HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-11-17 (Angelika Hoffman) to 2024-11-18 (William Meurer) - (60) Additional TestimoniesFrom:Angelika Hofmann
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Support Item #8
Date:Sunday, November 17, 2024 8:17:50 PM
Support Item #8
Please give a favorable recommendation to the County Council proposed telecommunicationsordinance, Bill 194, as it is written. Dozens of local jurisdictions have implemented ordinances
similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and antennas. It is aligned with allFederal and State laws and offers important updates to the code.
Thank you
From:Barbara Barry
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Support item 8
Date:Sunday, November 17, 2024 8:47:49 PM
Aloha,
Please give a favorable recommendation to the County Council
proposed telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194, as it is written.
Dozens of local jurisdictions have implemented ordinances similar to
Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and antennas. It is
aligned with all Federal and State laws and offers important updates to
the code.
Mahalo,
Barbara Barry
Ha’ikū, HI
From:Deva Chappell
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Support Item #8
Date:Sunday, November 17, 2024 11:46:39 PM
Greetings:
Please give a favorable recommendation to the County Council proposed telecommunications
ordinance, Bill 194, as it is written.
Dozens of local jurisdictions have implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate thedeployment of towers and antennas. It is aligned with all Federal and State laws and offers
important updates to the code.
Thank you!
Dale Chappell
Maui resident 42 yrs
From:Dianne Washington-Kay
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Bill 194
Date:Sunday, November 17, 2024 9:24:11 PM
#8):
Please give a favorable recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194, as it is written. Dozens of local jurisdictions
have implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers
and antennas. It is aligned with all Federal and State laws and offers important
updates to the code.
Mahalo Nui Loa
DIANNE WASHINGTON-KayLicensed
Esthetician & Massage Therapist
Dianne’s Beauty Bar & Day Spa L.L.C.Sent from my iPhone
____________________
Aloha,
Please give a favorable recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194, as it is written. Dozens of local jurisdictions
have implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of
towers and antennas. It is aligned with all Federal and State laws and offers
important updates to the code.
Mahalo
Fern Taryn Sutherland
Maui Resident
From:apurvolove9
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:SUPPORT ITEM 8
Date:Sunday, November 17, 2024 8:22:24 PM
From:George 2024
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Support Item #8....
Date:Sunday, November 17, 2024 8:46:07 PM
Importance:High
Please give a favorable recommendation to the County Council proposed telecommunicationsordinance, Bill 194, as it is written. Dozens of local jurisdictions have implemented ordinances
similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and antennas. It is aligned with allFederal and State laws and offers important updates to the code.
Mahalo and Aloha.
*******************************
"Wisdom lies in simplifying and
reducing our needs, not in expanding them endlessly."
~~ Ernst Friedrich Schumacher (1911 - 1977)
From:Helena Berg
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Support Item #8
Date:Sunday, November 17, 2024 7:11:54 PM
Please give a favorable recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194, as it is written. Dozens of local jurisdictions
have implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers
and antennas. It is aligned with all Federal and State laws and offers important
updates to the code.
From:Nathan Little Brave
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Support Item #8
Date:Sunday, November 17, 2024 8:55:29 PM
Please give a favorable recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194, as it is written. Dozens of local jurisdictions
have implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers
and antennas. It is aligned with all Federal and State laws and offers important
updates to the code.
Mahalo
Janine little Brave
From:Juhl Rayne
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:support item #8
Date:Sunday, November 17, 2024 7:36:08 PM
Please give a favorable recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194, as it is written. Dozens of local jurisdictions
have implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers
and antennas. It is aligned with all Federal and State laws and offers important
updates to the code.
Thank you
Juhl Rayne
Virus-free.www.avg.com
From:kara plumb
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Support item 8
Date:Sunday, November 17, 2024 8:39:32 PM
Please give a favorable recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194, as it is written. Dozens of local jurisdictions
have implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers
and antennas. It is aligned with all Federal and State laws and offers important
updates to the code.
Blessings and aloha,Kara
From:Heart of Hawaii
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:BILL 194
Date:Sunday, November 17, 2024 9:16:13 PM
ITEM #8
Please give a favorable recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194, as it is written. Dozens of localjurisdictions have implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate
the deployment of towers and antennas. It is aligned with all Federaland State laws and offers important updates to the code.
MAHALO and Sincerely, Maile Orme
Kaunakakai, HI.
From:Marsha Andreola
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Support Item # 8
Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 8:26:26 AM
Dear Leeward Planning Commission,
Please give a favorable recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194, as it is written. Dozens of local jurisdictions
have implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers
and antennas. It is aligned with all Federal and State laws and offers important
updates to the code.
Thank you for your consideration,
Marsha Andreola
302 Kealahou Street
Honolulu, HI 96825
From:MESHGLASS
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Support Item #8
Date:Sunday, November 17, 2024 7:37:34 PM
Please give a favorable recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194, as it is written. Dozens of local jurisdictions
have implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers
and antennas. It is aligned with all Federal and State laws and offers important
updates to the code.
-- The information contained in this email message may be copyright, privileged, confidential,and protected from disclosure. Any unauthorized use, printing, copying, disclosure,dissemination of or reliance upon this communication by persons other than the intendedrecipient may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. If you think that you have receivedthis E-mail message in error, please reply to the sender and delete this email promptly.
From:M - Engineer, Scientist, NAEMT TECC
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Support Item #8
Date:Sunday, November 17, 2024 8:39:08 PM
Attachments:ICD-10-Electromagnetic-Hypersensitivity-1.pdf
Please give a favorable recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194, as it is written. Dozens of local jurisdictions
have implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers
and antennas. It is aligned with all Federal and State laws and offers important
updates to the code.
_______________________________________________________________
Comment:
I'm one of the world's 1st high-band 5G Network Design Engineers, designing the Ericsson 6701 5G radio
and supporting routers into the VzW wireless network. Teammates & colleagues died, stroked, were victims
of cancers, tachycardia, and became legally medically-disabled.
Many, additionally, suffer from Traumatic Stress Disorder and PTSD. Exposure is almost impossible to
avoid and many are now shut-ins despite that we used to be active and athletes. I was. I used to thrive
outdoors, cycling 50 miles a day, swimming 1-2 miles a day, running 4-10 miles per day, singing nationally,
being available to help fellow citizens and rescue lives relying on the training of my NAEMT TECC -
Tactical Emergency Casualty Care earned certificate.
My team of engineers was the first in the world to make a successful mobile call with the 5G NR mmW.
VzW told our engineering team, on a conference call, "Do not to tell anyone...not at work or outside of
work...", when my teammate died, who sat the closest of my teammates to the conference room where we
put the Ericsson 6701 5G NR engineers and the radio. The Ericsson engineers who were invited to bring the
radio said that they were afraid of the radio and insisted that it only be turned on for scheduled testing
purposes and not left on. It broadcasted 28 GHz and 39 GHz, the latter a government-only owned frequency
that the FCC did not sell to VzW, as far as I understand. I was the POC - Point of Contact for everything 5G
related on my engineering team.
I became "medically disabled" by the cell tower in my back yard and became "permanently
medically disabled" by the disturbance exposure to that first Ericsson 6701 5G NR (new radio), in the
world, that we tested & implemented at VzW, in the work office of the atrium building on our leased work
floor.
I implore you to become well-educated and not allow monetary or government pressures to manipulate your
decisions. Advocate for your people.
Below are just a few trustworthy resources. I have more available to you upon request:
Medical Disability: ICD-10 Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity - Medical Codes for Cause & Effect:
EMF / RF Poisoning - World Health Organization: Not all presentations of pain are referenced in the
above said URL, ie sensation of burning hands, lap, back, hips, all-over body. .pdf attached.
https://mdsafetech.org/science/es-science/ Global M.D.s' site. "Electrohypersensitivity - “A
phenomenon where individuals experience adverse health effects while using or being in the vicinity
of devices emanating electric, magnetic or electromagnetic fields (EMFs)”. Bergqvist et al. (1997)
Sweden"
https://ehtrust.org/in-historic-decision-federal-court-finds-fcc-failed-to-explain-why-it-ignored-
scientific-evidence-showing-harm-from-wireless-radiation/: EHT Et. Al. v FCC and USA: A United
States higher D.C. court ruled against the USA and the FCC, ruling that cell phones are a Type 1
Carcinogen. 11,000 scientific papers proved that children and pregnant women should not be near
them or use them - August 13, 2021. USA exfilled from Afghanistan that same day. Media buried
the higher D.C. court ruling.
https://ehtrust.org/congress Instead of fast-tracking wireless networks, Congress should ensure it is
protecting the public and environment.
https://publichealth.berkeley.edu/people/joel-moskowitz
https://www.saferemr.com/ Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D. Director - Center for Family and Community
Health School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley
https://icbe-emf.org/ The International Commission on the Biological Effects
https://safertecheducation.org Engineer, "Dad-to-Dad" 10 min vid. Safer Tech Education.
https://mdsafetech.org Global Doctors educate & legally battle against wireless-related
deaths/injuries
https://scientists4wiredtech.com Global Scientists educate & legally battle against wireless-related
deaths/injuries
https://magdahavas.com Professor Emerita, 5G Global Scientist, Global anti-5G podcast
https://ehtrust.org/about/dr-devra-davis '07 Nobel Scientist - wireless tech is lethal; legal action;
education
Free Print: https://free-printable-signs.com/no-cell-phone-sign/
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13290: Anthropogenic electromagnetic noise disrupts
magnetic compass orientation in migratory bird
Most Sincerely and Respectfully,
Mrs. Michelle Turner
Engineer; Citizen Scientist; NAEMT TECC First Responder Certified
Federal Laws Protecting & Providing Public Access Without Injury & Reasonable
Accommodation to All Persons with Disabilities: Americans with Disabilities Act - Trainings-Certified
Rehabilitation Act - Trainings-Certified
Fair Housing Act - Trainings-Certified
Air Carrier Access Act - Trainings-Certified
Access Board - Trainings-Certified
U.S.A. DOJ - advocate and supporter of persons with RF and EMF/ELF Disabilities
LinkedIN: swimriderun
"A joyful heart is good medicine, but a crushed spirit dries up the bones."
King Solomon 970-931 BCE.
Sent from my CAT7 SSTP-triple-shielded Ethernet-wired-then-grounded-computer. We are strictly
hardwired for home/work/play/automotive.
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
1
Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS) and World Health Organization (WHO)1
PART 1: International Classification of Disease and Functioning
A. International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10)
B. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF)
A. International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10): Classification of electromagnetic
hypersensitivity (EHS) requires two or more codes. (The WHO does not use the term
“Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity.” Rather they call it, “idiopathic environmental
intolerance (IEI) attributed to electromagnetic fields (EMF).”
EHS or IEI should be classified under:
(1) Cause – Two codes are available for illness/injury resulting from exposure:
• W90.0 for exposure to radiofrequency radiation (RFR). Note this includes
intermediate frequencies (IF) that flow along wires, microwave radiation
(MWR) as well as millimeter waves (mmW).
• W90.8 for exposure to other non-ionizing radiation, for example extremely
low frequency (ELF) electric and magnetic fields (EMF) and ground
current. http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2010/en#/W90
(2) Effects – various classifications are available for the illnesses/injuries caused by the
exposure to EMF radiation, for example …
• ICD-10 G43 for migraine:
http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2010/en#/G43
• ICD-10 R42 for dizziness and giddiness:
http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2010/en#/R42
• ICD-10 H93.1 for tinnitus:
http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2010/en#/H93.1
B. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF): ICF Checklist
– Version 2.1a, Clinician Form for disability benefits, ill-health pensions etc.
http://www.who.int/classifications/icf/icfchecklist.pdf?ua=1
You must state your disability in the presence of EMF radiation, e.g.:
• “my vision is so badly affected that it would be unsafe for me to take charge
of a group of 8 year olds while on a school trip in a busy city”,
• “my thoughts become so jammed in the presence of EMF Wi-Fi in the hospital
that it would be unsafe for me to administer drugs to my patients in hospital”
1 Based on information provided by ESUK
2
Further details:
PART 2: Activity Limitations & Participation Restrictions
• Activity is the execution of a task or action by an individual. Participation is
involvement in a life situation.
