Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-07-11 Windward Transcript Vista WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT JULY 11, 2013 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of VISTA TOWERS, LLC (USE 13-037) was called to order at 9:03 a.m. in the County of Hawai‘i, Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawai‘i, with Chairman Wallace Ishibashi presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Ronald Gonzales, Wallace Ishibashi, Myles Miyasato, Charles Heaukulani, and Gregory Henkel STAFF PRESENT: Molly Stebins (Deputy Corporation Counsel), Duane Kanuha (Planning Director), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager), Phyllis Fujimoto (Staff Planner), Jeff Darrow (Staff Planner), and Sharon Nomura (Secretary) ABSENT & EXCUSED: Raylene Moses and Stephen Ono And 11 people from the public in attendance APPLICANT: VISTA TOWERS, LLC (USE 13-037) Application for a Use Permit to construct a wireless telecommunications facility consisting of a 150-foot tall monopole and related equipment on a 3,075 square-foot portion of a 3.81-acre parcel situated within the Agricultural-1-acre (A-1a) zoning district. The subject property, known as Māikoiko Park, is located at the end of South Māikoiko Street on the makai side of the street, Hawaiian Shores Subdivision, Puna, Hawai‘i, TMK: 1-5-106: portion of 001. ISHIBASHI: We have our first agenda item. It’s for Vista Towers, LLC (Use 13-037). If we can have staff, Jeff? DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Members of the Planning Commission, welcome. If I can direct your attention to our presentation this morning. Our first applicant, as mentioned, is Vista Towers, LLC. They’re requesting a Use Permit for a telecommunication tower. The area of the subject application is within the Puna District. More specifically we’re looking in the area of Hawaiian Shores and Hawaiian Beaches Subdivisions, which is basically these smaller agricultural lots identified in this area. Just on the upper portion of the map would be where Pahoa is located. You would have the access road into the subdivisions coming off Kapoho-Kalapana Road into the subdivision. The area of the application is identified with a red dot on the map. As we zoom in this, this is a closer view of the two subdivisions. The area of this application will be actually in the Hawaiian Shores portion. My understanding is that the main road through the subdivision, Kahakai Boulevard, sort of splits the two subdivisions, although I think a little bit of it falls on the southeast side of Kahakai. Anyway on the right side of Kahakai would be Hawaiian Shores. On the left side or upper side would be Hawaiian Beaches Subdivision. The colors on the map represent the different zoning. 1 EXHIBIT A The darker green represents Agricultural 1-acre lots. We have some forest reserve that’s owned by the State down on the southern portion of the map, and we have some Agricultural 5 acre larger properties on the upper side. The General Plan LUPAG Map shows the area of the subject application being identified as Low Density Urban. This is the Hawaiian Beaches/Hawaiian Shores neighborhood village center map from the Puna Community Development Plan. The area identified is more mauka from where the subject application is. This is right in the beginning of the Hawaiian Shores/Hawaiian Beaches Subdivision. This is an aerial photograph of the subject property identified with the red “X”. The actual area of the tower is identified with a red circle. We have Māikoiko Street as well as Manalo Street. Māikoiko Street will be this street that provides access. And, again, we have Kahakai Boulevard providing access into the subdivision. As you’ll notice, the area is, has scattered single family dwellings as well as vacant lots. This particular lot is identified as the community center for the subdivision. The applicant is requesting to construct a wireless telecommunications facility consisting of a 150-foot tall monopole. This will have no guy wires or no lights. This is capable of supporting antennas for five or more wireless communications carriers for collocation. It will also include ground equipment, such as equipment cabinets and standby generators, and a 6-foot high chain link security fence around the perimeter. The leased area will be 3,075 square feet. The actual property is 3.8 acres in size. So it’s just a small portion of the property. The facility will be located in the southeast corner of the Māikoiko Street, sorry about that. I pronounced it wrong earlier, Māikoiko Park, which serves as the community park for the Hawaiian Shores Subdivision. The proposed facility will improve telecommunication services to the communities of Hawaiian Shores, Hawaiian Parks, Hawaiian Beaches, I’m not even going to try. PUBLIC: Keo‘nepo‘ko Iki. DARROW: Keo‘nepo‘ku PUBLIC: Keo‘nepo‘ko Iki. DARROW: Okay, ‘ko Iki Farm Lots, and Wa‘a Wa‘a. The applicant’s site