HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0110.162 2024-2026AT&T
Dr. Holeka Goro Inaba, Council Chairperson
County Council
County of Hawai'i
a,
25 Aupuni Street
cam'
Hilo, Hawai'i 96720
e..r
o-<
Sent via email: counci(testimony@hawaiicountygov
a.
mac;
Re: Bill 24 (Draft 5)
June 4, 2025, First Reading
tv
--
Dear Chairperson Inaba and Council members:
New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC ("AT&T") thanks you for the opportunity to comment on
Draft 5 of Bill 24.
We write to ask that you reconsider some of the provisions of Bill 24 in light of public safety
needs and practicality.
600-foot Setback and Public Safety (FirstNet°1
AT&T is very concerned about the potential impact of the 600-foot setback proposed to be
required of its towers, to be measured from any residence or school.'
At the last PCPLUED hearing, we heard discussion from Council members that they would
like to ensure that tower facilities developed by government safety agencies are not subject
to the setback.
With respect, all wireless towers promote public safety. Hawaii County residents rely on
having a strong signal for calling 9-1-1 to reach first, responders. In emergency situations, a
simple call or text message can make the difference between life and death. According to
NENA: the 9-1-1 Association, "An estimated 240 million calls are made to 9-1-1 in the U.S.
each year. In many areas, 80% or more are from wireless devices." Specifically for Hawaii,
the National 911 Program reports that nearly 82 percent of 911 calls are from wireless
devices.2 Wireless technology is thus essential for emergency services and public safety.
' Section 25- 4-12(d) (Section 7 of the Bill). While local jurisdictions retain much of their zoning authority over
proposed wireless facilities, they may not impose limits that have the effect of prohibiting personal wireless
service. 47 U.S.C. g 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II). In addition, local jurisdictions may not regulate wireless facilities based
on concerns of claimed health impacts from radio frequency emissions. 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv).
2 hit ps•//vnmm 91l.gov/`issues/91 1-stats-and-data
Comm.
Ref. To:
Ref. late JUN - 4 2025
1_Z_ ��7,
AT&T
Moreover, AT&T's sites support FirstNet®. AT&T was awarded the federal contract in March
2017 to build and manage America's public safety broadband network, today known as
FirstNet®. Hawaii was the second state to opt in to FirstNet®, on August 15, 2017.
Hawaii County's first responders and public safety personnel on FirstNet have always -on
priority and preemption across public safety's Band 14 spectrum, as well as access to
AT&rs 5G and LTE commercial spectrum.
AT&T is expanding and enhancing FirstNet® to give the public safety community better
access to their network. This means anywhere AT&T builds a tower for residents, FirstNet®
is also available to first responders. With FirstNet®, first responders can leverage advanced
broadband tools for modernized communication capabilities, includingvoice, video, data
and mission -critical solutions for enhanced situational awareness.
Also, all FirstNet® sites include backup power, including generators where feasible, to
support the community and Hawaii County first responders during emergencies.
For these reasons, AT&T requests that the Council members also ensure that tower
facilities developed by wireless carriers not be subject to the setback on the basis that they
are critical to promoting public safety. Specifically, AT&T asks that the 600-foot setback be
deleted or that exceptions be allowed when appropriate.
If the 600-foot setback is to remain, AT&T asks that colleges be excepted from the schools
described here. Wireless facilities are commonly located on university campuses, and
campuses usually have good space to accommodate them. AT&T suggests that college
Leadership be allowed to decide whether and where to locate a tower on campus.
Last, AT&T is concerned that the 600-foot setback provision may be read to require such
setbacks from the relevant use's property line rather than the structure, such as is
required for the 120% tower height setback. We believe the proper distinction between the
two categories of setbacks was clearer in Draft 3 of the Bill, in which the two types of
setbacks were stated in separate subsubsections. AT&T asks that the Council clarify this
difference as is done in Draft 3.
Practical Issues with Disqualification of Co -Location Options
Bill 24 requires that each tower application include a "letter from the nearby tower owners
indicating the tower is not feasible for co -locating antennas[.]"'
3 Section 25-2-74(7)(D) (Section 5 of the Bill).
2
AT&T
Practically speaking, nearby towers maybe disqualified for one or more reasons, including
a failure to meet an applicant's radio frequency coverage objective, a lack of adequate
structural capacity, a lack of available ground space for equipment, and a lack of consent
by the tower owner. The letter sought by this proposed code section applies only to the
lastreason here, and instead of being required in every application, the letter should be
required only where necessary to disqualify the nearby tower (i.e., when the tower cannot
be disqualified any other way).
AT&T asks that the Council clarify this application requirement.
Director Discretion to Relocate Proposed Tower
AT&T remains concerned with Section 25-4-120)41s description of the Director's discretion,
which includes the potential relocation of the proposed tower on- or off -site. Without
specific guidelines to steer the Director's discretion, this subsection may not be applied
consistently over time.
In AT&T's view, an application should be approved or denied based on the standards set in
the code for a proposed location, and such standards should be clear to all involved.
The location of a tower on a parcel of land is typically worked out between the proposed
tower owner and the landlord. Additionally, it is not possible to move a proposed tower to
a different parcel where the applicant does not have a lease.
As a result, relocation off -site would have the effect of a denial, and AT&T asks that the
Council reconsider the language here to better effectuate the County's intent and, lead to
predictable decisions, for the benefit of both applicants and the community.
Again, AT&T appreciates this opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Andrew Tomlinso
Site Acquisition Manager, Hawaii
4 Section 7 of the Bill.
3