• Activity limitations are difficulties an individual may have in executing activities.
• Participation restrictions are problems an individual may have in involvement in
life situations.
• The Performance qualifier indicates the extent of Participation restriction by
describing the person’s actual performance of a task or action in his or her current
environment. Because the current environment brings in the societal context,
performance can also be understood as "involvement in a life situation" or "the lived
experience" of people in the actual context in which they live. This context includes
the environmental factors – all aspects of the physical, social and attitudinal world
that can be coded using the Environmental.
• The Performance qualifier measures the difficulty the respondent experiences in
doing things, assuming that they want to do them.
• The Capacity qualifier indicates the extent of Activity limitation by describing the
person’s ability to execute a task or an action. The Capacity qualifier focuses on
limitations that are inherent or intrinsic features of the person themselves. These
limitations should be direct manifestations of the respondent's health state, without
the assistance. By assistance we mean the help of another person, or assistance
provided by an adapted or specially designed tool or vehicle, or any form of
environmental modification to a room, home, workplace etc. The level of capacity
should be judged relative to that normally expected of the person, or the person's
capacity before they acquired their health condition.
PART 3: Environmental Factors
• Environmental factors make up the physical, social and attitudinal environment in
which people live and conduct their lives.
• Qualifier in environment, Barriers or facilitator:
0 No barriers 0 No facilitator
1 Mild barriers +1 Mild facilitator
2 Moderate barriers +2 Moderate facilitator
3 Severe barriers +3 Substantial facilitator
4 Complete barriers +4 Complete facilitator
From:Nai`a
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Support item #8
Date:Sunday, November 17, 2024 8:29:13 PM
Please give a favorable recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194, as it is written. Dozens of local jurisdictions
have implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers
and antennas. It is aligned with all Federal and State laws and offers important
updates to the code. Thank you.
Nadine NEWLIGHTHa`iku, HI
I acknowledge that this ‘āina is part of the larger territory
recognized by Indigenous Hawaiians as their ancestral
grandmother, Papahānaumoku. I recognize that Her
Majesty Queen Lili‘uokalani yielded the Hawaiian
Kingdom and these territories under duress and protest
to the United States to avoid the bloodshed of her
people. I further recognize that Hawai‘i remains an
illegally occupied state of America.
From:Rachael Ziebold
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Support Bill 194
Date:Sunday, November 17, 2024 7:15:07 PM
I am writing to express my support for Bill 194 as written. We need to have sensible
regulations to prevent uncontrolled proliferation of cell towers and antennas on our island. Our ecosystem and the health of our residents need to be protected, and these towers have not
been thoroughly enough tested for human and wildlife safety. There needs to be a moresensible balance between the need to expand Internet and cell service and excess
electromagnetic exposures.
Thank you, Rachael Ziebold
Papaikou, HI
From:Roger Christie
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Please SUPPORT Bill 194. Thank you.
Date:Sunday, November 17, 2024 11:10:39 PM
@@@
Aloha.
Please give a favorable recommendation to the County Council proposedtelecommunications ordinance, Bill 194, as it is written.
Dozens of local jurisdictions have implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to
regulate the deployment of towers and antennas. It is aligned with all Federal and
State laws and offers important updates to the code.
All the very best to you and yours and to the people you serve,
Roger Christie
Hilo, Hawai'i
808 464-3966
@@@
From:Ruth Moore
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:BILL 194
Date:Sunday, November 17, 2024 10:52:30 PM
(Item #8)
Please give a favorable recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194, as it is written. Dozens of local jurisdictions
have implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers
and antennas. It is aligned with all Federal and State laws and offers important
updates to the code.
Thank you
Ruth Moore
From:Sarah Hoffman
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Support Item #8
Date:Sunday, November 17, 2024 7:53:25 PM
Hello,
Please give a favorable recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194, as it is written. Dozens of local jurisdictions
have implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers
and antennas. It is aligned with all Federal and State laws and offers important
updates to the code.
Thank you!
Sarah Hoffman
From:Seth McDonough
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Support Item # 8
Date:Sunday, November 17, 2024 8:05:35 PM
Aloha,
Please give a favorable recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194, as it is written. Dozens of local jurisdictions
have implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers
and antennas. It is aligned with all Federal and State laws and offers important
updates to the code.
Mahalo,
Seth
From:TC W
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Support Item #8
Date:Sunday, November 17, 2024 7:41:27 PM
Please give a favorable recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194, as it is written. Dozens of local jurisdictions
have implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers
and antennas. It is aligned with all Federal and State laws and offers important
updates to the code.
From:Adele Henkel
To:LPCtestimonySubject:BILL 194 (Item# 8)Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 10:58:23 AM
To all commissioners on the Leeward Planning Commission,
Please give a FAVORABLE recommendation to the County Council proposed telecommunications ordinance, BILL194, as it is written. Dozens of local jurisdictions have implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and antennas. It is aligned with all Federal and State laws and offers important updates to the code.
Appreciate it!
Adele HenkelPOB 4344Kailua Kona, HI 96745808-756-0046
From:betsyduerr@gmail.com
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Support Item #8
Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 10:13:30 AM
Please give a favorable recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194, as it is written. Dozens of local jurisdictions
have implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers
and antennas. It is aligned with all Federal and State laws and offers important
updates to the code.
I personally know people whose health has been adversely affected by being in close
proximity to cell towers. More research into its impacts and effects on those sensitive
needs to be considered before allowing an indiscriminate proliferation of cell towers.
Mahalo for your consideration in this matter,
Adriana E Duerr
99 Honolii Pl
Hilo, HI 96720
Sent from my iPhone Betsyduerr@gmail.com
From:aerie waters
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:re: Bill 194
Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 12:37:47 PM
Please give a favorable recommendation to the County Council proposedtelecommunications ordinance, Bill 194, as it is written. Dozens of local
jurisdictions have implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate
the deployment of towers and antennas. It is aligned with all Federal and
State laws and offers important updates to the code.
From:akya azarael
To:LPCtestimony
Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 4:22:15 PM
Please give a favorable recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194, as it is written. Dozens of local jurisdictions
have implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers
and antennas. It is aligned with all Federal and State laws and offers important
updates to the code.
_______________________________________________________________
Mahalo, akya Azarael big island resident
From:Alana Ross
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Support Item #8
Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 11:13:55 AM
To whom it may concern,
Re: Bill 194
Please give a favorable recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194, as it is written. Dozens of local jurisdictions
have implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers
and antennas. It is aligned with all Federal and State laws and offers important
updates to the code.
Mahalo,
Alana Ross
Hāna, HI 96713
From:Sophia"s MomTo:LPCtestimony
Subject:I support Council Member Cindy Evans" proposed telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194.
Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 8:52:42 AMAttachments:image1731955915886
Aloha Honorable Planning Commission Members,
I understood this was tabled until a meeting in December. I wonder why this has come back on
your agenda in advance of what you informed the public of at the last public testimony meeting??
This is the 5th time I have shared my concern based on the science of frequencies at this speed
upon many of our citizenry. These studies are peer-reviewed and have been media available to
the public for over 10 years. I did not know you can not open links...I sent you 14 pages of the
scientific testing. It IS damning. Please support Bill 194 because it reflects what we, the people,
want and what honest medical researchers have proven is harmful to health in humans. I
remarked in my last public testimony...both Wuhan China and Northern Italy who suffered the
most casulties in the CoVid crisis had 5G installed.
Council Member Evans introduced the bill in response to our concerns in the North Kohala
community. It includes 5G small wireless facilities which must be regulated. Hawaii County
already passed a resolution to halt 5G. Bill 194 follows up on that by providing necessary
regulations that include 5G small cells.
Mahalo for your email,
April
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
From:chelle claire
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Support #8
Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 5:41:29 AM
Please give a favorable recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194, as it is written. Dozens of local jurisdictions
have implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers
and antennas. It is aligned with all Federal and State laws and offers important
updates to the code. Chelle Galarza
From:Colleen L
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Bill 194
Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 5:51:11 AM
Aloha,
Please give a favorable recommendation to the County Council proposed telecommunicationsordinance, Bill 194, as it is written. Dozens of local jurisdictions have implemented ordinances
similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and antennas. It is aligned with allFederal and State laws and offers important updates to the code. Please help protect our
amazing Hawaii Nei
Colleen Lisowski
From:Dawn Singleton
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Support item 8
Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 10:44:46 AM
Please give a favorable recommendation to the County Council's proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194, as it is written. Dozens of local jurisdictions
have implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers
and antennas. It is aligned with all Federal and State laws and offers essential
updates to the code.
Thank-youDawn
Dawn Eshelman Singleton, PhD, DHS, CTP, DNM
'Board Certified'
Quantum Biofeedback Specialist & Author
"FEEL BETTER THE NATURAL WAY"
www.quantumhealthhawaii.com
From:Debra Greene
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Support Item #8
Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 4:15:30 PM
Attachments:11-22-24 Leeward written testimony.pdf
Aloha Planning Commission Staff,
Attached please find my PDF document of written testimony submitted in support of Item #8for the upcoming meeting on November 21,
Mahalo!
Sincerely,
Debra
__________________________________Debra Greene, PhD
Founding DirectorSafe Tech Hawaii
PHONE: 808-874-6441
WEBSITE: www.SafeTechHawaii.com
Sent from my faster, safer, more secure HARDWIRED computer
Aloha Leeward Commissioners,
Thank you for your attention to the proposed Bill 194. I’m the Founding Director of Safe Tech
Hawaii, a grassroots coalition of thousands of residents across the state concerned about safe
technology. I’m writing in support of County Council Bill 194. Below I address each of the
concerns the Director used to justify his unfavorable recommendation.
1) Regarding proposed Section 25-2-74(1)
The Subsection requires a plot plan showing the location of the proposed antenna or
tower and all buildings and uses within 300 feet thereof. The Director claimed this
requirement is excessive without providing any rationale for his assessment. This is
ironic because he stated that lack of a detailed rationale for this requirement was a
“particularly significant” concern and grounds for an unfavorable recommendation.
Since both Bill 194 and the Director’s proposed ordinance contain setback requirements
for residences and schools, one could easily see how a plot plan showing buildings and
uses could be very helpful. Further, the rationale for this requirement could have been
easily attained had the Director simply asked, as the draft ordinance was shared with
Planning over six months before the Director introduced his ordinance. Cooperation was
demonstrated by Council Member Evans, but not by the Director.
2) Regarding Proposed Section 25-2-74(5)
This Subsection proposes a report prepared by a licensed professional electrical
engineer certifying that the proposed use complies with all applicable standards and
regulations, including RF emissions regulations set by the FCC and the state of Hawaii.
The Director has raised three concerns:
First: The Director stated that the FCC already regulates RF emissions so an additional
report is redundant; yet, ironically, his proposed ordinance requires an additional report
from the FCC verifying compliance. Why is that not redundant?
Further, The Director’s requirement that the FCC provide a statement of compliance or
that no compliance is necessary is of grave concern. Obtaining such a statement from
the FCC, a Federal agency that is not equipped to provide such statements to local
jurisdictions across the U.S., could take weeks and violate the 60-day approval timeline
mandated by HRS 4689.
Second: The Director stated that the proposed report places responsibility on planners
who lack technical expertise to review technical engineering reports; however, no such
burden would be placed on planners. The responsibility is with the licensed professional
who prepared the report. As is customary, planners simply would check a box indicating
that the report was provided.
A report by an independent professional is absolutely necessary because the FCC does
not send representatives onsite to test RF emissions, so there is no way to verify
compliance. According to telecommunications attorney Andrew Campanelli who has
successfully won lawsuits against telecommunications corporations, independent
testing done in other jurisdictions has shown instances in which RF emissions exceeded
the FCC guidelines. This is deeply troubling for the community because the FCC has
some of the most lenient emission standards in the world.
