HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0110.061 2024-2026 P/pcPw O
.5i I( 2L1
H f COMM.I(a
aP3C HTY3rh
April 1, 2025 7025 riAR 7 1 1a'
Hawai'i County Council
25 Aupuni St. •
Hilo, HI 96720
Subject: Testimony in Opposition to Bill 24(Draft 2) with Requests for Amendments
Aloha Chair Inaba, Vice Chair Onishi, and Members-of the Hawaii County Council,
I am writing today on behalf of the Wireless Infrastructure Association to express our
opposition to Bill 24 (Draft 2) as currently drafted and to request necessary amendments
to ensure compliance with federal law while balancing community concerns.
Clear Distinction Between New Sites and Modifications of Existing Sites
It is critical to distinguish between the development of new wireless facilities and modifications
to existing ones. Section 6409 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012
mandates that state and local governments approve modifications to existing towers and base
stations that do not substantially change their physical dimensions. By conflating new sites with
modifications, Bill 24 oversteps federal authority and creates unnecessary regulatory burdens
that hinder network improvements.
Distinction Between Antennas and Towers
Antennas and towers serve different functions and should not be subject to identical regulatory
treatment. Bill 24 fails to recognize this distinction, applying restrictive requirements to both. We
request that antennas be regulated separately from towers, aligning with standard industry
practices and federal guidelines.
Setbacks from Residences, Schools, and Hospitals
Section 25-4-12(d) of Bill 24 proposes a setback of 1,200 feet(1,000 feet for hospitals) from
property lines adjacent to residences, schools, and hospitals. This is significantly more stringent
than current requirements, which already impose a setback of five times the height of the tower.
If the increased setback is based on concerns about radio frequency (RF) emissions, we must
emphasize that federal law prohibits local governments from regulating the placement of
wireless infrastructure based on the environmental effects of RF emissions (47 U.S.C. §
332(c)(7)(B)(iv)). If the rationale is safety, these structures are designed to withstand extreme
conditions and are not at risk of catastrophic failure. If the County remains unwilling to adjust
this provision, we propose an alternative setback of 120% of the tower height, consistent with
industry standards and other zoning classifications, or allow a waiver process to prevent service
prohibitions.
Minimum Lot Size Requirements
Comm. o
Ref. To:
Ref. Dote v ® 1
Bill 24 introduces minimum lot size requirements for wireless facilities under Section 25-4-12(c)
without clear justification. Minimum lot sizes do not directly address visual concerns. Instead, we
recommend the County develop objective design standards that would better address aesthetic
concerns while preserving flexibility in siting infrastructure.
Broad Director Discretion on Placement and Aesthetics
The current language grants the Planning Director broad discretion to dictate the placement and
aesthetics of wireless facilities, including requiring relocation within a site. In many cases,
wireless infrastructure must be sited in specific locations due to technical constraints,
topography, and property owner agreements. A clearer framework of objective design standards
would create a fairer and more predictable process while still ensuring that facilities blend
appropriately into their surroundings.
Impact on Essential Cellular and WiFi Services
Reliable wireless services are crucial for public safety, economic development, education, and
daily communication. Bill 24, as written, severely restricts the ability to provide adequate
coverage across the island. The proposed setbacks and siting restrictions would:
• Limit the availability of consistent service, particularly in rural and remote areas like Ka'u,
Hamakua, and Pahala, where connectivity is already limited.
• Increase costs for deployment, driving up consumer prices and limiting service
accessibility.
• Create potential coverage gaps, impacting first responders, healthcare facilities, and
emergency services.
Recommendations for Amendments
1. Reduce setback requirements to 120% of tower height or allow a waiver process to
ensure service continuity.
2. Exclude colleges from the definition of"school"to increase potential siting options.
3. Allow commercial and large residential/agricultural parcels as preferred siting
locations to leverage natural screening.
4. Establish objective design standards in place of broad discretionary authority over
siting and aesthetics.
5. Permit exceptions to setbacks similar to minimum lot size waivers to ensure
network viability.
6. Ensure compliance with Section 6409 by distinguishing between modifications to
existing facilities and new installations.
Conclusion
A comprehensive network of both WiFi and cellular services is essential for Hawai'i County
residents. Bill 24, as currently drafted, significantly impedes the deployment of this
infrastructure, creating barriers to connectivity that will negatively impact businesses, schools,
emergency services, and rural communities. We urge the Council to reconsider these
restrictions and work collaboratively with industry experts to refine the bill in a way that respects
federal regulations, maintains community character, and ensures reliable connectivity
island-wide.
We appreciate the opportunity to engage in this important discussion and stand ready to
collaborate on solutions that balance the County's goals with the critical need for modern
telecommunications infrastructure.
Me ka ha'aha'a; humbly,
Cyrus Johnasen
Representative, Wireless Infrastructure Association