The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0110.039 2024-2026 p/pcPLUEP ail l 241 Cott.i to Aloha PCPLUED Committee Members, Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of Bill 24. As the founding Director of Safe Tech Hawaii, a coalition of residents concerned about the proliferation of wireless technology and supporting safer technology, I'm writing on behalf of our organization. We support the four amendments put forth by CM Villegas, namely: 1) Include small cells t_ ., 2) Clarify community notification requirements 3) Adopt an application form that clarifies shot-clock start date 4) Include 100 mph sustained wind Building Plan requirement certified by a licensed 2. . .,. structural engineer Regarding #1, include small cells: • With the advent of Al and other innovations, wireless infrastructure is evolving and changing • Any definition of wireless infrastructure needs clarity and specificity in order to keep pace and avoid confusion, delays or potential loopholes • The community overwhelmingly wants small cells to be regulated, and regulation was included in Bill 194, which was vetted by Corp Counsel and others • In PCLUED meeting Feb. 4 Director incorrectly stated small cells couldn't be regulated and cited HRS 206N-4 as the reason • This is incorrect according to HRS 206N-1: APPLICABILITY • HRS 206N only applies to mounting small cells on publicly owned poles • Most utility poles here are owned by Hawaiian Electric Ind., a private company. Therefore HSR 206N doesn't apply to them. • Small cells can and should be regulated • Amend the definition of"Telecommunications antenna" to include small cells Regarding #2, clarify community notification requirements: • Vague language such as "notify", "engage", "affected community" and "adjacent landowners" is confusing and open to dispute • Specific requirements need to be defined for clarity and to avoid misinterpretation Comm. No D• 3 �. Ref. To: Ref. Date ti> — .J • The vague language in Bill 24 creates confusion and could cause application delays • The vague language leaves open a possible loophole to be exploited at the expense of the community • Protect the community by specifying notification of those within 500 feet of proposed installation by certified mail that begins within 5 days of application submission IF A CERTIFIED MAIL REQUIREMENT IS TOO EXPENSIVE OR TIME CONSUMING, THEN PLEASE USE REGULAR MAIL. The community deserves to be notified, in writing, delivered to their address. Regarding #3, adopt an application form that clarifies shot-clock start date. This is for the County's own protection. • Exactly when'the 60 day shot-clock begins has been disputed in other jurisdictions • This confusion causes delays and provides a potential loophole that has been exploited by applicants • Bill 24 should include a form that specifies all permit application requirements must be completed before the 60 day shot-clock begins • In a recent Ninth Circuit Court ruling of October, 2024, the Court clarified the 60 day shot-clock regarding modification requests • The Court upheld the FCC's decision that the EFR shot clock begins when an applicant satisfies both of the following criteria: (1) Takes the first procedural step that the local jurisdiction requires, and (2) Submits written documentation showing that a proposed modification is an eligible facilities request (EFR) • Under this rule, the County should adopt its own Permit application form and require that all permit applications, including an EFR application, must be made on that form to ensure that is the first procedural step in triggering the shot-clock Regarding #4, include 100 mph sustained wind Building Plan requirement certified by a licensed structural engineer. • Increased high velocity winds pose a serious threat to residents from towers potentially failing • Cell tower failure has been linked to destructive wildfires in California and elsewhere • SECTION 7, Subsection 25-4-12, (f) includes "hard survivability for sustained winds of 130 mph," but there is no way to verify this. No accountability • A sustained wind requirement of 100 mph was originally included in Building Plan requirements of Bill 24 but was removed, so now the only verifiable requirement is to meet Building Code minimum - but this creates a loophole • The building code doesn't have uniform requirements. Building code has different requirements, for different building materials, in different wind zones, with different risk categories. Current Building Code requirements range from 130 to 160 mph and there are no specific requirements for towers • This complicates compliance, could jeopardize application deadlines, and creates a potential loophole to be exploited • Since 130 mph sustained wind survivability is required in SECTION 7, then should be no problem for 100 mph sustained wind survivability to be included in the Building Plan requirements SECTION 5 • Close the loophole and put back in the very reasonable 100 mph sustained wind requirement as part of the Building Plan certified by a licensed structural engineer Thank you for your kind consideration of these amendments which members of the community want to see adopted for their safety and protection. Sincerely, Debra Debra Greene, PhD Founding Director Safe Tech Hawaii PHONE: 808-874-6441 WEBSITE:www.SafeTechHawaii.com Sent from my faster, safer, more secure HARDWIRED computer