Third: The Director stated that this report requirement could conflict with federal law as
local governments cannot impose stricter RF standards than the FCC. How can a report
certifying compliance with Federal Law conflict with Federal law? There is absolutely
nothing in the proposed ordinance that would impose stricter RF standards than are
required by Federal law - quite the opposite. Again, the proposed requirement, as
stated, is to ensure compliance with Federal law. To suggest it potentially violates
Federal law reflects an inability to properly understand the ordinance. Or maybe there’s
something else at play?
3) Regarding Proposed Subsections 25-2-74(6), (7), (8), (12), (13) and 25-4-12(i)(3) & (4)
These Subsections constitute plan approval application requirements. The Director
stated that these sections are outside the purview of Planning but this is not a valid
claim as there is nothing unusual about these sections. Conditions such as these are
routine for various permit applications here. They include conditions such as flood
control, fire prevention, Department of Health requirements, County code compliance,
and so forth. In addition, jurisdictions across the country have implemented ordinances
such as Bill 194 through their local planning departments. It’s common practice here
and elsewhere to include such provisions.
4) Regarding Proposed Subsection 25-4-12(f)
This Section states that “the director may [emphasis mine] engage a private consultant
to inspect and determine whether the proposed use violates any” FCC standards
provided that the consultant’s time not count toward the time limit.
The Director repeatedly and incorrectly stated that Bill 194 includes the “Use of Private
Consultants” when there is no required use of private consultants anywhere in the bill.
His claim is misleading as the proposed ordinance does not mandate hiring a private
consultant. The choice to engage a private consultant is mentioned once, is optional,
and is at the discretion of the Director.
The Director raised four concerns.
First, he stated that “engaging private consultants may significantly raise costs for the
County, creating unnecessary financial burdens,” but this claim is alarmist and
unfounded. Again, the proposed ordinance does not require hiring a private consultant.
The choice is optional and at the discretion of the Director.
Second, he stated “the current wording suggests that the consultant’s determination
occurs after Plan Approval” but this claim is unfounded as the language refers to “the
proposed use” which indicates this option is part of an application process and does not
occur after Plan Approval. Even if the language needs to be tweaked a bit, that hardly
constitutes a “significant concern” that merits an unfavorable recommendation.
Third, the Director stated that “it would be more logical to hire a consultant before Final
Plan Approval rather than afterward” but, again, the language in this Section refers to
“the proposed use” which indicates this option is part of an application process and
does not occur after Plan Approval.
Fourth, the Director stated that “relying on private consultants could introduce delays in
the approval process” that may violate the 60-day timeframe mandated by HRS 4689.
Again, this claim is unfounded and alarmist because nothing in Bill 194 includes “relying
on private consultants”. The choice to engage a private consultant is mentioned only
once, is optional, and is at the discretion of the Director.
5) Regarding Proposed Section 25-4-12(h)
This Section describes tower siting prioritization. It says:
(h) Telecommunication antennas and towers shall be sited in accordance with the
following order of priority:
(1) On building sites with existing telecommunication antennas or towers;
(2) On industrial zoned lands;
(3) All other lands, exclusive of industrial zoned lands and residential zoned lands;
and
(4) Residential zoned lands.
The Director stated five concerns.
First: The Director’s stated concern is that it’s “unclear how staff should prioritize
applications across zoning districts”, which is confounding since the proposed Section
describes exactly how applications should be prioritized.
Second: He stated it “lacks guidance on whether applicants must analyze unviable
lower-priority sites.” This statement is baffling. Why would an applicant need guidance
about analyzing unviable lower-priority sites? Why is this even a concern for the
Director? And even if it was a valid concern, telecommunications corporations have
endless resources at their disposal. They are free to do any and all analyzing of unviable,
low-priority sites if they so choose without that being stipulated in the ordinance.
Third: The Director stated it’s “uncertain if staff must deny applications for underserved
areas without proper zoning or suggest alternative sites”, a concern that could easily be
remedied.
Fourth: He stated that “prioritization could delay permitting, exceeding the 60-day
approval timeframe” but the Director gives no rationale for what could cause such
delays, so at this time that claim is purely speculative.
Five: He stated that “Enforcement remains undefined.” If Planning is doing its job, they
will adhere to the prioritization and no enforcement would be required. Is the Director
suggesting planners may not adhere to the law and need to be policed, in which case all
of the provisions would need enforcement, not just this one?
Finally, the Director’s proposed ordinance exempts eight zoning districts from setbacks.
This is of grave concern as several of those zones have residential and schools nearby
and even mixed in, so those zones should not be exempted from setbacks. Further, the
Director’s ordinance requires a 1200-foot setback for residential and schools and, given
the proximity issue, this could potentially create a planning nightmare in trying to
differentiate the setbacks versus exemptions. Such exemptions could delay permitting
and exceed the 60-day approval timeframe mandated by HRS 4689. To avoid this
potential violation, the easy remedy would be to uniformly require setbacks with no
exemptions, which is exactly what Bill 194 does.
The one major difference that the Director failed to highlight is that Bill 194 includes
small cell infrastructure whereas his bill doesn’t. This is a major oversight as small cells
are a novel and untested technology that absolutely require regulation for the good of
the public.
In closing, Council members are elected to enact legislation in a democratic process - we
elect them and they represent our needs. The Director has submitted comments that
are critical of Bill 194 and gave an unfavorable recommendation. At the same time he
submitted his own ordinance that goes far beyond simply updating the code to bring it
into compliance with state law, a law that’s actually been on the books for years. Just
couldn’t help but notice that timing.
We also couldn’t help but notice that the Director only consulted with
telecommunication corporations and telecom advocacy groups. There was no actual
input from the community. In contrast, Council Member Evans consulted with us, and
other community groups, over the course of a year to craft her ordinance. Months of
research went into it, using ordinances already adopted in other jurisdictions as
examples to make sure it met all legal and policy requirements. It was cross-checked,
double-checked and re-checked. It’s a good, solid piece of legislation that aligns with
others across the country. It deserves a favorable recommendation.
Thank you for your kind and thoughtful consideration of our comments. Please feel free
to reach out with any questions.
Sincerely,
Debra
_____________________
Debra Greene, PhD
Founding Director
Safe Tech Hawaii
808-874-6441
debra@SafeTechHawaii.com
From:SONGVILAY, ELIZABETH
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Nov 21 Leeward Planning Commission - Agenda #9
Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 4:35:42 PM
Attachments:Nov 21 Leeward Planning Commission_Wireless Industry testimony_Bill 194.pdf
Aloha,
Please see the attached written testimony for Agenda #9 (PL-CCI-2024-000009) (Bill 194) from
the wireless industry for the Nov. 21 Leeward Planning Commission meeting.
Mahalo,
Elizabeth
Elizabeth Songvilay
Director, External Affairs – Hawai‘i, Alaska
AT&T External & Legislative Affairs
November 18, 2024
Leeward Planning Commission
County of Hawai‘i
101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3
Hilo, Hawai‘i 96720
Re: November 21, 2024 Agenda Item #9 (PL-CCI-2024-000009)
Dear Chair DeFranco and Leeward Planning Commissioners,
As providers of wireless services to residents, businesses and visitors across Hawai‘i Island, we
write to concur with the Planning Director’s unfavorable recommendation of Bill 194. As stated
by the Planning Department1 and in comments submitted by the wireless industry included in the
Department’s report, many of the new requirements proposed by Bill 194 extend beyond the
Zoning Code’s authority or are preempted by federal law.
To provide services that wireless customers can continue to rely upon each day, reasonable
zoning requirements and permit review timelines are essential. Bill 194 would put the industry’s
ability to provide wireless services unnecessarily at risk by creating a regulatory framework that
is over-reaching, nearly impossible to comply with, and out of compliance with applicable
federal regulations.
The construction of new telecommunication facilities is typically initiated in response to
increased wireless data traffic and user demand. In 2023, Americans used more than 100 trillion
megabytes of data, the largest single-year increase ever and double that of two years ago.2 This
increase in demand comes from a proliferation of wireless devices (e.g., security/weather
cameras, smartwatches, and GPS systems), as well as enhanced technological capabilities that
require more network data to provide important daily services (e.g., livestreaming,
videoconferencing, and telehealth services).
Further, as the Hawai‘i County Police Department notes, telecommunications facilities are
critical for public safety. In addition to providing wireless services for first responders, our
facilities provide access to 9-1-1 services that deliver emergency help more quickly and
1 BR-CC Initiated-Telecommunication Towers and Antennas.doc 9/16/24.
2 CTIA, “2024 Annual Survey Highlights,” Sept. 10, 2024, https://www.ctia.org/news/2024-annual-survey-
highlights.
effectively, regardless of the service provider.3 To highlight the importance of wireless access to
9-1-1 service, in 2022, over 80 percent of 9-1-1 calls (over 1 million calls) made in Hawai‘i
came from a wireless phone.4
We appreciate the desire within the County to update the county code as it relates to wireless
facilities and look forward to working with the Planning Department, County Council, and other
stakeholders on achieving the County’s goals without compromising deployment of wireless
services.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide written testimony.
Sincerely,
CTIA
WIA
AT&T
Crown
T-Mobile
Verizon
3 A wireless facility would be critical for 9-1-1 access if it is the only available facility in the area. See “911
Reliability,” Federal Communications Commission, https://www.fcc.gov/911-reliability. “Wireless, wireline, and
interconnected VOIP service providers must connect all 911 calls and transmit the caller’s location information to
911 call centers.”
4 “911 Stats & Data,” National 911 Program, 911 Statistics & Data | 911.gov.
From:Esther Felix
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Bill 194
Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 1:04:20 PM
To Whom it may go
Please give a favorable recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194, as it is written. Dozens of local jurisdictions
have implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers
and antennas. It is aligned with all Federal and State laws and offers importantupdates to the code.
Mahalo
Esther Felix
From:George Chyz
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Leeward Planning Commission meeting November 21, 2024
Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 11:48:11 AM
Aloha,
Regarding Item #8:
I support passage of Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and antennas.
Thank you,
George Chyz25 year Hawaii Resident213 Hoolawa Rd.Haiku, HI 96708
From:Heidi Lapray
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Support Item #8
Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 9:29:06 AM
November 18, 9:30am HST
Leeward Planning Commission
Big Island of Hawaii
Please give a favorable recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance,
Bill 194, as it is written.
Dozens of local jurisdictions have implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to
regulate the deployment
of towers and antennas.
It is aligned with all Federal and State laws and offers important updates to the code.
Heidi Lapray
From:Joan Heller
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Support Item #8
Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 5:12:17 PM
Please give a favorable recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194, as it is written. Dozens of local jurisdictions
have implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers
and antennas. It is aligned with all Federal and State laws and offers important
updates to the code.
Thank you, I am a state of Hawaii resident living on Kauai, and would like to see repairs andmaintenance completed first on all current utility infrastructures before any new additions areeven considered.
Regards,
Joan Heller3820 Uakea PlaceLawai 96765
From:June Haygood
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Support Item 8
Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 9:18:24 AM
Please give a FAVORABLE recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194, as it is written.
Dozens of local jurisdictions have implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to
regulate the deployment of towers and antennas.
It is aligned with all Federal and State laws and offers important updates to the code.
