Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-08-03 Hearing Transcript - Verizon Wireless USE 17-067WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT AUGUST 3, 2017 A regularly advertised continued hearing on the application of VERIZON WIRELESS (USE 17-067) was called to order at 9:30 a.m. in the County of Hawaii Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii with Vice -Chairman Joseph Clarkson presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Joe Clarkson, Donn Dela Cruz, Donald Ikeda, Myles Miyasato, and Thomas Raffipiy. ABSENT & EXCUSED: Gregory Henkel. ALSO PRESENT: Michael Yee (Planning Director), Amy Self (Deputy Corporation Counsel for the Planning Director), Malia Ho Hall (Deputy Corporation Counsel for the Windward Planning Commission), Maija Jackson (Planner), Shancy Watanabe (Planner), Kim Tanaka (Secretary), and Sarah Hata-Finley (Commission Secretary). And 7 members from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: VERIZON WIRELESS (USE 17-000067) Continued hearing for an application for a Use Permit to allow the construction of a new, non - manned telecommunication facility, consisting of a 167 -foot tall steel monopole tower and related facilities within a 900 -square foot portion of a 1 -acre parcel of land situated in the County's Agricultural 1 -acre (A-1 a) zoning district. Initial hearing was continued to allow parties to participate in mediation. The property is located northeast of the `Ohi`a Avenue - Alapua Street intersection, in the Eden Roc Estates Subdivision, Kea`au, Puna, Hawaii, TMK: 1-1-082:031. CLARKSON: The Item 3 that we're going to consider now is basically some procedural things having to do with the selection of a contested case hearing officer for the case of the Applicant, Verizon Wireless, Use Permit 17-000067. Has anyone actually signed up for public testimony? Four people have signed up for public testimony. I would like to say we will hear that testimony, but the real purpose of this agenda item is simply the selection of a contested case hearing officer, and there will be several more opportunities to present testimony on this matter. Not only at the contested case hearing, but when the Commission resumes the consideration of the application at later hearings to receive the report of the contested case hearing officer. So, I'm making that point only to suggest that testimony now, though it will be received, is not necessary because all testifiers would have many more opportunities to submit. If this is your only opportunity, though, please prepare to submit testimony. 10V1111.11 1.1 Okay, we have three people have submitted their names to testify—Theresa Billian, Aaron Zeeman, and Crystal Schiszler. If you're still wanting to testify, please come forward and be prepared to be sworn in. ZEEMAN: Hello? [Testing the microphone.] CLARKSON: Would you please raise your right hands? Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give before us is the truth? ZEEMAN: I do. BILLIAN/SCHISZLER: Yes. CLARKSON: Thank you. And, please speak into the microphone. SCHISZLER: Do you want me to state my name? My name is Chrystal Schiszler, and I spoke before you guys last time at the last hearing, and I just wanted to touch on some points that weren't really talked about last time such as property values decreasing in that area and also just that people—I've been planning on moving to that area with my fiance so we can start a family up there. Now, since this is happening, I can't even, I'm really worried about even moving there. We were going to buy on my mom's street, and now this is happening. Our plans are on hold, so this is a really serious thing. This is affecting people's lives. This is not just about cell phone service. This is people's lives, so—and property values. There was just a property on my mom's street that went down fifteen to ten thousand dollars now, and we're not sure exactly why but it could be due to this cell phone tower. And, this thing is really unfair, you know, to do this to the residents there just `cause some, some other property owners want to make money off of their property and don't even want to live there. I think this is really sad. I don't think it's right, and on many levels—not to, we're talking about health issues last time. That's a big issue, too. We've already touched on—Verizon was saying that there's—it's about as powerful as a cell phone? I don't see even how that's possible. That's what they stated last time during the hearing, and I just don't see how a cell phone tower that's a 160 feet tall can be as powerful only as one cell phone, so I dispute that. And, I just think the health impacts are great. And, not to mention the wildlife which was touched on last time. It's very important. There's a lot of native `ohi`a trees around the area, hawks, you know `io-s. It's just—and there's a cave runs through the area which my mom which touch on, too, so it's verya lot of issues going on. This is not a good place for this tower, and there's a family right across the street which I'm sure will be talked about it again, and so it's, a lot of stuff going on that doesn't make this a really great site for this tower that we're very opposed to it. So, that's about it. Thank you. ZEEMAN: Aloha. My name is Aaron Zeeman, and I'm a resident of Eden Roc. And, I was going to get into a few things to give you guys a little bit more information that you don't have, but like you said, they'll be time for testimony later, so I don't want to waste your time. I realize that you guys are choosing somebody for this whole situation, but there is something I think all of you on the Planning Commission need to consider. There has been talk of health effects, and, you know, I'm a man of science myself. Okay? And, I understand the, the "need/want" for a cell phone tower out there. But, there is a report by the BioInitiative Group of 2012. Now, if EXHIBIT B 2 you're not aware of this report, then you need to be. And, if you don't want to be, you have now been made aware of this report. This report has over 1,800 studies on ELF, RF, and other types of radiations that we're talking about—eighteen hundred for countries all over the world. Okay? And, this basically is irrational for biologically based exposure standards for low intensity electromatic [sic], electromagnetic radiation. You guys need to look this up. It's called BioIniative.info—it's a 2012 report. It's five years old, and it's very comprehensive. Okay, to say that there are no negative