2024-11-18 Debra Greene - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Third: The Director stated it's "uncertain if staff must deny applications for underserved areas without proper zoning or suggest alternative sites", a concern that could easily be remedied. Fourth: He stated that "prioritization could delay permitting, exceeding the 60-day approval timeframe" but the Director gives no rationale for what could cause such delays, so at this time that claim is purely speculative. Five: He stated that "Enforcement remains undefined." If Planning is doing its job, they will adhere to the prioritization and no enforcement would be required. Is the Director suggesting planners may not adhere to the law and need to be policed, in which case all of the provisions would need enforcement, not just this one? Finally, the Director's proposed ordinance exempts eight zoning districts from setbacks. This is of grave concern as several of those zones have residential and schools nearby and even mixed in, so those zones should not be exempted from setbacks. Further, the Director's ordinance requires a 1200-foot setback for residential and schools and, given the proximity issue, this could potentially create a planning nightmare in trying to differentiate the setbacks versus exemptions. Such exemptions could delay permitting and exceed the 60-day approval timeframe mandated by HRS 4689. To avoid this potential violation, the easy remedy would be to uniformly require setbacks with no exemptions, which is exactly what Bill 194 does. The one major difference that the Director failed to highlight is that Bill 194 includes small cell infrastructure whereas his bill doesn't. This is a major oversight as small cells are a novel and untested technology that absolutely require regulation for the good of the public. In closing, Council members are elected to enact legislation in a democratic process -we elect them and they represent our needs. The Director has submitted comments that are critical of Bill 194 and gave an unfavorable recommendation. At the same time he submitted his own ordinance that goes far beyond simply updating the code to bring it into compliance with state law, a law that's actually been on the books for years. Just couldn't help but notice that timing. We also couldn't help but notice that the Director only consulted with telecommunication corporations and telecom advocacy groups. There was no actual input from the community. In contrast, Council Member Evans consulted with us, and other community groups, over the course of a year to craft her ordinance. Months of research went into it, using ordinances already adopted in other jurisdictions as examples to make sure it met all legal and policy requirements. It was cross-checked, double-checked and re-checked. It's a good, solid piece of legislation that aligns with others across the country. It deserves a favorable recommendation.