Mahalo
June HaygoodKihei HI 96753
From:Kalei Kailikini
To:LPCtestimony
Cc:Stand Together Hawaii; miles.yoshioka@hicc.biz; Roger Christie; Claudia Schimmer
Subject:Bill 194 - Amendments to Chapter 25 by Planning Director
Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 5:18:09 PM
Aloha, my name is Kalei Kailikini (Ms), resident of Hilo, island of Hawaii
representing myself and my Ohana. I support Bill 194 and vehemently oppose an
ordinance to amend Chapter 25 (Zoning), Article 2, Article 4, Article 5, and Article
7 of the Hawaii County Code 1983 (2016 Edition, as amended) relating totelecommunication antennas and towers. The purpose is to remove the requirementfor a use permit to establish telecommunication antennas and towers in certain
zoning districts, add application requirements, and amend standards for the
establishment of telecommunication antennas and towers by the current PlanningDirector for Hawaii County. I congratulate the Hawaii County Council Memberswho are as follows:
A. Chung A. Kierkiewicz
M. David S. Lee LoyEoff V. Poindexter
M. Kaneali’i-Kleinfelder and Villega
All of the above Council Members voted to cease the buildout of 5G wirelessinfrastructure until such technologies have been proven through independentresearch and testing to be safe to human health and the environment with
Resolution 678-20 in July 2020. One County Council Member, T. Richards voted
against Resolution 678-20. I commend these County Council Members for theirconcern and safety extended to Hawaii County residents. The FederalCommunications Commission (FCC) is derelict in it’s obligation as a federal
agency to protect the people of the United States of America by overriding any
County regulations initiated for public safety.
Thousands of scientists, medical doctors, and research have proven that EMFs
(electromagnetic frequencies) are dangerous causing hundreds of illnesses, e.g.
brain cancers, dementia, skin rashes, headaches, loss of vision, more. These
concerned scientists and medical doctors are sounding the alarm. I got involved inresearch of EMFs in 2002 because it was known to cause cancer. The 2G, 3G, 4G
have been studied and scientists already discovered these EMFs can cause disease
& illnesses. Everyone can research EMF dangers and pollution, there are no reasons
why our Hawaii County Council Members cannot research, especially thosementioned who did vote to cease buildout of 5G wireless infrastructure until it can
be proven to be safe. The FCC’s last research on EMF pollution/dangers was done
in 1996 or 28 yrs. ago! More research and more injuries have been reported which
are reasons why more scientists, medical doctors and the public are becoming
involved. Another consideration should be the legal actions that may be initiated
due to deaths and injuries.
It was proven to be dangerous especially for our children. Scientists and medical
doctors agree that children from age 1 day old to 15 yrs. of age are most susceptible
to EMF pollution because they are just developing their brain, eyes, heart, liver, etc.
Also, our seniors (that’s me) are highly susceptible because they tend to haveillnesses e.g. diabetes, cancers, dementia, arthritis & more. Therefore, these twogroups of residents in Hawaii County should be our primary concern. I strongly
recommend that the County Council Members do not allow the
Telecommunications companies the freedom to just build their infrastructures. 5G isused by the US Military as a biological weapon, therefore, with 5G on HawaiiIsland anyone, anything and all are subject to being injured or death with its more
powerful electromagnetic frequencies. 5G technology should be a priority for all
our elected officials to research & know well before voting in favor of any
Telecommunications company allowing 5G installations.
I know that many of our County Council Members are very good people, love their
families, and caring and Resolution 678-20 is evidence of this statement that
happened in July 2020. Today in 2024, please do not lose sight of the importanceof safety for our children, our kupuna and all who live in Hawaii. The Federal
Communications Commission is just a federal agency, and that agency is well
aware that they do not have jurisdiction in any state e.g. California, Texas, Nevada -
the people have the power and that is why you are elected. Please do not forsake orbreach your oath of office …. “_______________, do solemnly swear that I will
support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, and the
Constitution of the State of Hawaii, and I will faithfully discharge my duties as
Council Member to the best of my ability.”
I know that you are caring human beings. Please do not lose sight of your
obligations to our children as they depend on us (elders) to love them, care for
them, and keep them safe!
Mahalo nui loa,
Kalei Kailikini
From:Kalia Naia
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Testimony
Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 2:09:46 PM
Please give a favorable recommendation to the County Council proposed telecommunications
ordinance, Bill 194, as it is written. Dozens of local jurisdictions have implemented ordinancessimilar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and antennas. It is aligned with all
Federal and State laws and offers important updates to the code.
Please give a favorable recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194, as it is written. Dozens of local jurisdictions
have implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of
towers and antennas. It is aligned with all Federal and State laws and offers
important updates to the code.
Aloha
Karola Kueppershaus
From:Karola Kueppershaus
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Support item #8
Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 9:35:26 AM
To whom it may concern,
Dear people in the government,
Thank you for all you do for the people.
From:Kap
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Support Item #8
Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 4:19:29 AM
Please give a favorable recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194, as it is written. Dozens of local jurisdictions
have implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers
and antennas. It is aligned with all Federal and State laws and offers important
updates to the code.
Thank you, Katrina Caputo
From:Larry Turner, MSET
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Support Item #8
Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 1:47:33 PM
Please give a favorable recommendation to the County Council proposed telecommunications
ordinance, Bill 194, as it is written. Dozens of local jurisdictions have implemented ordinancessimilar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and antennas. It is aligned with all
Federal and State laws and offers important updates to the code.You have received an email from my wife, Michelle Turner. I would urge you to not injure
your community any more than they are currently being injured with 4G technology.Thank you for choosing responsibly,
Larry Turner
From:Laurie West
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:SUPPORT ITEM #8
Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 8:57:23 AM
Please give a favorable recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194, as it is written. Dozens of local jurisdictions
have implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers
and antennas. It is aligned with all Federal and State laws and offers important
updates to the code.
From:lilyran
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Support Item #8
Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 2:56:50 PM
Aloha,
Please give a favorable recommendation to the County Council proposed telecommunications
ordinance, Bill 194, as it is written. Dozens of local jurisdictions have implemented ordinances
similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and antennas. It is aligned with all Federal
and State laws and offers important updates to the code.
Mahalo for your service,
Leslee Rachel Cooper
Hana, HI
From:Lisa Kerman
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Support #8
Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 10:48:23 AM
To Anyone Listening,
Please do what’s right in supporting the health of Hawaii’s population and support #8.
Thank you,
Lisa Kerman
Kauai
Sent from my iPhone
From:Lucrezia Oddie
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Support item #8
Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 6:46:59 AM
Please support bill 194 as it is written. Regulation of telecommunications towers at a local
level is important! Repeatedly evidence shows that these can affect the health of us and that ofanimals that cannot speak out.
Thank you.Lucrezia Oddie
700 East Kuiaha Rd Haiku HI 96708
From:Luke
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Support Item 8
Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 9:05:31 AM
Aloha,
Please limit the deployment of cell towers and 5g towers. These are not wanted by the people of Hawaii. They may
have unknown health effects on our future generations. Plant trees not towers!
From:Melarie Broome
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:SUPPORT ITEM 8
Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 12:32:50 AM
Please give a favorable recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194, as it is written. Dozens of local jurisdictions have
implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and
antennas. It is aligned with all Federal and State laws and offers important updates to the
code.
This is very important to me.
Melanie Broome
From:Millicent Cummings
To:LPCtestimony; Millicent Cummings
Subject:Testimony for Bill 194 with NO Amendments
Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 11:57:11 AM
Aloha!
My name is Millicent Cummings, a Hilo resident. I ask that you give a favorablerecommendation to the County Council proposed telecommunications ordinance,
Bill 194, as it is written with NO Amendments. Use permits should NOT be issues
and ALL Health and Safety Regulations should be upheld. 5G technology has been
proven to be dangerous and toxic to both the human organism and the eco-systemsupon which we depend to maintain life here on this planet. There are no long-termstudies to assess the accumulative effects of adding even more radio frequencies on
top of already dangerous levels of radiation poisoning at present.
The radiation from radio frequencies is placed in the same category ofcarcinogen as led. This is a bioweapon that can in fact be used when and how it is
employed. 5G has and will cause injuries, illnesses, disorders, cancers, headaches,
brain disfunction, fatigue and a host of other physical ailments that we need to be
protected in immediate and unconditional terms. To allow any moreexperimentation by increasing the amount of radiation in a literal toxic bath
compromises the immune system, nervous system and ultimately all body
functions.
To allow this said harms to come to us is simply and unequivocally
unconscionable. Mahalo for your due diligence and upholding your oath of office
to protect us. Thank you so much! Sincerely,
Millicent Cummings
From:Naomi Melamed
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Bill 194 support testimony
Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 4:32:50 PM
Aloha Commissioners,
Mahalo for your time and your work here reviewing an updated solution for
wireless infrastructure on the Big Island. My name is Naomi Melamed and I am
an Hawaii Island leader for Safe Tech Hawaii, a voluntary group serving
statewide for several years. We educate and support our local communities and we
engage with the legislative process to promote the balance of connectivity and
safety in Hawaii. We are composed of thousands of local members that care deeply
for the protection of clean air space in Hawaii.
I would like to request that the planning department favorably recommend Bill 194
to the council, and allow for the council members to work out the differences
between the two bills through their process. We have seen that both the PD’s
proposed ordinance and Bill 194 have some language to be worked out. It is unfair,
despite some kinks in both bills, to favorably recommend one over the other.
Especially as their was an attempt early on in the process by the council member
introducing Bill 194 to collaborate - which was not honored. I appreciate that both
bills will be heard alongside one another and careful consideration will be made
with regards to both of them.
I am not an authority on county code, but I include here links to dozens of other
jurisdictions that we follow. Many of them have more strictly protective ordinances
instated in their areas around the US, and similar state laws, which have stood up
in court. Bill 194 is in compliance with usc 47 section 332, C-7-b-4 as it is not
excessive in its request for information from applicants, such as regarding the levels
of EMF that they emit. Bill 194 encourages more transparency with citizens and
gives valuable information, taking those who may be disabled from EMF exposer
into account. I appreciate that the RF emission has a mechanism for update with
each co-location. Our group has conducted a state-wide monitor of EMF emission
from towers and we have found some extremely high levels, which is a genuine
concern for our population, regardless of zone.
As some other testifiers have noted, there was a court ruling on the federal level in
2020 stating that the FCC’s failure to update their acceptable levels for EMF
exposure to humans and the environment was “arbitrary and capricious” and they
IGNORED (judges words) the evidence (11,000 pages of it in court!) from multiple
reputable sources in their most recent review. The FCC is under close watch at this
time. Bill 194 does not impose stricter EMF standards than the FCC. It is simply
asking to know what the emissions are and have a process outlined for how to go
about measuring.
Bill 194 was in the works for about a year. It has been crafted with careful
consideration taken from a wide-range of community members and groups. Even
the planning dept. was approached for collaboration, but chose to take another
path. Our group was pleased to offer our expertise where appropriate, particularly
as we document other jurisdictions who have enacted protective ordinances related
to wireless infrastructure.
Bill 194 is robust legislation as it accordingly reflects the will of the residents of this
island over the desires of big business from abroad. Simultaneously, it lays out a
process which allows for connectivity for all. I appreciate that two bills related to
the same topic coming through the Commission can be confusing, but I encourage
the Commission to favorably recommend Bill 194 and allow the elected council
members to make sense of both bills upon equal ground.
Technology is changing rapidly and one thing I appreciate from Bill 194 is it
includes the regulation of small cells, which are a new and untested part of 5G.
Small cells pose greatly increased exposure due to their buildout and must be
considered in any modern-day legislation. In contrast, they are not mentioned in
the Planning Director's proposed bill. This is a very important point which was not
outlined in the Nov. 1st Commission meeting as a difference between the PD
proposed ordinance and Bill 194.
The Big Island is in great need for Bill 194 to protect the beauty, safety, well-being,
and property values of all who live on or frequent our island. Council member
Evans bill goes into great detail about a fire plan, and site approval requirements,
which puts me as a resident at ease. In contrast I have noticed that in the Directors
bill, there are question marks about who will operate security cameras, also a lack
of easements for access by the fire department, and lack of a comprehensive fire
plan, despite there being other provisions.
I do not see it as a competition, as I support collaboration and consideration. But I
must admit that after following both Bill 194 and the Directors bill, the timing of
the two has been interesting, and I hope for cohesion moving forward.
Thank you very much for reading my testimony.