health effects from this type of technology would be irresponsible, and as the Planning Commission, I believe it's your duty to consider health effects on the population. So, I won't get into all the details `cause they're not very good. Actually, the more I learn about this, the more I'm on the side that I'm on now. Ithere's a lot of technical, scientific information that says this is not necessarily very safe, you guys. So, think about it, and if you're not informed, there's an old saying is, "if you all watch the news, you're—well, if you don't watch the news, you're not informed. If you do watch the news, you're misinformed." Okay? If you guys are not informed, don't be misinformed. It's the 2012 BioInitiative. This is fromI got one minute, that's great! This is from 29 MD's and PhD's from the United States, Canada, Sweden, India, Greece, Russia, and Denmark. Okay? These are serious scholars in their fields. The 2012 BioInitiative. I suggest you look at it. Catch up on it if you can, `cause you'll be hearing a lot more about it. Thank you very much. BILLIAN: Hi. My name is Theresa Billian. I'm here because I'm very concerned for our community and our well-being, and I don'tI want this thing to stop. There is a cave, Kazumura Cave goes underneath this thing. Verizon never did test holes. That's the facts. Thank you. CLARKSON: Thank you, all. Are there any questions, Commissioners, for these testifiers? In that case, are there, is anyone else wanting to testify? Thank you for making your testimony. If not, then I need a motion to close the public hearing. MIYASATO: I make a motion to close public testimony. DELA CRUZ: Second. CLARKSON: It was moved by Commissioner Miyasato and seconded by Commissioner Dela Cruz. All those in favor? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. CLARKSON: Opposed? Motion carries. Public testimony is now closed. The remaining action that we must take at this time is the selection of a contested case hearing officer. At this time, I would like Maija Jackson from Planning staff to just brief us on the history of the mediation and possible issues related to scheduling of the contested case hearing. JACKSON: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Intervenor and Applicant participated in mediation last Friday, and they did not reach an agreement, and so, the next stage, as you know, is to go EXHIBIT B 3 forward with the contested case hearing. If the Commission decides to hear the case themselves or if you hire a hearings officer, either way, what we would do is the Planning Department staff would work with both of the parties to schedule a pre -hearing conference. And, it's likely that that would be scheduled within the next month. CLARKSON: Thank you. The agenda suggests three possibilities for the hearing officer. At this time, I would like to ask Malia to summarize the options for us as a Commission. HALL: Okay. Yeah, basically, you have three options that haveI think most of them have been used in the past. One is to pass the contested case over to an actual hearings officer which would be selected through—is it personal services? Personal services list through the County. And, then the second would be that the Commission hear the case as a whole. Sort of as like the Board of Appeals does. You would all sit—there would still be one chair that would do most of the talking, and you guys would hear the case as a whole Commission. And, the last one is to just designate a Commissioner whether it be the Chair or any other Commissioner to be the hearings officer, to be the presiding officer, and to hear the contested case and then report back to the Commission before the next hearing. CLARKSON: Okay, is there any discussion on the preferences of the Commission as to which of these three options to choose? I'm new to the Commission. I've never been through a contested case selection process or through a contested case hearing as some of our Commissioner have had in the past, so I would look to them to make suggestions. IKEDA: Can I ask Malia a question? HALL: Go ahead. IKEDA: The last time we had a contested case hearing, we selected a chairman or—and also a member a committee of no more than three because we couldn't have a quorum. Is that the way it works if we went with Option 2? HALL: I think—you can do it either way actually. From what I read in the Statutes, HRS Statutes, it doesn't prohibit you guys from hearing it as a whole if you, as a contested case hearing. It might be easier, let's just say, if you did have a limited amount of people to hear the case. But, in the end you guys, before you guys, any of you can make a decision. You have to look through all the evidence presented, so you would still have to do it. So, whether you guys want to just do that all up front and be sitting there and hearing all the witnesses and testimony come in as it comes in or whether you want to read through transcripts, that's, that's up to you guys. But, yeah, either way. That could also be an option. If you guys wanted to just select three people, you could do that as well or just one or hear it as a whole. JACKSON: Chair Clarkson? Mr. Henkel, Commissioner Henkel couldn't be here today, but he did email staff last week and expressed that he was interested in hearing the contested case. So, I don't know if he just volunteered himself to be presiding officer? Just wanted to add that he was interested in that. EXHIBIT B 4 IKEDA: I move that Gregory Henkel act as the hearings officer and conduct a contested case hearing. CLARKSON: Is there a second? MIYASATO: I'll second. CLARKSON: It's been moved and seconded that Commissioner Henkel act as hearing officer and conduct a contested case hearing. This is by himself, Option 3—if that's the RAFFIPIY: Correct. CLARKSON: —gist of your motion. Any discussion? Okay. If there's no discussion at this time, we'll have the staff do the roll call vote, please? AUDIENCE MEMBER: The public can't put any input into that? JACKSON: Okay, Commissioner Dela Cruz? DELA CRUZ: Aye. JACKSON: Commissioner Ikeda? IKEDA: Aye. JACKSON: Commissioner Miyasato? MIYASATO: Aye. JACKSON: Commissioner Raffipiy? RAFFIPIY: Aye. JACKSON: And, Chair Clarkson. CLARKSON: Aye. EXHIBIT B 5 JACKSON: All right. Thank you. So, the Planning Department will contact the Applicant and the Intervenor to schedule a pre -hearing conference. The discussion ended at 9:46 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sarah Y. Hata-Finley, Secretary Windward Planning Commission EXHIBIT B 6