Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREP PC 048 2020/07/07 2018-2020REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON PLANNING DATE: July 7, 2020 Re: Comm. No. 986/Resolution No. 678-20 PLACE: Council Chambers Hilo, Hawaii TIME: 1:21 p.m. Council Chair and Members Hawaii County Council Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Your Committee on Planning, to which was referred Resolution No. 678-20, reports as follows: Resolution No. 678-20, introduced by Committee Member Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder via Communication No. 986 dated June 15, 2020, calls upon all telecommunications companies and public utilities operating in Hawaii County to cease the buildout of fifth -generation wireless infrastructure, commonly known as 5G, until such technologies have been proven through independent research and testing to human health and the environment. Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder said that we do not need 5G wireless technology for our cell phones to work and that we have other options to increase our connectivity. Maui County is undertaking a similar discussion today. In the past year he has been bombarded by citizens voicing their concerns about the deployment of 5G technology. In light of multiple jurisdictions limiting the rollout of 5G technology, residents around the island have asked him to put legislation forward to address the public safety concerns inherent in the technology. He appreciates the concerns of opponents of the resolution, telecom lobbyists from Oahu, and his reply is that there has been no study to date that shows the technology is safe. He is concerned about safety and well-being of citizens and areas where small cell devices will be deployed as frequently as every 250 feet. Planning Director Michael Yee was asked to come forward. In response to Mr. Kaneali`i- Kleinfelder's questions, Director Yee stated that 5G technology has not been implemented on Hawaii Island. He was unaware of the status in other counties. Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder said he was concerned that Hawaii County was being used as the "guinea pigs" for other places in the country. Director Yee described the process for installing the small cell devices. Many people believe the towers being proposed will be used someday for 5G, and it is certainly a potential. The devices may not necessarily be going up on the large towers, but that becomes the issue. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 restricts the County from disallowing the issuance of permits for health reasons around cell phone towers. Director Yee's authority when he receives an application for a tower is to make a recommendation to the applicable planning commission, but it is up to the commission to make a decision. PC Report No.: 48 PC -48 Page 2 July 7, 2020 Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder asked whether an approved tower must come back to the County to apply for upgrades. Director Yee said installation of 4G versus 5G technology is not under the County's discretion. Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder is concerned that the provisions of the Telecommunications Act is outdated. He cited Section 253(b) i of the Act that allows a State to enact regulations for the protection of its citizens. While Director Yee agreed that the Telecommunications Act is outdated, he also understood that it is federal law. He said we have to be thoughtful in deciding how to proceed. Corporation Counsel Joe Kamelamela was asked to weigh in on the Telecommunications Act. When we talk about the County's authority to regulate radio frequency waves, "we have none," Mr. Kamelamela said. And added, "If we allow a 5G equipment up on a tower, but nothing prevents us from perhaps asking the telecommunication company to say if you install it, you do a test on it, to satisfy to the people of the County that it is safe." He would have to check with Planning and maybe Public Works about doing more than that, he said. Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder said the County had some ability to decide on the location of equipment, but based on that interpretation of Section 253(b), we are able to impose requirements that protect the public's safety, such as requirements for documents or credentials for a safety component. He does not feel that is overstepping or pre-empting any law. He understands the need for connectivity in the district but that it does not necessarily require 5G technology. Committee Member Valerie Poindexter raised concern about cell towers in her district and County land being leased out in perpetuity. The Public Utilities Commission is not really monitoring the towers. People might say the towers are not going to affect health and you're just fearmongering, but Ms. Poindexter said there was a meeting in Pepe`ekeo and a lot of concerned people came out. Ms. Poindexter knows how it feels to lose a child. 5G technology should definitely not be allowed on our island, or our state, until studies can be made. She would like to start investigating what already exists and whether the PUC is monitoring any of them. The Federal Communications Commission does not regulate the number of towers, and we're allowing all this without even studying the health risk, she said. But if you look at the numbers of people dying and the possible connections you somehow have to prioritize it. Ms. Poindexter understood the County has to follow rules and laws, but she knows that we had leased land that is "full" of cell towers. We should never approve a lease in perpetuity, period, she said. She opposed any new cell towers until the health risk is addressed. U.S. Code Title 47 Section 253(b) State Regulatory Authority: "Nothing in this section shall affect the ability of a State to impose, on a competitively neutral basis and consistent with section 254 of this title, requirements necessary to preserve and advance universal service, protect the public safety and welfare, ensure the continued quality of telecommunications services, and safeguard the rights of consumers." PC Report No.: 48 PC -48 Page 3 July 7, 2020 Committee Member Tim Richards expressed concern about the resolution and called use of cellular technology for connectivity a risk -benefit calculation. Committee Member Maile David focused on Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder's comments regarding the Telecommunications Act's Section 253, subsections (b) and (c)'. She asked whether managing the public's rights-of-way would be a means for the County to provide restrictions or processes in order to preserve and protect the public's welfare and safety. She saw a method where the County could impose some sort of process that could include inquiries into the health issues regarding 5G technology. She asked Mr. Kamelamela whether that is that something that we could implement legally. Mr. Kamelamela began by noting that the County cannot reduce radio frequency exposure limits. However, telecommunications providers, when they install equipment, could be made to conduct tests, and based on the tests would give the County some discretion with whether there's some undue health concern at that moment. That is something