Mahalo for your time and consideration,
Naomi Melamed
Safe Tech Hawaii, Hawaii Island Leader
Sent from Proton Mail
From:Naomi Melamed
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Re: Bill 194 support testimony attachment for Naomi Melamed item 8
Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 7:33:26 PM
Here are my attached resources mentioned in my testimony today:
POLICIES & ORDINANCES
Note: These were compiled from EHT research of various sources and a special
thank you to Physicians for Safe Technology, My Streets My Choice, Scientists
for Wired Technologyand Last Tree Laws for their extensive resources utilized
on this page. Please be sure to go to these pages for more information.
In addition, Americans For Responsible Technology has created a Sample Small
Cell Ordinance that cities can use as a starting point which incorporates several-
although not all- of these issues. Please download their model ordinance
and utilize their extensive resources at this link.
New York
White Plains, New York Wireless Ordinance
In order to ensure and maintain the safety, property values, and
aesthetic qualities of White Plains streets and neighborhoods, the
following setback provision shall apply: residential districts, a minimum of 250
feet from the nearest structure;
Notifications to property owners located within 500 feet shall be written in a
factual manner devoid of marketing promotion and approved by the
Commissioner of Public Works;
All small wireless facilities… shall at all times be operated in compliance with
the RF standards established by the Federal Communications
Commission. These RF safety standards shall apply to the aggregate
emissions of co-located and nearby facilities not just the emissions of a single
antenna;
Liability insurance without a pollution exclusion, pollution being defined as any
solid, liquid, gaseous or thermal pollutant, irritant or
contaminant including but not limited to artificially produced electric
fields, magnetic fields, electromagnetic fields and all artificially
produced ionizing and non-ionizing radiation;
The following unique clause was also inserted: no new small wireless
facilities, as defined in 47 CFR ¶1.6002 (1), shall be approved unless the
applicant can establish that failure to approve such an application would
violate federal or state law. This clause was inserted to allow the City
of White Plains to deny an application if federal law continues to uphold the
‘significant gap’ provision. At the same time, it allows the CIty to approve an
antenna if the law changes;
Link to White Plains New York Ordinance PDF
Ithaca New York Ordinance
A 1500 foot setback between antennas (old code: 0 feet)
A 300 foot setback between antennas and homes (old code: 0 feet)
Requiring proof of a significant gap in service coverage for any antenna,
proven by ‘in-kind’ testing (such as drive-by tests and dropped calls)
Clarifying that an applicant’s claim that it needs the proposed tower for
“future capacity” is not sufficient to establish that it suffers from a
significant gap in coverage
Requring the least intrusive methods to fill any coverage gap for
antennas
Requiring that a visual impact analysis be submitted for any new
proposed antennas
Requiring General Liability Insurance without a pollution exclusion
Allowing for random, unannounced radiation testing for all towers done
by the City at the expense of the applicant
Including fall-zone requirements that wireless facilities are maintained at
a sufficient distance from other structures and the general public
Establishing a procedure for any disabled persons suffering from EHS to
submit requests/grievances in accordance with the ADA
Establishing that the codes apply to all wireless transmitting antennas,
including any on private homes (OTARD)
Protecting against reductions in property values of properties
situated near wireless facilities
Requiring that the submittal of key items by the applicant is done so
under oath and penalty of perjury
Link to Ithaca New York Wireless Ordinance PDF
Massachusetts
Randolph MA
500 foot setback from any residence or business. Randolph requires a certified
engineer to take radio frequency radiation readings of the tower once a year and
requires the tower company to recertify it’s tower every year. Link to Code
Lunenburg, MA
500 foot setbacks from any residence. Link to Code
Great Barrington MA has 500 foot setbacks away from residences AND their zoning
ordinances state; “Towers and personal wireless service facilities shall be located so
as to minimize the following potential impacts: Safety from excessive electromagnetic
radiation, in case the tower or personal wireless service facility is found to exceed the
FCC guidelines.” https://ecode360.com/28653470
Stockbridge MA prohibits a tower from being built 1000 feet from a school,
park or athletic field and 600 feet away from any residence.
https://townofstockbridge.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/TOWN-OF-
STOCKBRIDGE-MASSACHUSETTS-Zoning-Bylaws-2017.pdfFlorida
RESOLUTION NO. 2021-58: RESOLUTION OF THE BOROUGH COUNCIL OF
THE BOROUGH OF LAVALLETTE CONDITIONALLY APPROVING AN
APPLICATION OF VERIZON/TILSON TECHNOLOGY FOR A RIGHT OF
WAY PERMIT AT 3 LIGGETT ROAD IN THE BOROUGH OF LAVALLETTE,
COUNTY OF OCEAN
The conditional requirement for deployment in Lavallette, and the City
expressly made this a condition precedent before deployment: “The
applicant shall obtain certification from the Federal Aviation Administration
and the United States Department of Defense demonstrating that the
installation does not emit RF frequencies which may interfere with avionics
of any approaching civil or military aircraft.” The City also requires the
applicant to provide RF meters used by their technicians and training the
City employees.
Arkansas
Booneville, Arkansas
Proposed Ordinance would limit cell towers to 250 ft max; industrial zones
Cell tower ordinance read for first time at council meeting, Sept 5, 2018
Danville, California
Proposed Ordinance No. 2018-07: Wireless Communication Facilities
Aesthetic requirements (design guidelines may be developed and amended
from time to time to clarify aesthetic and public safety goals and standards)
Utilities must be underground to extent feasible. “Meters, panels, disconnect
switches and other associated improvements must be placed in inconspicuous
locations to the extent possible”.
Permits valid for initial period of 10 years max
“Where feasible, the location of wireless communication facilities shall be
encouraged to be located on publicly owned or controlled property or right-of-
way.”
Would allow small cells in residential districts:
–“All facilities shall be substantially screened from the view of surrounding
properties and the public view or collocated with existing facilities or structures
so as not to create substantial additional visual, noise, or thermal impacts. “
–Property owners within 300 ft of proposed site must be notified
Danville, California: Ordinance No. 2018-07 Wireless Communications Facilities
PDF
http://mystreetmychoice.com/danville.html
http://scientists4wiredtech.com/danville/municipal-wireless-code/
Encinitas, California
Urgency Ordinance
5G opponents cite health concerns in urging city to limit wireless antennas
Fairfax, California
Urgency Ordinance to Establish New Regulations for Wireless
Telecommunications Facilities; Ad hoc committee to study viability of fiber
network
Ordinance No.819 An Urgency Ordinance Enacting Title 20
(“Telecommunications”) of the Fairfax Municipal Code to Establish New
Regulations for Wireless Telecommunication Facilities [small cell devices a.k.a.
5G]
Redlined version
News: Marin Independent Journal Fairfax to study fiber-optic broadband amid
protest against 5G
Los Altos, California
installation of small cells on public utility easements in residential
neighborhoods is prohibited
500 foot setbacks for small cells for multi-family residences in commercial
districts
500 ft separation from schools
1500 ft separation between nodes
Los Altos Urgency Ordinance:
Los Altos Citing Guidelines:
This ordinance was passed in 2019. Then the Los Altos City Council then
rejected 12 applications from AT&T and one from Verizon because they didn’t
meet those rules. In response, both cell companies sued in federal court,
arguing the denial wasn’t based on evidence. The lawsuit is still
pending while consultants hired by the city of Los Altos worked on a new
ordinance. The new ordinance, which was reviewed by the Los Altos Planning
Commission on Thursday, says that cell nodes can go in residential streets as
long as they are near a main road, within 200 to 500 feet.
According to WireAmerica.org: The new Los Altos ordinance “says the city will
grant exceptions if a cell company has evidence they need a site in a residential
neighborhood to eliminate a significant gap in telecommunications coverage.
The company would have to demonstrate, with substantial evidence in the public
record, that not putting the antenna at that location would result in an effective
prohibition of telecommunications service — a tough row to hoe for Wireless
companies because everyone can make a wireless phone call on every
carrier network in Los Altos today. The ordinance has several other
restrictions on things like height, noise and Wireless Telecommunications
Facility (WTF) design. Attorney Deborah Fox, who is representing the city
against AT&T and Verizon, said the ordinance is “state of the art” and she is
confident that it meets federal law.”
Marin County, California
Draft as of June 21, 2019 The city is mapped to show where the cell towers are
allowed.Marin drafts preferences for 5G rollout,Point Reyes Light
“Marin’s draft rules select industrial, commercial or agricultural sites, or sites
near public facilities, as preferred locations for the antennas; residential and
mixed-use sites and areas within 1,500 feet of schools and daycare centers
are the least-preferred locations.The draft favors placing antennas on existing
street poles or traffic lights, versus new poles or small cell facilities. It limits
antennas to one per pole and stipulates they must be at least 1,000 feet apart.
It also includes aesthetic requirements that aim to blend equipment, and
prohibits equipment on historic buildings.”
Mill Valley, California
Urgency Ordinance No 18, September 6, 2018
New or updated facilities prohibited in residential zones. Commercial only.
Facilities installed on poles in public right of way must be 1,500 feet apart
Design, noise standards
Facilities in public right of way that would interfere with future projects /
improvements must be relocated
Promptly remove facilities when no longer needed; replace with smaller
facilities as feasible
Defend and indemnify the City
Mill Valley, California: Urgency Ordinance No 18, September 6, 2018
Tech Crunch” Bay Area Blocks 5G Deployment Over Cancer Concerns
Marin Post Mill Valley Council Adopts Wireless Ordinance Protects
Community
Palo Alto, California
City Council voted unanimously to approve a Resolution and amended Wireless
Ordinance that City Staff had proposed. Council also voted unanimously in favor
of a motion to direct City Staff “to come back as soon as possible but [in] no
more than [one year], with an updated Ordinance/Resolution that considers”
(and e summarizing):
1. Disfavoring the placement of cell towers in, for example, residential zones and
near schools;
2. Minimum setbacks for cell towers from homes and schools, and minimum
distances between cell towers;
3. Creating a list of city-owned buildings that would be appropriate sites for
macro cell towers (i.e., as an alternative to small cell node cell towers next to
people’s homes);
Council also voted to direct City Staff to return to Council with a recommendation
for “best practices” with respect to inspecting antennas.
“Seeking to strike a balance between federal requirements and resident
concerns, Palo Alto approved on Monday night new rules for reviewing the flurry
of applications that the city has been receiving from telecommunication
companies seeking to install antennas on local streetlights and utility poles.
By a 6-0 vote, with Councilman Greg Tanaka absent, the council adopted a set
of “objective standards” for wireless communication facilities, including a menu
of preferred design alternatives for radio equipment and antennas. And in a nod
to the dozens of residents who have raised alarms about the proliferation of
cellular facilities on their blocks, the council launched a new effort to further
restrict where such technology can be installed and to explore “minimum
distance” requirements for wireless equipment in relation to local schools and
homes.”
Palo Alto looks to distance cell antennas from homes, schools
Palos Verdes, California
According to citizens of the city, after citizen uproar, Crown Castle began
complying with municipal aesthetic requirements and moving proposed locations
out of neighborhoods and away from homes. The ordinance has four key
components, if these are met the site will almost certainly be approved:
Minimal antenna size with screening
All accessory equipment underground (everything except the antenna)
Combining sites with existing vertical infrastructure (streetlights, traffic signals,
etc.)
Strict location restrictions, no sites on local, residential streets without an
exception granted
If they don’t comply with these, then the applicant must demonstrate the site is
required to fill a significant gap and there is no less intrusive alternative to
receive an exception. This is not simply checking a box (i.e. the applicant just
claiming these conditions exist) but has to be demonstrated to the City
planning commission via engineering analysis.
Palos Verdes, California Ordinance Chapter 12.18 – WIRELESS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
Petaluma, California
Ordinance of the City Council of Petaluma
Protect environmental resources; protect residents against adverse health
effects
Protect visual character; don’t create visual blight
Protect environmental resources; protect residents against adverse health
effects
Commercial or industrial zones
Antennas must connect to an already existing utility pole that can support its
weight.
Servicing wires must be installed within the width of the existing utility.
All ground-mounted equipment not to be installed inside the pole must be
undergrounded, flush to the ground, within three (3) feet of the utility pole.
