2024-11-18 Debra Greene - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Aloha Leeward Commissioners, Thank you for your attention to the proposed Bill 194. I'm the Founding Director of Safe Tech Hawaii, a grassroots coalition of thousands of residents across the state concerned about safe technology. I'm writing in support of County Council Bill 194. Below I address each of the concerns the Director used to justify his unfavorable recommendation. 1) Regarding proposed Section 25-2-74(1) The Subsection requires a plot plan showing the location of the proposed antenna or tower and all buildings and uses within 300 feet thereof. The Director claimed this requirement is excessive without providing any rationale for his assessment. This is ironic because he stated that lack of a detailed rationale for this requirement was a "particularly significant" concern and grounds for an unfavorable recommendation. Since both Bill 194 and the Director's proposed ordinance contain setback requirements for residences and schools, one could easily see how a plot plan showing buildings and uses could be very helpful. Further, the rationale for this requirement could have been easily attained had the Director simply asked, as the draft ordinance was shared with Planning over six months before the Director introduced his ordinance. Cooperation was demonstrated by Council Member Evans, but not by the Director. 2) Regarding Proposed Section 25-2-74(5) This Subsection proposes a report prepared by a licensed professional electrical engineer certifying that the proposed use complies with all applicable standards and regulations, including RF emissions regulations set by the FCC and the state of Hawaii. The Director has raised three concerns: First:The Director stated that the FCC already regulates RF emissions so an additional report is redundant; yet, ironically, his proposed ordinance requires an additional report from the FCC verifying compliance. Why is that not redundant? Further, The Director's requirement that the FCC provide a statement of compliance or that no compliance is necessary is of grave concern. Obtaining such a statement from the FCC, a Federal agency that is not equipped to provide such statements to local jurisdictions across the U.S., could take weeks and violate the 60-day approval timeline mandated by HRS 4689. Second: The Director stated that the proposed report places responsibility on planners who lack technical expertise to review technical engineering reports; however, no such burden would be placed on planners. The responsibility is with the licensed professional who prepared the report. As is customary, planners simply would check a box indicating that the report was provided.