell tower? MR. DARROW: Up to this point, because this bill hasn't passed, the process is that you submit a Use Permit application, and you go through that process of public hearing; and approval or denial through the Planning Commission. That did happen with that tower. MS. KAGIWADA: Okay. Alright. Thank you very much, and I'll follow-up with a few of those things. Thank you very much Chair. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Council Member Kagiwada reach out to my office. Let's talk story about the community engagement piece. This is where we landed with Planning Department because the type of community engagement that we would be requiring for this project would be drastically different from what you require for other projects looking for plan approval. So, there was a concern that we would be challenged on that. But I do want to look at this a little more closely with Corporation Counsel to see how far we can push the envelope. A lot of folks can't afford to have a newspaper subscription. So, they're not reading the paper; they're not getting those sorts of public notifications. A lot of us are consuming information online, digitally; Facebook, email, things of that nature. So, I we don't have to talk about it right now, Director. But it's something that I want to explore a bit more. So, the community is clear on how they will be engaged should something be proposed for their neighborhood. I also want to call out that, you know, there's a strong suggestion, but I want to look at how we might require a preconsultation, because this was missing from the earlier bill. The amendment I introduced at the last meeting talked about a preconsultation meeting with the County because you could help identify areas that just no can; not going work; don't waste your time looking to site something there. So, we might want to look at strengthening that language. Page 8 PCPLUED-5 March 6, 2025 Thank you for being here. I look forward to working with you guys over the next month. I'll take a motion now. Motion to Postpone: Mr. Inaba moved to postpone Bill 24, Draft 2, to April 1, 2025. Seconded by Mr. Onishi. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor please say, "aye." Any opposed? Vote on Motion The motion to postpone Bill 24, Draft 2, to April 1, 2025, to Postpone: was carried by the following voice vote: (Approved) Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Hustace, Inaba, Kagiwada, Kimball, Onishi, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz — 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder — 1. Excused: None. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Seeing as we are at the end of the agenda. I am adjourning at 2:21 p.m. Have a great day. ADJOURN- There being no further business, Chair Kierkiewicz adjourned the meeting MENT: at 2:21p.m. Approved: r)�l Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Chair Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and Economic Development qlql?� (Date) Page 9