Dedicated power source to be installed and metered separately.
1,500 feet minimum between each Small Cell facility.
No Small Cell shall be within 500 feet of any residence.
An encroachment permit must be obtained for any work in the right-of-way.
Petaluma, California: Ordinance of the City Council of Petaluma PDF
Ross Valley, California
Wireless Telecommunications Facilities
Modeled after Mill Valley’s
Adopted regulations prohibit facilities in residential and downtown zoning
district.
Facilities proposed in the public right-of-way subject to separate design
criteria.
Limits height and width of facilities to a minimum necessary for property
function.
Maximum height of 24 feet above the height of the existing utility pole and 7
feet above a street light standard.
Requires equipment to be placed underground.
Ross Valley, California: Wireless Telecommunications Facilities PDF
SAN ANSELMO, CALIFORNIA
Council Policy
People within 300 feet of proposed antenna will be notified
Town is entitled to employ independent consultant at applicant’s expense to
evaluate exceptions
San Anselmo, California PDF
San Diego County, California
Draft ordinance (5-31-2019) for small cell antenna sites in San Diego County has
the following requirement:
“SCWs shall not be located within 1,000 feet of schools, child care centers,
hospitals, or churches. Distance, without regard to intervening structures, shall
be a straight line measured from the closest property lines.”
San Diego County Ordinance
San Jose, California
Negotiated agreement
“officials made improved access to areas with low internet participation a
precondition for reducing fees…agreement set tiered costs per network node
installation, with lower fees for companies deploying more nodes. Along with this
incentive, three companies pledged to contribute a total of $24 million over the
next decade to a digital inclusion fund.” (GovTech)
News Stories The Future of 5G: The Bitter Battle for Local Control
Suisin CA
500 ft setback and all facilities permitted pursuant to thischapter shall comply with the ADA.
San Anselmo, CA
300ft setback residents notified
Calabasas, CA
1000 feet setback for small cells.
Westlake, CA
500 feet setback
San Clemente, CA
500 feet setback
San Rafael, California
City Council Report
Dec. 5, 2018 front page news story: https://www.marinij.com/2018/12/04/san-
rafael-officials-work-to-tighten-5g-antenna-rules/
Dec. 18, 2018 front page story: https://www.marinij.com/2018/12/18/san-rafael-
adopts-urgency-ordinance-to-keep-grip-on-5g-proliferation/
City Staff Report: URGENCY ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SAN RAFAEL
MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 14 (ZONING) AND ACCOMPANYING POLICY
RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH PROVISIONS AND PROCEDURES FOR
REGULATING THE PLACEMENT OF SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES
San Rafael, California: December 2018 Documentation for City Action on
12/18/2018
“I want the city and county government to clearly say no to the FCC,” said
resident Arthur Saftlas. “No 5G installations of any kind in Marin, until it can be
proven safe for us and the environment.”- San Rafael, Calif., Officials Work to
Tighten 5G Regulation
San Rafael Residents Take Pre-emptive Strike Against 5G
Sebastopol, California
City Council Agenda Item Report and Urgency Ordinance (Recommended)
Purpose: Institute a moratorium on applications for small cells in the public
right-of-way until adoption of a permanent ordinance
Previous regulations on telecommunications facilities (according to the
recommended urgency ordinance, these did not anticipate 5G and do not
address installation of telecommunications facilities in the right-of-way):
Purpose: Protect visual character, inhabitants, environmental resources
Cannot be located in any required yard setback area
Facilities within 400 feet of residential areas, schools, churches, hospitals etc
must comply with NIER standards
Minor facilities must be 75 feet away from a “residential dwelling unit” except 1
single family residence on the property where it is located
Sebastopol, California: City Council Agenda Item Report and Urgency Ordinance
Establishing a Moratorium on Small Cells in the Public Right of Way
Other Links
http://scientists4wiredtech.com/sebastopol/sb-muni-code/
http://mystreetmychoice.com/sebastopol.html
Sonoma, California
Report and Urgency Ordinance
On Nov 5, 2018 Sonoma approved their 5G urgency ordinance.
500 ft setback and residents notified.
“Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds and determines that the
immediate preservation of the public health, safety and welfare requires that this
Ordinance be enacted as an urgency ordinance pursuant to Government Code
Section 36937(b), and take effect immediately upon adoption. Therefore, this
Ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace,
health, safety and welfare and its urgency is hereby declared.”
The City also has a Small Cell Tower page.
Sonoma California Ordinance on 5G
WALNUT CITY, CALIFORNIA
“Telecommunication towers and antennas shall not be located within 1,500
feet of any school (nursery, elementary, junior high, and high school), trail,
park or outdoor recreation area, sporting venues, and residential zones.”
Screenshot of Ordinance from Walnut Website,
To see the code online go to https://qcode.us/codes/walnut/, Click on “Title 6:
Planning and Zoning” Click on “Chapter 6.88 ANTENNAS AND
COMMUNICATION FACILITIES”, Click on “6.88.060 Design standards, See
Item “O.
Warren, Connecticut
This policy defines adequate coverage and adequate capacity. It details that it
was designed “to locate towers and/or antennas in a manner which protects
property values, as well as the general safety, health, welfare and quality of life
of the citizens of Warren and all those who visit this community, minimize the
total number and height of towers throughout Warren, and provide standards
and requirements for the regulation, placement, design, appearance,
construction, monitoring, modification and removal of telecommunications
facilities and towers.”
“Coverage is considered to be “adequate” within that area surrounding a Base
Station where the predicted or measured median field strength of the
transmitted signal is such that the majority of the time, transceivers properly
installed and operated will be able to communicate with the base station. In
the case of cellular communications in a rural environment like Warren, this
would be a signal strength of at least -90 dBm for at least 75% of the coverage
area. It is acceptable for there to be holes within the area of Adequate
Coverage where the signal is less than -90 dBm, as long as the signal regains
its strength to greater than -90 dBm further away from the Base Station.”
“Capacity is considered to be “adequate” if the Grade of Service (GOS) is p.05
or better for median traffic levels offered during the typical busy hour, as
assessed by direct measurement of the Personal Wireless Service Facility in
question.”
TOWN OF WARREN SECTION 29 – SPECIAL PERMIT FOR
TELECOMMUNICATIONS: FACILITIES AND TOWERS December 11,
2012, Warren website link
BURLINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS
Town of Burlington Policy Applications for Small Cell Wireless Installations,
October 22, 2018
Small Cell Committee drafted a policy with annual recertification fees. Verizon
withdrew its application, concerned by the precedent it would set and
questioning its legality.
Verizon attorney Mr. Klasnick stated “My client respectfully requests to
withdraw the petition rather than have a fee,” he said.(BCATTV)
The Town of Burlington Policy / Application for Small Cell Wireless Installations
approved by the Burlington Board of Selectmen on October 22, 2018 PDF.
According to BCATTV Verizon Drops Small Cell Wireless Booster Application in
Face of Fees:
“This week Selectman Jim Tigges, the board’s representative on the Small Cells
Committee, said the group had come up with a new policy for small cell
applications. The policy contains a number of provisions while filing an
application, including setting installation fees, listing the town department that
must receive a copy for review and setting up the timeline for approval.
The Verizon application, however, would not be subject to the policy because it
was submitted before its adoption. However, Tigges and the committee did have
a number of conditions for the project it recommended to the board. They
included:
– No apparatus on double poles
– An agreement to annual recertification
– Equipment shall be located on top of the poles, colored similarly to the polse
so as to blend in.
– Equipment shall not interfere with other equipment on the pole, nor obstruct or
interfere with access to or operation of street lights or traffic controls devices on
the pole.
– Poles must meet ADA standards.”
-NEWS: Verizon Drops Small Cell Wireless Booster Application in Face of Fees,
October 23, 2018
Holyoke, Massachusetts
Draft policy $500 fee for city inspection of rooftop poles/roofs every 2 years
Holyoke has submitted an order from councilor Bartley Roman to limit
equipment and require $500 apiece per small cell–$500 may exceed FCC
limits. At-large councilor Rebecca Lisi, on behalf of a Holyoke resident,
recently submitted to the town lawyer a copy of the ordinance drafted by
Pittsfield.
Information from https://www.lasttreelaws.com/ordinances.html
Pittsfield, Massachusetts
Proposed Section: Wireless Communications Facilities
Telecom company must prove prefered site/existing structure does not work
Above ground aesthetic requirements
Sound and light restrictions with emphasis on industry proving compliance
Pittsfield, Massachusetts: Proposed Section: Wireless Communications Facilities
PDF
Little Silver, New Jersey
Carriers should provide notice to property owners within five hundred (500’)
feet of the proposed Telecommunications Facility.
The applicant must demonstrate to the reasonable satisfaction of the Borough
that no existing personal wireless Telecommunication Service Facility within a
reasonable distance can accommodate needs.
Indemnification clause: “Each license grantee shall indemnify and hold the
Borough and its officers, employees, agents and representatives harmless
from and against any and all damages, losses and expenses, including
reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit or defense, arising out of,
resulting from or alleged to arise out of or result from the negligent, careless or
wrongful acts, omissions, failures to act or misconduct of the grantee or its
affiliates, officers, employees, agents, contractors or subcontractors in the
construction, operation, maintenance, repair or removal of its
Telecommunications Facilities, and in providing or offering
Telecommunications Services over the facilities, whether such acts or
omissions are authorized, allowed or prohibited by this Chapter or by a grant
agreement made or entered into pursuant to this Chapter.”
“Little Silver New Jersey: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND
SUPPLEMENTING CHAPTER 16A “LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT
ORDINANCE” OF THE REVISED GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE
BOROUGH OF LITTLE SILVER, COUNTY OF MONMOUTH, STATE OF
NEW JERSEY AMENDING SECTION 16A-2 “DEFINITIONS” AND 16A-5
GENERAL PROVISION ADDING NEW SUBSECTION 5-28 “PLACEMENT
OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES”
New York
Ithaca , New York
Ithaca’s code of 250 feet
A 1500 foot setback between antennas (old code: 0 feet)
A 250 foot setback between antennas and homes/schools (old code: 8 feet)
Requiring proof of a significant gap in service coverage for any antenna,
proven by ‘in-kind’ testing (such as drive-by tests and dropped calls)
Clarifying that an applicant’s claim that it needs the proposed tower for “future
capacity” or to “improve coverage” is not sufficient to establish that it suffers
from a significant gap in coverage
Requring the least intrusive methods to fill any coverage gap for antennas
Requiring that a visual impact analysis be submitted for any new proposed
antennas
Requiring General Liability Insurance without a pollution exclusion
Allowing for random, unannounced radiation testing for all towers done by the
City at the expense of the applicant
Including fall-zone requirements that wireless facilities are maintained at a
sufficient distance from other structures and the general public
Allowing for revocability (a clause allowing the voiding of any contract
requiring its modification in the event of a regulatory change)
Mandating certified mail notices of any proposed tower be sent to people living
near a proposed site before approval, paid for by the applicant.
Establishing a procedure for any disabled persons suffering from EHS to
submit requests/grievances in accordance with the ADA
Establishing that the codes apply to all wireless transmitting antennas,
including any on private homes (aimed at the OTARD challenge)
Deputizing any citizen to test for RF emissions
Protecting against reductions in property values of properties situated near
wireless facilities
Requiring that everything submitted by the applicant is done so under oath
and penalty of perjury
Download PDF of Ithaca code here.
