HomeMy WebLinkAboutPower Point- County Council Initiated-Bill 194 PL-CCI-2024-000009
County Council Initiated ANTENNAS AND TOWERSTELECOMMUNICATION RELATING TO Bill 134
PURPOSE OF BILL 194 regulations.safety, and ensure adherence to federal and local minimize visual and operational impacts, enhance maintenance of telecommunication infrastructure to
that prioritize the careful design, siting and Introduces standards and application requirements
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS permitted in all zoning districts by right.districts. With this change, telecommunication towers and antennas will be and towers as a permitted use by right in RS,
RD, RM, RCX, RA, FA, A, IA, and O zoning telecommunication antenna and tower and adds telecommunication antennas Removes the requirement to secure a Use Permit prior to establishing
a •towers; andincluding increased setbacks and an order of priority for siting antennas and Creates additional standards for telecommunication antennas and towers, •antennas and towers;Creates
additional Plan Approval application requirements for telecommunication •definition of “Telecommunication Towers”;Amends the definition of “Telecommunication Antennas” and creates a
new •changes: The proposed amendments include, but are not limited to, the following specific
PLANNING Prioritization for Siting Towers•Use of Private Consultants; and•Enforcement and Jurisdiction Issues;•Excessive Requirements;•consideration:particularly significant and warrant
careful The following points regarding Bill 194 are CONCERNS
PLANNING DEPT ANALYSIS provided; therefore, the Planning Director does not support this requirement.rationale for including all nearby buildings and their current uses has not been A
detailed all buildings and uses within 300 feet of the subject parcel is excessive. Bill 194’s requirement to provide a site plan displaying Planning Director Concerns:buildings and
uses within three hundred feet thereof;and all \] ;(1) A plot plan showing the location of the proposed antenna or tower\[•Proposed Change:74(1)-2-Proposed Section 25 The following
proposed section of Bill 194 is excessive:
PLANNING DEPT ANALYSIS RF standards than the FCC.This could conflict with federal law, as local governments cannot impose stricter •engineering reports.Places responsibility on planners,
who lack technical expertise to review technical •FCC already regulates RF emissions; additional report is redundant.•Planning Director Concerns:of Hawai'i;radio frequency emissions,
of the Federal Communications Commission and the State complies with all applicable standards and regulations, including those related to State of Hawai'i as a professional electrical
engineer certifying that the proposed use A report prepared by a person who is licensed in the \] no such compliance is necessary.the application complies with the regulations of the
Commission or a statement that A statement from the Federal Communications Commission that \[Proposed Change:74(5)-2-Proposed Section 25 The following proposed sections of Bill 194
exceed Zoning authority:
PLANNING DEPT ANALYSIS building codes or electrical regulations.standards that are typically governed by Pertain more to operational and engineering Code.would not fall under the scope
of the Zoning Addresses maintenance requirements that Should be governed by the County Flood Code 12(i)(3) & (4)-4-PROPOSED SECTION 25 74(13)-2-PROPOSED SECTION 2574(12)-2-PROPOSED
SECTION 25 of Health regulationsShould be governed by the State Department Should be governed by the County Fire CodeCodeShould be governed by the County Building 74(8)-2-PROPOSED SECTION
2574(7)-2-PROPOSED SECTION 2574(6)-2-PROPOSED SECTION 25 The following proposed sections of Bill 194 exceed Zoning authority:
PLANNING DEPT ANALYSIS day approval timeframe under HRS.-60to lengthy and unpredictable timelines for applicants that may not occur within the Relying on private consultants could introduce
delays in the approval process, leading •afterward.It would be more logical to hire a consultant before Final Plan Approval rather than •the tower.Approval, at which point the next
step is securing a building permit and constructing The current wording suggests that the consultant's determination occurs after Plan •unnecessary financial burdens.Engaging private
consultants may significantly raise costs for the County, creating •Planning Director Concerns:shall not count toward the time limit set forth in subsection (e).Commission, provided
that the time during which the private consultant is so engaged proposed use violates any applicable standard of the Federal Communications (f)The director may engage a private consultant
to inspect and determine whether the Proposed Change:12(f)-4-Proposed Section 25 The following proposed section of Bill 194 request the use of private consultants:
PLANNING DEPT ANALYSIS Enforcement of this section remains undefined.•day approval timeframe.-Prioritization could delay permitting, exceeding the 60•zoning or suggest alternative sites.Uncertain
