The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0110.199 2024-2026/11� WING i June 1, 2025 County Council County of Hawai'i Hawai'i County Building 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 WIRELESS POLICY Gr-20UP LLC via email: counciltestimony@hawaiicounty.gov P I coun.d I N124 . U0 1� c �:c .V�rrq RE: BILL 24: AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 25, ARTICLES 1, 2, 4, 5, AND 7, OF THE HAWAI'I COUNTY CODE Aloha Hawai'i County Council, I am writing today on behalf of Verizon to provide comments for your consideration with respect to Bill 24, the proposed amendment to Chapter 25, Articles 1,2,4,5, and 7, of the Hawaii County Code. Verizon appreciates the County's efforts to update the regulation of wireless communications facilities and supports efforts to align the Hawai'i County code with Federal and State law. However, we do remain concerned with some elements of Bill 24, as represented in the current draft (Draft 5). Respectfully, Verizon presents the following comments for your consideration. Setback From Residences and Schools For Hawaii, the National 911 Program reports that nearly 82 percent of 911 calls are from wireless devices.' Wireless technology is thus essential for emergency services and public safety. Excessive setbacks and minimum lot size requirements overly restrict where facilities can be placed, limiting the capacity of wireless providers to provide the wireless coverage needed to ensure that first responders remain connected and facilitate 911 calls. Bill 24 proposes that Section 25-4-12(d) be modified to include highly restrictive setbacks. We strongly recommend that the County remove the requirement that new towers be a minimum of 600-feet from residences and schools. Such excessive siting restrictions are unnecessary and further limit the ability to install wireless facilities near where people work and live, where the demand for reliable wireless service is the greatest. 1. https://www.911.gov/issues/911-stats-and-data/ Ref. To: Ref. Dcs.e JUN — 4 2025 22500 SE 64th Place, Suite 130 www.wirelesspolicy.com 206AS9.8791 Issaquah, WA 98027 lelah.vaga@wirelesspolicy.com Additionally, many of the comments pertaining to the justification for the 600-foot setback appear related to concerns surrounding radiofrequency (RF) emissions from wireless infrastructure. On this matter, federal law is expressly clear that a state or locality may not regulate the location of wireless facilities "on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions."' As such, local governments cannot base their policy decisions on wireless infrastructure on RF concerns. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has exclusive authority over RF emissions and has adopted rules that all wireless providers must meet and that also preempt any local regulations. Section 25-4-12(g) of the Ordinance separately requires compliance with all applicable rules, regulations and requirements of various federal agencies, including the FCC. If the County chooses to maintain the 600-foot setback, we suggest language that would allow these limitations to be waived in circumstances where no other viable solution is feasible, so that this restriction does not become an effective prohibition of service contrary to federal law and can enable the provision of wireless services where they are needed most. Property Line Setback Requirements Bill 24 also proposes that Section 25-4-12(d) be modified to include significant increases in setbacks from property lines for new towers. The proposed 120% minimum property line setback is much more restrictive than the County's current property line setback requirement of one foot for every five feet of tower height. We suggest flexibility for situations where a reduced setback would be appropriate — for example, in cases where the tower is constructed with breakpoint technology or where the design would provide for better concealment with reduced setbacks. Minimum Lot Size Requirements We suggest that the minimum lot sizes in proposed Section 25-4-12(c) be stricken. Larger lot sizes are typically not needed to address visual impacts, and this provision would significantly restrict the number of locations that would be feasible for future sites. We appreciate the inclusion of a process to allow for issuance of a variance to this requirement, but the requirement itself is not needed. Factors like topography, natural screening elements, proximity to utilities, and other logistical requirements are much more relevant in practice. To address aesthetic concerns, we recommend the development of objective design standards. Visual Impact Mitigation and Broad Director Discretion We recommend that Section 25-4-12(j) be replaced with specific guidelines for when visual mitigation is required for a proposed wireless facility. This could best be accomplished by specifying the Director's decision criteria. 2 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv). Page 2 WPG GROUP LLC OLICY While the wireless industry recognizes the importance of minimizing visual impacts, Bill 24 as drafted grants extremely broad discretion without clear guidelines. Instead, we recommend including transparent and objective criteria for when and how these requirements would apply. If stealth design is required, we request that there be standards specifying when these designs should be implemented, ensuring that they are both reasonable and suitable for the type of infrastructure needed and the context in which it will be placed, preventing unnecessary redesign. We also strongly recommend removal of the proposed language givingthe Directorthe discretion to move a proposed facility location. A requirement that a facility be relocated is effectively a denial, without any recourse available to an applicant in the event of an application denial. Instead, we recommend that Bill 24 identify any specific limitations applicants must comply with for clarity, consistency, and predictability. In addition, this discretion as proposed is unnecessary given that the County would already require applicants to provide information to support a proposed wireless facility location, including a demonstration that less intrusive sites are unavailable. Wind Speed Standards Bill 24 proposes that Section 25-2-74 (2) require plans certified by a licensed structural engineer to verify that tower engineering will comply with wind speed standards. Verizon supports robust structural requirements. However, it is customary practice to engineer a tower during the period between planning approval and building permit. Often the specific details of tower design are completed after land use approval so that any relevant conditions of approval can be taken into consideration during the tower engineering process before submission for building permit. For these reasons, we suggest that the wind speed requirement be omitted here. Tower owners would remain required to comply with all wind speed standards and to provide the necessary engineering reports in order to obtain the required building permits to construct the facility. Evidence of Collocation Efforts Bill 24 proposes that Section 25-2-74 (7) (D) require "A letter from the nearby tower owners indicating the tower is not feasible for co -locating antennas." We recommend this language be removed. A nearby tower owner's opinion is not necessarily the reason why a tower is not feasible for the applicant's coverage objective. Where an existing tower is infeasible for reasons that are not pertinent to the owner's willingness to lease space, the applicant would not inquire with the tower owner, nor would the tower owner necessarily be willing to provide such a letter. Statement From the FCC Section 25-4-74 (5) of the County code as referenced in Bill 24 requires a statement from the FCC stating compliance with its regulations. Verizon respectfully requests that the language be removed or amended to require compliance but not a statement from the FCC. The FCC does Page 3 %VPG GROUP LLC OLICY not generally issue statements of compliance for specific facilities and, in particular, does not issue such statements during the planning phase for new facilities. Wireless carriers are responsible directly to the FCC for such compliance. Notification Requirement Bill 24 proposes that Section 2S-2-74 (9) require notification to nearby residents prior to application submission. We are concerned with two elements of the notice requirement as proposed and recommend that these requirements be removed. The first is that the language as drafted would require notice to tenants. Tenant records are not always public information, and it is not always feasible to obtain the mailing address of tenants. Typically, it is the responsibility of the property ownerto pass along information to their tenants. The second is that the language as drafted requires that an anticipated construction timeline be provided. Estimates of construction timeline prior to submission for Land Use review are often unreliable because there are many variables at this early stage of the project that can impact construction planning. We suggest this requirement be removed as it could provide inaccurate information to the community. Wireless communication services are essential for supporting our communities. With 71.7% of adults living in homes without a landline phone', recent increases in remote work, and many essential tools we use every day moving to wireless applications, promoting a robust high - capacity wireless communications network is more important than ever. Wireless communications are essential to how we live and work, and also essential for public safety. Thank you for your consideration of our comments. We appreciate the opportunity to participate in this public process. Sincerely, Lelah Vaga Wireless Policy Group 3 National Center for Health Statistics, National Health Interview Survey Early Release Programs, wireless Substitution: Early Release of Estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, July -December 2022, released May 2023. Page 4 \VPG GROUP LLC OLICY