plan, this was provided within the application. Again, it shows the subject property and the different structure, as well as the tennis courts that’s on the property, the area of the application is identified in a red outline. And, again, it will be provided access from Māikoiko Street. This is an elevation of the tower showing the different panels on the top. This is a site photo from Māikoiko Street towards where the actual tower will be. You’ll notice that there are some tall trees in the area. This is looking from Māikoiko Street closer to Kahakai Boulevard, looking at the community center and the properties. So, again, the tower simulation is identified here. So this is kind of what it will look like once it’s built. This is from Manalo Street, looking again from Kahakai 2 EXHIBIT A towards the State forest reserve lot towards the back of the community property. And, again, we have the photo simulation. The Planning Director is requesting that the Planning Commission approve this use permit request with conditions, as stated within the recommendation report. Lastly, there was a contested case petition that was submitted. It was timely. This was from James McInerny, but Mr. McInerny had withdrawn his petition on May 26, 2013. That concludes our presentation. Are there any questions? ISHIBASHI: Thank you, Jeff. Any questions from any of the Commissioners? Okay, moving on. Could we have the applicant come up. Good morning. FOX: Good morning. ISHIBASHI: Raise your hand. I’m going to swear you in. Do you affirm to tell the truth before the Windward Planning Commission over this matter? FOX: I do. I do. ISHIBASHI: Could you state your name and address for the record. FOX: My name is Keoni Fox. I’m with Ali‘i Wireless Specialists, we’re consultants for Vista Towers. My address is 45-955 Kamehameha Highway, Suite 308 in Kaneohe. ISHIBASHI: Anything you want to say to the Commissioners? FOX: I just want to say that this project has been a long term, it has actually taken longer than we expected. It was very challenging trying to find a location that we thought fit best in the community. My client was concerned about visual impacts, impacts on the environment, and so forth. Most of the properties in the community were very small. As you can see they’re all zoned Agriculture, so there wasn’t business or industrial property to locate the facility on. Because this is one of the larger properties in the community we were able to work a little bit with the landowner to locate the facility so that it would have the least visual impacts on the overall community. We have reviewed the background report as well as the recommendation report, and my client doesn’t have any concerns or comments about the conditions. ISHIBASHI: Thank you. Any questions from the Commissioners? You may be seated. FOX: Thank you. ISHIBASHI: Thank you. We have four testifiers. If we could have James McInerny, Joseph McInerny, Jethelyn Gregor, Gregory. If you can come up, please. Ellen (sic) O’Hara, you can come up. Okay, thank you. Raise your right hands, and we’ll swear you in real fast. Thanks. 3 EXHIBIT A Do you swear to tell the truth and confirm your testimony before the Windward Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: Yes, I do. ISHIBASHI: Thank you. Okay, James, you want to go first? JAMES MCINERNY: Good morning everyone. My name is James McInerny. Yes, I withdrew my contested action against the cell tower; but I did not withdraw my objections, as you can plainly see. I don’t need to remind everyone Americans are already under assault. We’re under assault from cancer causing chemicals in our food, in our water, and our air. Now you can add EMFs to that list, electromagnetic frequencies, otherwise known as microwave. Can you imagine if a cell phone has been deemed bad for prolonged use next to your head, what living next to a cell tower can do to your health? As a matter of fact, the World Health Organization has stated that cell phone towers pose a risk to human health, as well as a threat. What is the evidence of this? Well, we have cancer clusters or groupings of cancer breakouts that exceed the normal expectation or statistical probability in a given area. That given area is adjacent to cell towers. The common safety limit is 400 yards. Human habitation should not be within 400 yards. The Association of Hawaiian Shores, who have obviously approved this over petitions, over objections of residents, they have come out with some figure of 200 plus feet would be a safety limit. As I said it’s 400 yards over, that would be 1200 feet safety limit that’s commonly accepted. But in Hawaiian Shores it’s 200 plus feet. Where the truth lies, I don’t know. Do we have definitive studies? Well, who’s going to pay for that? Consumers don’t have deep pockets so that leaves corporations. Cell phone and telecommunication corporations definitely don’t want to fund adverse studies to their goals of making money. So you be