if staff must deny applications for underserved areas without proper •priority sites.-Lacks guidance on whether applicants must analyze unviable lower•Unclear how staff should prioritize
applications across zoning districts.•Planning Director Concerns:(4)Residential zonedlands.•and(3)All other lands,exclusive of industrial zoned lands and residential zoned lands; •(2)On
industrialzoned lands;•(1)On building sites with existingtelecommunication antennas or towers;•following order of priority:(h) Telecommunication antennas and towers shall be sitedin
accordance with the Proposed Change:12(h)-4-Proposed Section 25 The following proposed section of Bill 194 requires tower siting prioritizations:
CONCERNS WITH PROPOSED REQUIREMENTS BILL 194REVIEW OF 89.-46i Revised Statutes Section ʻ challenges with HawaiCould cause unnecessary delays and compliance •topography and development
patterns.outcomes due to the County’s diverse This inflexibility may lead to impractical •to serve areas with the highest demand.prioritization do not allow for flexibility needed The
bill’s design requirements the siting •telecommunication infrastructure deployment.excessive regulatory burden, hindering Imposing these requirements could create an •land use and zoning
expertise.Extensive plan approval requirements exceed •POTENTIAL CONFLICTS WITH STATE LAW LACK OF FLEXIBILITY
COMPARISON TO PLANNING necessary. or a statement that no such compliance is complies with the regulations of the Commission Communications Commission that the application A statement
from the Federal 74(4): -2-Section 25Hawaiʻi. Communications Commission and the State of to radio frequency emissions, of the Federal standards and regulations, including those related
proposed use complies with all applicable professional electrical engineer certifying that the who is licensed in the State of Hawaiʻi as a A report prepared by a person 74(5): -2-Section
25of the proposed antenna or tower;siteon the building A plot plan showing the location within three hundred feet thereof;and all building and uses antenna or tower\[;\] Plot plan showing
the location of the proposed Removal of a Use Permit RequirementRemoval of a Use Permit RequirementPD Initiated BillBill 194
COMPARISON TO PLANNING issuance of a new plan approval.area, as defined by the Federal Communication Commission, requires results in a ‘substantial change’ to the tower height or ground
lease location that -defined by the Federal Communication Commission. Colocation must not result in a ‘substantial change’, as -areas, and the coexisting ground lease area and not located
within the open yard setback locating carriers must be adjacent to the -ground lease areas of coprovided the director issued plan approval for the existing tower. The support equipment
within the project site is permitted and encouraged upon an existing privately owned tower and expansion of related location of antennas -Codirector has issued plan approval for such
use. its use are not hazardous or dangerous to the surrounding area and the ; provided that the antenna, tower, and all zoning districtspermitted in A telecommunication antenna or tower
shall be : 12(a)-4-Section 25documentation.location -Co74(10):-2-Section 25has issued plan approval for such use.zoning district, provided that the director existing tower, shall be
permitted in any location of a new antenna upon an -antenna or tower, including any coA telecommunication 12(a): -4-Section 25PD Initiated BillBill 194
COMPARISON TO PLANNING Abandonment of the tower.12 (j): -4-Section 25Decommissioning plan.74 (11): -2-Section 25requirements.districts shall be exempt from setback V, CVN, CG, CV, MCX,
ML, MG, CDH zoning Telecommunication towers located within the •schools.from any nearby residences and 1200 feet •of tower height from property line.120% •Setbacks: school, or residential
district.of any property line of any hospital, 1000 feet •of tower height from property line.120%•Setbacks: PD Initiated BillBill 194
KEY CONTRAST: PROPOSED BILL VS Public Liability Insurance. 12(l): -4-Section 25•Facilities. Restriction of Outdoor 12(k): -4-Section 25•Underground Requirements.12(j): -4-Section 25•Design
Requirements.12(i):-4-Section 25•Prioritization Levels.12(h):-4-Section 25•Levels.Radio Frequency Exposure 12(g):-4-Section 25•Requirement.Private Consultant 12(f):-4-Section 25•Light
Fixtures.74(16): -2-Section 25•operational in 2 years.Declaration will be 74(15): -2-Section 25•Copy of required licenses.74(14): -2-Section 25•Maintenance Plan.74(13): -2-Section 25•and
Flood Hazard.Analysis of Soil Conditions 74(12): -2-Section 25•interference with County’s radio system.Statement on possible 74(9): -2-Section 25•for noise levels.DOH -Statement from
State74(8): -2-Section 25•Fire Safety Requirements.74(7): -2-Section 25•Electrical Drawings.74(6):-2-Section 25•Elevation Drawings.74(2): -2-Section 25•Bill 194 PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIATED BILL
PLANNING DIRECTOR’S of Bill 194 to the County Council as currently written.Commissions send an unfavorable recommendation The Planning Director recommends that the Planning RECOMMENDATION