that we are pushing right now with companies, he said. Ms. David asked Mr. Kamelamela about whether, prior to installation of the equipment, some process could be created. The County has certain zoning requirements and laws that we look at, Mr. Kamelamela said. For example, are there environmental concerns? What conditions can we impose? Each site may have different conditions. We have towers in County rights-of-way so there are other issues in play. We have Civil Defense sirens on some towers so we want to make sure not to interfere with those. Ms. David asked whether towers in County rights-of-way have any established process similar to the preparation of an environmental assessment, prior to approval of the towers. Mr. Kamelamela said a process does exist, but he needed to check on the timing element, because there is a "shot clock" for pending applications. Ms. David wanted to know when a telecommunications company comes forward as one previously did with Resolution No. 631-20, whether at that point an application was already approved for placement. She wanted to know whether regulations exist for the management of the public rights-of-way where a telecom provider that wants to install 5G devices is automatically allowed under the Telecommunications Act, or whether it allows the County to create a screening process. Committee Member Rebecca Villegas spoke in favor of the resolution. She received much feedback concerned about the potential deployment of 5G wireless technology on the island. z U.S. Code Title 47 Section 253(c) State and Local Government Authority: "Nothing in this section affects the authority of a State or local government to manage the public rights-of-way or to require fair and reasonable compensation from telecommunications providers, on a competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory basis, for use of public rights-of-way on a nondiscriminatory basis, if the compensation required is publicly disclosed by such government." PC Report No.: 48 PC -48 Page 4 July 7, 2020 Essentially this resolution states to the County Administration that we do not want to be putting in 5G infrastructure, and even those who live in rural areas are able to use current bandwidth. She added, "New York, Boston, Seattle, and Portland are all filing lawsuits against the FCC (Federal Communications Commission), and the potential for serious harm is massive against 5G technology. We are using higher frequencies in order to transmit more data." Reading through all of this information, Ms. Villegas would encourage Corporation Counsel to be courageous with the potential of a lawsuit to challenge the FCC. Wireless tech was never tested for wireless safety. She has a cell phone right here but she made a decision to be exposed to the electromagnetic frequencies. Essentially 5G requires small cell transmitters to lay a gridwork over the whole planet, but widespread deployment means you have no choice about your exposure. She raised concerns about the energy consumption of 5G technology and its potential use as a weapon. Weapons -grade millimeter -wave frequency devices have the potential to cause a severe burning sensation to the skin and can be used in crowd dispersal situations. She does not think that 5G is a solution. Ms. Poindexter said she did an Internet search on the difference between 4G and 5G technology. 4G technology uses a portion of the electromagnetic spectrum below 6 gigahertz, but 5G uses the spectrum between 30 gigahertz and 300 gigahertz. She asked when is enough, enough? We keep building to things and to get a better reception. She state, "What happened to the days when we had just a telephone and life was so simple then? The cellular telephone rings off the hook, and 24/7, but before the cell phone life was so much simpler. And we did things, we could talk to each other. We are just destroying society. It's crazy. We have reached that limit and we're saying in Hawaii we don't need more. Just concentrate on food sustainability, building our economy, going back to how we used to live and be a family." Mr. Kamelamela responded to Ms. David's previous question about the "shot clock" by stating applications are to be acted upon within 60 days or applications are deemed granted. When transmitters are installed, the telecom providers should test to make sure there is no undue safety risk. Committee Member Karen Eoff asked whether it would also help for the resolution to be directed to the Public Works Director as well as to the Planning Director. Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder said he considered the best way to make an impact with the resolution. The telecom companies are already watching the Council, so he did not feel a need to send it to them, and the resolution is addressed to the Administration. There must be some recourse for citizens when it comes to public health concerns involved in rolling out technology that is new. Ms. Eoff asked whether the County Council could send the telecommunication companies a message to tell them not to approve or recommend things. Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder said it is his job to speak for citizens. Ms. Eoff agreed that the message should go out, and she spoke in favor of the resolution, saying that we want our island to be a safe place. She had supported previous legislation banning PC Report No.: 48 I I PC-48 Page 5 July 7,2020 3 genetically modified organisms and herbicides in Hawaii County to err on the side of caution. She said, "We are a very fragile place, and we are in a position to keep this island safe." 1 Chair Kierkiewicz asked Director Yee what the resolution means for his department. Director Yee repeated that no matter how strongly the resolution is worded, it is only still just a resolution going up against federal law that will have little effect. From a broader perspective,he understands that the regulatory system is broken, and he hopes the Council realizes the State has to step up. So it is about a larger systems change. To get a systems change we have to nip on their heels and pass testing regimes. It won't be overnight. It gives us a chance to reflect what are = the small things pushed on for system change that we can identify, and there are things in Planning that we can consider, Director Yee said. Chair Kierkiewicz asked whether there is anything within our ability, our process, our systems to require the people coming forward with this technology to submit a health report as a prerequisite to an application. She asked Corporation Counsel to report back to the Council on the feasibility. Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder closed the discussion by adding that he learned some of the other counties were preparing to start passing ordinances against 5G technology rollout as well. It is out there, and this is how we make a difference. Your Committee on Planning is in accord with the purpose and intent of Resolution No. 678-20, and recommends its adoption. ps AYES NOES ABS EX Respectfully submitted, CHUNG x DAVID x COMMITTEE ON PLANNING EOFF x KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER X KIERKIEWICZ X LEE LOY x POINDEXTER x ASHLEY L. KIERKIEWICZ, CHAIR RICHARDS x PC REPORT NO. 48 VILLEGAS X ADOPTED: JUL 2 2 2M ,t ;t