the judge. Why am I mentioning safety limits? Because there are between five and seven houses across from that proposed cell tower site and they are within the Hawaiian Shores limit which is considerably lower than the commonly accepted limit of 1200 feet. The Hawaiian Shores limit was mentioned in a communication to the members of the Hawaiian Shores Association, was 200 plus feet, I forget exact number, 225 feet. So the houses on Manalo Street which is makai of this cell tower, they are within 225 feet of the cell tower, between five and seven houses. This is my main objection -- that human health is not being considered in this application, not by Hawaiian Shores who is now open to law suit, not by this cell company, cell tower company, construction company. I could also add to that list for ligation. And so I implore the Commission to please place human health above corporate interest and profits. Thank you. ISHIBASHI: Thank you. Any questions for this testifier, Commissioners? HEAUKULANI: Chair, I have a question. ISHIBASHI: Okay, Commissioner Heaukulani. HEAUKULANI: Sir, you quoted some statistics about 1200 feet. I was wondering where the source of that information is from. 4 EXHIBIT A JAMES MCINERNY: Numerous independent studies. That’s the European standard. Europe has much stricter standards in almost everything, food and drug purity, as well as cell towers. That is the most commonly cited figure. However, I’m just standing on Hawaiian Shores. And I don’t know if, you know, your tower applicant here could answer that question better about what is their safety limit. That would be interesting to know. Hawaiian Shores came out 225 feet. And I don’t know what their source was. HEAUKULANI: Okay, so it’s commonly cited. But you didn’t really answer my question. Do you have some citations that I could take a look at? JAMES MCINERNY: I don’t. The internet is full of term. HEAUKULANI: Okay, I’m there right now. Thank you. ISHIBASHI: Commissioner Gonzales? GONZALES: Mr. McInerny, how far do you live from the proposed site? JAMES MCINERNY: I live behind a house that’s on the Manalo -. NOMURA: Microphone, please. JAMES MCINERNY: Sorry. My house abuts to another house which is on Manalo Street, across from the cell tower. This is my interest because they’re in closer proximity to my family’s dwelling. GONZALES: Are you within the 400 yards, would you say? JAMES MCINERNY: Yes. Oh, definitely, yes. I’m about 350 feet. GONZALES: Thank you. ISHIBASHI: Commissioner Henkel. HENKEL: Mr. McInerny, you said Hawaiian Shores established a buffer of 225 feet and yet there are, what, you said, 5 to 7 houses within the buffer they set? JAMES MCINERNY: Yes, yes. HENKEL: Okay, I just want to be clear. Thank you. JAMES MCINERNY: Well, they notified the residents that there was this safety buffer, as you call it, and that some houses fell within. Why they took it any further is beyond me. You know, we all love our cell phones, myself included. You know, when I was a kid they talked about Dick Tracey watches. You know, wow, we almost have them now. With these cell phones, they’re almost that small. But there’s a price. As with everything in life, there’s a downside. And residents who live in close proximity to these cell towers definitely will suffer for the 5 EXHIBIT A conveniences that the cell tower brings other upstream or upslope from, or downslope -- as where I’m at from the cell tower. HENKEL: Thank you. ISHIBASHI: Joseph? JOSEPH MCINERNY: Hello, good morning. I’m Joseph McInerny. ISHIBASHI: Address? JOSEPH MCINERNY: My address is 15-2824 Manalo Street, Pahoa, Hawai‘i 96778. Okay. I just want to start by saying in Europe the cell phone, cell phone from cells on the towers and the laws regulating the towers are a lot more thoroughly regulated. The laws are a lot more stringent over there. And the laws governing cell phones and the towers here in America are very lenient, and even vague if you try and find who, which Federal agency is responsible for overseeing the people’s safety. You’ll actually have a really hard time pining any agency down. It’s kind of a hot potato. And even if you do, the rules, the one agency who does accept responsibility basically says that, according to the studies that the cell phone companies have performed, everything is safe. So the government has never done any of their own studies. Everything is taken face value by, with the studies that the cell phone companies have done. So, in essence, they’re basically self-regulated. As my dad said the Hawaiian Shores has mentioned the 225-foot as a buffer range that’s supposedly safe. I believe that T-Mobile gave them that number. And as my dad mentioned, there is at least a handful of houses that are even within that number, within the 225 feet number. And as he also mentioned, numerous independent studies have shown there to be higher instances of all kinds of cancers and other illnesses within 1200 feet. That seems like a more