Scarsdale, New York
Scarsdale, New York Passed a Wireless Ordinance To Limit Cell Antennas 500
Feet From Homes, Schools and Daycares
1. Pre- and post-installation RF testing requirements by independent contractor;
additionally, routine annual monitoring
2. Pre-notification of small cell application to residents within a 1,000-foot radius
of proposed installation
3. Pre-notification of small cell application to President-At-Large of the
neighborhood association and to the president of neighborhood association in
which the wireless facility is proposed
4. Location preferences (restricted zones) that require special exceptions for
installations
Any location within 500 feet from a residential dwelling unit
Any location within 500 feet from a daycare facility or school
Any location within 500 feet from a house of worship
Any location within parkland
5. Village is insured against any liability for personal injury or property damage or
claims pertaining to RF exposure
6. Existence of appeals process (de novo hearing in front of Planning Board)
Copake New York
(Link to Copake NY code)
Pretesting and post testing by RF engineer
Annual monitoring of RF emissions by the independent RF engineer using actual
field measurements
Hempstead, New York
Wireless Communications Facilities
Requires a special use permit for cell towers that encourages location of new
wireless facilities so as to minimize their impact on historically sensitive areas
around residences, schools, houses of worship, day-care centers. Seven
consideration factors are listed in order from more to least preferred, with
existing towers being most preferred and new towers in residential zones
least preferred.
Prohibits towers from exceeding a height that permits it to operate without
artificial lighting
Allows the town to hire consultants and do inspections
Set a fee schedule of $500 per pole
Requires a 4 foot warning sign on the pole
Utilities at wireless installations should be underground when possible
Hempstead, New York: Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance
eCodeChapter 142
Other Links
https://mdsafetech.org/cell-tower-and-city-ordinances/
https://hempsteadny.gov/permits-and-applications/wireless-telecom-ordinance
Mason, Ohio
Zoning Ordinance – Wireless Communications Systems
No small cells in residential areas or within 100 feet of property used for
residential use
Small cells must be 2000 feet apart (unless colocated)
Small cells are between 20-30 ft high (may be able to exceed 30 ft if
colocated)
Every attempt shall be made to locate small cells on existing structures; if not
available, within public right of way
All related equipment should be underground or wholly contained so not
visible
Each facility shall consist of no more than 1 antenna/user and capable of
providing communication for at least 2 users
Mason, Ohio Zoning Ordinance PDF
Lancaster, Pennsylvania
Zoning Changes via Ordinance 9-2016
City Council rushed through zoning changes to declare many streets off limits
to new poles (said they could be much taller than existing ones)
Public Utility Commission stripped Mobilitie and other distributed-antenna
companies of utility status, meaning that they would not get any more
“certificates of public convenience” in Pennsylvania.
Lancaster, Pennsylvania Ordinance No. 9-2016 PDF
News Stories
http://www.philly.com/philly/business/comcast/philly-and-suburbs-brace-for-
attack-of-the-small-cells-20170601.html?arc404=true
http://www.govtech.com/dc/articles/Philadelphia-Braces-For-Small-Cell-
Future.html
Note: This list was compiled from EHT research of various sources and a special
thank you to Physicians for Safe Technology, My Streets My Choice and Last
Tree Laws for their extensive resources. Please contact EHT to add your Cities
information.
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
On Monday, November 18th, 2024 at 4:32 PM, Naomi Melamed <hinaomi@protonmail.com>wrote:
Aloha Commissioners,
Mahalo for your time and your work here reviewing an updated
solution for wireless infrastructure on the Big Island. My name is Naomi
Melamed and I am an Hawaii Island leader for Safe Tech Hawaii, a
voluntary group serving statewide for several years. We educate and
support our local communities and we engage with the legislative
process to promote the balance of connectivity and safety in Hawaii. We
are composed of thousands of local members that care deeply for the
protection of clean air space in Hawaii.
I would like to request that the planning department favorably
recommend Bill 194 to the council, and allow for the council members to
work out the differences between the two bills through their process. We
have seen that both the PD’s proposed ordinance and Bill 194 have some
language to be worked out. It is unfair, despite some kinks in both bills,
to favorably recommend one over the other. Especially as their was an
attempt early on in the process by the council member introducing Bill
194 to collaborate - which was not honored. I appreciate that both bills
will be heard alongside one another and careful consideration will be
made with regards to both of them.
I am not an authority on county code, but I include here links to dozens
of other jurisdictions that we follow. Many of them have more strictly
protective ordinances instated in their areas around the US, and similar
state laws, which have stood up in court. Bill 194 is in compliance with
usc 47 section 332, C-7-b-4 as it is not excessive in its request for
information from applicants, such as regarding the levels of EMF that
they emit. Bill 194 encourages more transparency with citizens and gives
valuable information, taking those who may be disabled from EMF
exposer into account. I appreciate that the RF emission has a mechanism
for update with each co-location. Our group has conducted a state-wide
monitor of EMF emission from towers and we have found some
extremely high levels, which is a genuine concern for our population,
regardless of zone.
As some other testifiers have noted, there was a court ruling on the
federal level in 2020 stating that the FCC’s failure to update their
acceptable levels for EMF exposure to humans and the environment was
“arbitrary and capricious” and they IGNORED (judges words) the
evidence (11,000 pages of it in court!) from multiple reputable sources in
their most recent review. The FCC is under close watch at this time. Bill
194 does not impose stricter EMF standards than the FCC. It is simply
asking to know what the emissions are and have a process outlined for
how to go about measuring.
Bill 194 was in the works for about a year. It has been crafted with
careful consideration taken from a wide-range of community members
and groups. Even the planning dept. was approached for collaboration,
but chose to take another path. Our group was pleased to offer our
expertise where appropriate, particularly as we document other
jurisdictions who have enacted protective ordinances related to wireless
infrastructure.
Bill 194 is robust legislation as it accordingly reflects the will of the
residents of this island over the desires of big business from abroad.
Simultaneously, it lays out a process which allows for connectivity for
all. I appreciate that two bills related to the same topic coming through
the Commission can be confusing, but I encourage the Commission to
favorably recommend Bill 194 and allow the elected council members to
make sense of both bills upon equal ground.
Technology is changing rapidly and one thing I appreciate from Bill 194
is it includes the regulation of small cells, which are a new and untested
part of 5G. Small cells pose greatly increased exposure due to their
buildout and must be considered in any modern-day legislation. In
contrast, they are not mentioned in the Planning Director's proposed
bill. This is a very important point which was not outlined in the Nov.
1st Commission meeting as a difference between the PD proposed
ordinance and Bill 194.
The Big Island is in great need for Bill 194 to protect the beauty, safety,
well-being, and property values of all who live on or frequent our island.
Council member Evans bill goes into great detail about a fire plan, and
site approval requirements, which puts me as a resident at ease. In
contrast I have noticed that in the Directors bill, there are question
marks about who will operate security cameras, also a lack of easements
for access by the fire department, and lack of a comprehensive fire plan,
despite there being other provisions.
I do not see it as a competition, as I support collaboration and
consideration. But I must admit that after following both Bill 194 and
the Directors bill, the timing of the two has been interesting, and I hope
for cohesion moving forward.
Thank you very much for reading my testimony.
Mahalo for your time and consideration,
Naomi Melamed
Safe Tech Hawaii, Hawaii Island Leader
Sent from Proton Mail
From:Naomi Melamed
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Re: Bill 194 support testimony attachment for Naomi Melamed item 8
Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 7:33:26 PM
Here are my attached resources mentioned in my testimony today:
POLICIES & ORDINANCES
Note: These were compiled from EHT research of various sources and a special
thank you to Physicians for Safe Technology, My Streets My Choice, Scientists
for Wired Technologyand Last Tree Laws for their extensive resources utilized
on this page. Please be sure to go to these pages for more information.
In addition, Americans For Responsible Technology has created a Sample Small
Cell Ordinance that cities can use as a starting point which incorporates several-
although not all- of these issues. Please download their model ordinance
and utilize their extensive resources at this link.
New York
White Plains, New York Wireless Ordinance
In order to ensure and maintain the safety, property values, and
aesthetic qualities of White Plains streets and neighborhoods, the
following setback provision shall apply: residential districts, a minimum of 250
feet from the nearest structure;
Notifications to property owners located within 500 feet shall be written in a
factual manner devoid of marketing promotion and approved by the
Commissioner of Public Works;
All small wireless facilities… shall at all times be operated in compliance with
the RF standards established by the Federal Communications
Commission. These RF safety standards shall apply to the aggregate
emissions of co-located and nearby facilities not just the emissions of a single
antenna;
Liability insurance without a pollution exclusion, pollution being defined as any
solid, liquid, gaseous or thermal pollutant, irritant or
contaminant including but not limited to artificially produced electric
fields, magnetic fields, electromagnetic fields and all artificially
produced ionizing and non-ionizing radiation;
The following unique clause was also inserted: no new small wireless
facilities, as defined in 47 CFR ¶1.6002 (1), shall be approved unless the
applicant can establish that failure to approve such an application would
violate federal or state law. This clause was inserted to allow the City
of White Plains to deny an application if federal law continues to uphold the
‘significant gap’ provision. At the same time, it allows the CIty to approve an
antenna if the law changes;
Link to White Plains New York Ordinance PDF
Ithaca New York Ordinance
A 1500 foot setback between antennas (old code: 0 feet)
A 300 foot setback between antennas and homes (old code: 0 feet)
Requiring proof of a significant gap in service coverage for any antenna,
proven by ‘in-kind’ testing (such as drive-by tests and dropped calls)
Clarifying that an applicant’s claim that it needs the proposed tower for
“future capacity” is not sufficient to establish that it suffers from a
significant gap in coverage
Requring the least intrusive methods to fill any coverage gap for
antennas
Requiring that a visual impact analysis be submitted for any new
proposed antennas
Requiring General Liability Insurance without a pollution exclusion
Allowing for random, unannounced radiation testing for all towers done
by the City at the expense of the applicant
Including fall-zone requirements that wireless facilities are maintained at
a sufficient distance from other structures and the general public
Establishing a procedure for any disabled persons suffering from EHS to
submit requests/grievances in accordance with the ADA
Establishing that the codes apply to all wireless transmitting antennas,
including any on private homes (OTARD)
Protecting against reductions in property values of properties
situated near wireless facilities
Requiring that the submittal of key items by the applicant is done so
under oath and penalty of perjury
Link to Ithaca New York Wireless Ordinance PDF
Massachusetts
Randolph MA
500 foot setback from any residence or business. Randolph requires a certified
engineer to take radio frequency radiation readings of the tower once a year and
requires the tower company to recertify it’s tower every year. Link to Code
Lunenburg, MA
500 foot setbacks from any residence. Link to Code
Great Barrington MA has 500 foot setbacks away from residences AND their zoning
ordinances state; “Towers and personal wireless service facilities shall be located so
as to minimize the following potential impacts: Safety from excessive electromagnetic
radiation, in case the tower or personal wireless service facility is found to exceed the
FCC guidelines.” https://ecode360.com/28653470
Stockbridge MA prohibits a tower from being built 1000 feet from a school,
park or athletic field and 600 feet away from any residence.
https://townofstockbridge.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/TOWN-OF-
STOCKBRIDGE-MASSACHUSETTS-Zoning-Bylaws-2017.pdfFlorida
RESOLUTION NO. 2021-58: RESOLUTION OF THE BOROUGH COUNCIL OF
THE BOROUGH OF LAVALLETTE CONDITIONALLY APPROVING AN
APPLICATION OF VERIZON/TILSON TECHNOLOGY FOR A RIGHT OF
WAY PERMIT AT 3 LIGGETT ROAD IN THE BOROUGH OF LAVALLETTE,
COUNTY OF OCEAN
The conditional requirement for deployment in Lavallette, and the City
expressly made this a condition precedent before deployment: “The
applicant shall obtain certification from the Federal Aviation Administration
and the United States Department of Defense demonstrating that the
installation does not emit RF frequencies which may interfere with avionics
of any approaching civil or military aircraft.” The City also requires the
applicant to provide RF meters used by their technicians and training the
City employees.
Arkansas
Booneville, Arkansas
Proposed Ordinance would limit cell towers to 250 ft max; industrial zones
Cell tower ordinance read for first time at council meeting, Sept 5, 2018
Danville, California
Proposed Ordinance No. 2018-07: Wireless Communication Facilities
Aesthetic requirements (design guidelines may be developed and amended
from time to time to clarify aesthetic and public safety goals and standards)
Utilities must be underground to extent feasible. “Meters, panels, disconnect
switches and other associated improvements must be placed in inconspicuous
locations to the extent possible”.
