2024-12-17 Debra Greene - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

ordinance was shared with Planning over six months before the he introduced his ordinance. Cooperation was demonstrated by Council Member Evans, but not by the former Director. 2) Bill 194 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 former Director raised three concerns: First: He 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, his 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 H RS 4689. Second: The former 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. A report by an independent professional is absolutely necessary because the FCC does not send representatives onsite to test RF emissions, so there is no way to verify compliance. According to telecommunications attorney Andrew Campanelli who has successfully won lawsuits against telecommunications corporations, independent testing done in other jurisdictions has shown instances in which RF emissions exceeded the FCC guidelines. This is deeply troubling for the community because the FCC has some of the most lenient emission standards in the world. Third: The former Director stated that this report requirement could conflict with federal law as local governments cannot impose stricter RF standards than the FCC. How can a report certifying compliance with Federal Law conflict with Federal law?There is absolutely nothing in the proposed ordinance that would impose stricter RF standards than are required by Federal law-quite the opposite. Again, the proposed requirement, as stated, is to ensure compliance with Federal law. To suggest it potentially violates Federal law reflects an inability to properly understand the ordinance. Or maybe there's something else at play?