appropriate, I mean it corresponds with people being sick. So it’s kind of, there’s some type of a coincidence there, you know. And as I said these cell phone companies, they conduct their own studies; and this is accepted at face value by the government. This dictates the guidelines and rules, regulations. I don’t know if you guys are aware of this but fire fighters banned cell phone towers in 1999 from all fire stations. So if it’s not good enough for the fire fighters I don’t think it’s good enough for anybody. And last but not least, the WHO ranked cell phones and cell phone towers as carcinogenic along the lines with lead and mercury, meaning they’re cancer causing agents. And that’s basically all I have to share for now. ISHIBASHI: Thank you. Any questions by Commissioners? Thank you, Mr. McInerny. Jethelyn, state your name and address for the record. GREGORY: Jethelyn Gregory, 15-115 Puni Lapa, Pahoa. I’m just here as a resident as somebody that will benefit from the cell phone. I’m just expressing from our point of view, the neighbors, that it’s really very much a benefit to us where we have very spotty kind of reception now. And from the safety viewpoint, and as one of my neighbors said, yea, I can just have my cell phone then. So from an economical viewpoint it really has a positive effect for many of us. 6 EXHIBIT A We did have a vote by our association and it overwhelmingly passed. So I’m just, I’m just speaking as a resident as somebody that will benefit, to let you know that there are people that care very much that this does pass. ISHIBASHI: Any questions from the Commissioners? Okay, thank you. Ellen (sic) O’Hara. O’HARA: It is Eileen. ISHIBASHI: Oh, Eileen. O’HARA: Eileen O’Hara, and my address is 15-2782 Papio Street, Pahoa, Hawai‘i 96778. And I am here representing Hawaiian Shores Community Association. When this item was agendized, I believe it was back in March, before, when it was first agendized. We had sent in a letter, and I’m sure you have that in your packet. We are the landowner. And in order for Hawaiian Shores Community Association which is a very organized organization with governing documents, etc., when we considered this option, our bylaws stipulate that any land lease greater than five years has to be approved by the membership. So Māikoiko Park, and Jeff gave a really good presentation on the site location and what not. One thing I would say is that Māikoiko Park is not our primary park. We have a five-acre facility at Honu Street, which is where we have our pool and tennis courts, and children’s playground and pavilions located. Māikoiko Park was one of those remnants of the developer’s bankruptcy. We were given this Park. The Homeowners Association was formed to receive the assets when the developer went bankrupt. And Māikoiko Park was unfinished when it was given to us and remains that way today. It has one pavilion that we occasionally use for swap meets, an unfinished swimming pool and tennis courts, and unfinished parking lot, which is where we’re planning to situate the cell tower. So in terms of usage it’s not displacing any usage for the members of the association. And what we had to do in order to gain membership approval is to notify all of our members. We have 1294 lots in Hawaiian Shores Recreational Estates, that’s the subdivision, and approximately 1144 voting members. You only get one vote no matter how many lots you own. So we did put out a ballot that was reviewed and approved by the League of women Voters, who has been holding our elections and balloting for us because we like things to be absolutely clean. And so in that ballot, I think this is what Mr. McInerny was referring to, the pro position, the last bullet of the pro position says location is more than 225 feet from the nearest residence, which is what we see when we measure the distance. And I think Keoni Fox can confirm that. So this was the pro position. We weren’t setting a boundary. That’s, we’re not a legal entity and we don’t set rules and regulations of that nature, as you well know. I’m not aware that there is a rule or regulation on the books as yet. There are cell towers in Orchidland, Pahoa Market Place, Leilani Estates and Nanawale Estates. I can speak from the record that the one in Orchidland is within 60 feet of the nearest residence cause I know the owner. So I don’t know that we have a set distance. And the Pahoa Market Place one is very close to places of business where people occupy all day long. I understand that a new Federal law does not allow us to prohibit permitting of cell towers based on concerns about health issues because they have so far not been proven. There may be a lot of 7 EXHIBIT A information on the internet, a lot of information is out there on the internet, not all of it is necessarily accurate. Mr. McInerny said something about a petition by members. There has been no petition at HSCA, that’s how we refer to Hawaiian Shores Community Association. We’ve not received a petition on this action. There was an attempt, I believe it was back in ’07, to install a tower. And at that time there was a petition, I believe, but that was, failed as well. So that’s, I believe, what he’s referring to. So that really has no bearing on this action at all. I brought along a copy of the ballot which has both the pro and con statements, the map, and the voting regulations for our organization, as well as the minutes of the special membership meeting held July 28, 2012. The vote was held. And per our bylaws it requires 75 percent of ownership approval in order to lease for greater than five years; and we received, 84 percent approved the measure. That’s pretty phenomenal; and we had about 300 votes in, which is a very good turnout for a homeowners organization. So I just wanted to assure you that this is widely supported. It will help to network lower Puna now that we have a tower in Nanawale, a tower in Leilani, Pahoa Market Place. This allows us to bring good reception all the way down to the coast and even out to sea. And it will help improve coverage almost all the way to Kapoho. I’m an educator, I work with the University, I work with the Senate and I hoped that we can eventually have a higher educational learning center for lower Puna, which a lot of it will be , virtual that’s the world today. It’s virtual location. And being able to network with a 4G network like this is going to be very , very helpful in allowing people access to the internet as well as self-service for regular use and emergency use. So we definitely support this action. Thank you very much. ISHIBASHI: Thank you. Any questions from the Commissioners? Yes, Commissioner Henkel. HENKEL: Thank you for your presentation. When you polled the property owners that are part of this association, I’m assuming that there’s a good percentage of residents who are not property owners but renting. Are they not eligible to vote? So were they not represented in the election? O’HARA: They do not have the right to vote, no, tenants do not. The owner of the property is the voter. HENKEL: Do you know the percentage of rental units in the subdivision, approximately? O’HARA: That’s a good question. I think we’re probably similar to the rest of the subdivisions in Puna, which is about 35, 40 percent. HENKEL: Thank you. ISHIBASHI: Thank you. Any further questions? Okay, you may be seated. Thank you. So we have a motion in order. Would any of the Commissioners would like to make a motion? 8 EXHIBIT A GONZALES: Mr. Chair, I have a question. ISHIBASHI: Commissioner Gonzales. GONZALES: Whose district is this? Is it you, Mr. Henkel? HENKEL: Yes. GONZALES: Can I ask you your feelings on this, opinion, or do we need to get a motion first before we can discuss it? STEBINS: You should have a motion first. GONZALES: That being the case, I’d like to put a motion on the floor to approve Use Permit Application No. 13-037, Vista Towers, LLC. ISHIBASHI: Moved by Commissioner Gonzales. Any second? MIYASATO: Second. ISHIBASHI: Seconded by Commissioner Miyasato. Okay, open for discussion. GONZALES: That being said, what do you think, Mr. Henkel? HENKEL: I’m all for improving the communications of Lower Puna. But I think there’s so much ag land and unpopulated areas that I don’t really think this is an appropriate place for a tower. Because it’s, I mean you can see by the pictures it’s right in the center of a pretty densely populated area. And, you know, if you look at the maps that Jeffrey had up there sooner, that little subdivision is surrounded by very sparsely populated areas too. So I’m not inclined to support his project. GONZALES: If I could ask Mr. Darrow, the picture you just had up there before, that one right there. To the bottom right you said that’s a forest reserve? DARROW: Correct. The white speckled portion of the map on the lower portion is considered forest reserve. GONZALES: Okay. So it’s actually right up against the forest reserve? DARROW: Correct. GONZALES: I mean you couldn’t get much further out of the subdivision. All right, thank you. PUBLIC: (Inaudible).endangered species. ISHIBASHI: Okay, any further discussion? Jeff? 9 EXHIBIT A DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The motion before us is to approve this use permit request. With that I will take the roll. Commissioner Gonzales? GONZALES: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Miyasato? MIYASATO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Heaukulani? HEAUKULANI: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Henkel? HENKEL: No. DARROW: Commissioner, Mr. Chairman? ISHIBASHI: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes four to one. ISHIBASHI: Okay, thank you. To the applicant, you’ll have it in writing. It will be coming to you. FOX: Thank you. The discussion ended at 9:38 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary Windward Planning Commission 10 EXHIBIT A