Permits valid for initial period of 10 years max
“Where feasible, the location of wireless communication facilities shall be
encouraged to be located on publicly owned or controlled property or right-of-
way.”
Would allow small cells in residential districts:
–“All facilities shall be substantially screened from the view of surrounding
properties and the public view or collocated with existing facilities or structures
so as not to create substantial additional visual, noise, or thermal impacts. “
–Property owners within 300 ft of proposed site must be notified
Danville, California: Ordinance No. 2018-07 Wireless Communications Facilities
PDF
http://mystreetmychoice.com/danville.html
http://scientists4wiredtech.com/danville/municipal-wireless-code/
Encinitas, California
Urgency Ordinance
5G opponents cite health concerns in urging city to limit wireless antennas
Fairfax, California
Urgency Ordinance to Establish New Regulations for Wireless
Telecommunications Facilities; Ad hoc committee to study viability of fiber
network
Ordinance No.819 An Urgency Ordinance Enacting Title 20
(“Telecommunications”) of the Fairfax Municipal Code to Establish New
Regulations for Wireless Telecommunication Facilities [small cell devices a.k.a.
5G]
Redlined version
News: Marin Independent Journal Fairfax to study fiber-optic broadband amid
protest against 5G
Los Altos, California
installation of small cells on public utility easements in residential
neighborhoods is prohibited
500 foot setbacks for small cells for multi-family residences in commercial
districts
500 ft separation from schools
1500 ft separation between nodes
Los Altos Urgency Ordinance:
Los Altos Citing Guidelines:
This ordinance was passed in 2019. Then the Los Altos City Council then
rejected 12 applications from AT&T and one from Verizon because they didn’t
meet those rules. In response, both cell companies sued in federal court,
arguing the denial wasn’t based on evidence. The lawsuit is still
pending while consultants hired by the city of Los Altos worked on a new
ordinance. The new ordinance, which was reviewed by the Los Altos Planning
Commission on Thursday, says that cell nodes can go in residential streets as
long as they are near a main road, within 200 to 500 feet.
According to WireAmerica.org: The new Los Altos ordinance “says the city will
grant exceptions if a cell company has evidence they need a site in a residential
neighborhood to eliminate a significant gap in telecommunications coverage.
The company would have to demonstrate, with substantial evidence in the public
record, that not putting the antenna at that location would result in an effective
prohibition of telecommunications service — a tough row to hoe for Wireless
companies because everyone can make a wireless phone call on every
carrier network in Los Altos today. The ordinance has several other
restrictions on things like height, noise and Wireless Telecommunications
Facility (WTF) design. Attorney Deborah Fox, who is representing the city
against AT&T and Verizon, said the ordinance is “state of the art” and she is
confident that it meets federal law.”
Marin County, California
Draft as of June 21, 2019 The city is mapped to show where the cell towers are
allowed.Marin drafts preferences for 5G rollout,Point Reyes Light
“Marin’s draft rules select industrial, commercial or agricultural sites, or sites
near public facilities, as preferred locations for the antennas; residential and
mixed-use sites and areas within 1,500 feet of schools and daycare centers
are the least-preferred locations.The draft favors placing antennas on existing
street poles or traffic lights, versus new poles or small cell facilities. It limits
antennas to one per pole and stipulates they must be at least 1,000 feet apart.
It also includes aesthetic requirements that aim to blend equipment, and
prohibits equipment on historic buildings.”
Mill Valley, California
Urgency Ordinance No 18, September 6, 2018
New or updated facilities prohibited in residential zones. Commercial only.
Facilities installed on poles in public right of way must be 1,500 feet apart
Design, noise standards
Facilities in public right of way that would interfere with future projects /
improvements must be relocated
Promptly remove facilities when no longer needed; replace with smaller
facilities as feasible
Defend and indemnify the City
Mill Valley, California: Urgency Ordinance No 18, September 6, 2018
Tech Crunch” Bay Area Blocks 5G Deployment Over Cancer Concerns
Marin Post Mill Valley Council Adopts Wireless Ordinance Protects
Community
Palo Alto, California
City Council voted unanimously to approve a Resolution and amended Wireless
Ordinance that City Staff had proposed. Council also voted unanimously in favor
of a motion to direct City Staff “to come back as soon as possible but [in] no
more than [one year], with an updated Ordinance/Resolution that considers”
(and e summarizing):
1. Disfavoring the placement of cell towers in, for example, residential zones and
near schools;
2. Minimum setbacks for cell towers from homes and schools, and minimum
distances between cell towers;
3. Creating a list of city-owned buildings that would be appropriate sites for
macro cell towers (i.e., as an alternative to small cell node cell towers next to
people’s homes);
Council also voted to direct City Staff to return to Council with a recommendation
for “best practices” with respect to inspecting antennas.
“Seeking to strike a balance between federal requirements and resident
concerns, Palo Alto approved on Monday night new rules for reviewing the flurry
of applications that the city has been receiving from telecommunication
companies seeking to install antennas on local streetlights and utility poles.
By a 6-0 vote, with Councilman Greg Tanaka absent, the council adopted a set
of “objective standards” for wireless communication facilities, including a menu
of preferred design alternatives for radio equipment and antennas. And in a nod
to the dozens of residents who have raised alarms about the proliferation of
cellular facilities on their blocks, the council launched a new effort to further
restrict where such technology can be installed and to explore “minimum
distance” requirements for wireless equipment in relation to local schools and
homes.”
Palo Alto looks to distance cell antennas from homes, schools
Palos Verdes, California
According to citizens of the city, after citizen uproar, Crown Castle began
complying with municipal aesthetic requirements and moving proposed locations
out of neighborhoods and away from homes. The ordinance has four key
components, if these are met the site will almost certainly be approved:
Minimal antenna size with screening
All accessory equipment underground (everything except the antenna)
Combining sites with existing vertical infrastructure (streetlights, traffic signals,
etc.)
Strict location restrictions, no sites on local, residential streets without an
exception granted
If they don’t comply with these, then the applicant must demonstrate the site is
required to fill a significant gap and there is no less intrusive alternative to
receive an exception. This is not simply checking a box (i.e. the applicant just
claiming these conditions exist) but has to be demonstrated to the City
planning commission via engineering analysis.
Palos Verdes, California Ordinance Chapter 12.18 – WIRELESS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
Petaluma, California
Ordinance of the City Council of Petaluma
Protect environmental resources; protect residents against adverse health
effects
Protect visual character; don’t create visual blight
Protect environmental resources; protect residents against adverse health
effects
Commercial or industrial zones
Antennas must connect to an already existing utility pole that can support its
weight.
Servicing wires must be installed within the width of the existing utility.
All ground-mounted equipment not to be installed inside the pole must be
undergrounded, flush to the ground, within three (3) feet of the utility pole.
Dedicated power source to be installed and metered separately.
1,500 feet minimum between each Small Cell facility.
No Small Cell shall be within 500 feet of any residence.
An encroachment permit must be obtained for any work in the right-of-way.
Petaluma, California: Ordinance of the City Council of Petaluma PDF
Ross Valley, California
Wireless Telecommunications Facilities
Modeled after Mill Valley’s
Adopted regulations prohibit facilities in residential and downtown zoning
district.
Facilities proposed in the public right-of-way subject to separate design
criteria.
Limits height and width of facilities to a minimum necessary for property
function.
Maximum height of 24 feet above the height of the existing utility pole and 7
feet above a street light standard.
Requires equipment to be placed underground.
Ross Valley, California: Wireless Telecommunications Facilities PDF
SAN ANSELMO, CALIFORNIA
Council Policy
People within 300 feet of proposed antenna will be notified
Town is entitled to employ independent consultant at applicant’s expense to
evaluate exceptions
San Anselmo, California PDF
San Diego County, California
Draft ordinance (5-31-2019) for small cell antenna sites in San Diego County has
the following requirement:
“SCWs shall not be located within 1,000 feet of schools, child care centers,
hospitals, or churches. Distance, without regard to intervening structures, shall
be a straight line measured from the closest property lines.”
San Diego County Ordinance
San Jose, California
Negotiated agreement
“officials made improved access to areas with low internet participation a
precondition for reducing fees…agreement set tiered costs per network node
installation, with lower fees for companies deploying more nodes. Along with this
incentive, three companies pledged to contribute a total of $24 million over the
next decade to a digital inclusion fund.” (GovTech)
News Stories The Future of 5G: The Bitter Battle for Local Control
Suisin CA
500 ft setback and all facilities permitted pursuant to thischapter shall comply with the ADA.
San Anselmo, CA
300ft setback residents notified
Calabasas, CA
1000 feet setback for small cells.
Westlake, CA
500 feet setback
San Clemente, CA
500 feet setback
San Rafael, California
City Council Report
Dec. 5, 2018 front page news story: https://www.marinij.com/2018/12/04/san-
rafael-officials-work-to-tighten-5g-antenna-rules/
Dec. 18, 2018 front page story: https://www.marinij.com/2018/12/18/san-rafael-
adopts-urgency-ordinance-to-keep-grip-on-5g-proliferation/
City Staff Report: URGENCY ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SAN RAFAEL
MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 14 (ZONING) AND ACCOMPANYING POLICY
RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH PROVISIONS AND PROCEDURES FOR
REGULATING THE PLACEMENT OF SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES
San Rafael, California: December 2018 Documentation for City Action on
12/18/2018
“I want the city and county government to clearly say no to the FCC,” said
resident Arthur Saftlas. “No 5G installations of any kind in Marin, until it can be
proven safe for us and the environment.”- San Rafael, Calif., Officials Work to
Tighten 5G Regulation
San Rafael Residents Take Pre-emptive Strike Against 5G
Sebastopol, California
City Council Agenda Item Report and Urgency Ordinance (Recommended)
Purpose: Institute a moratorium on applications for small cells in the public
right-of-way until adoption of a permanent ordinance
Previous regulations on telecommunications facilities (according to the
recommended urgency ordinance, these did not anticipate 5G and do not
address installation of telecommunications facilities in the right-of-way):
Purpose: Protect visual character, inhabitants, environmental resources
Cannot be located in any required yard setback area
Facilities within 400 feet of residential areas, schools, churches, hospitals etc
must comply with NIER standards
Minor facilities must be 75 feet away from a “residential dwelling unit” except 1
single family residence on the property where it is located
Sebastopol, California: City Council Agenda Item Report and Urgency Ordinance
Establishing a Moratorium on Small Cells in the Public Right of Way
Other Links
http://scientists4wiredtech.com/sebastopol/sb-muni-code/
http://mystreetmychoice.com/sebastopol.html
Sonoma, California
Report and Urgency Ordinance
On Nov 5, 2018 Sonoma approved their 5G urgency ordinance.
500 ft setback and residents notified.
“Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds and determines that the
immediate preservation of the public health, safety and welfare requires that this
Ordinance be enacted as an urgency ordinance pursuant to Government Code
Section 36937(b), and take effect immediately upon adoption. Therefore, this
Ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace,
health, safety and welfare and its urgency is hereby declared.”
The City also has a Small Cell Tower page.
Sonoma California Ordinance on 5G
WALNUT CITY, CALIFORNIA
“Telecommunication towers and antennas shall not be located within 1,500
feet of any school (nursery, elementary, junior high, and high school), trail,
park or outdoor recreation area, sporting venues, and residential zones.”
Screenshot of Ordinance from Walnut Website,
To see the code online go to https://qcode.us/codes/walnut/, Click on “Title 6:
Planning and Zoning” Click on “Chapter 6.88 ANTENNAS AND
COMMUNICATION FACILITIES”, Click on “6.88.060 Design standards, See
Item “O.
Warren, Connecticut
This policy defines adequate coverage and adequate capacity. It details that it
was designed “to locate towers and/or antennas in a manner which protects
property values, as well as the general safety, health, welfare and quality of life
of the citizens of Warren and all those who visit this community, minimize the
total number and height of towers throughout Warren, and provide standards
and requirements for the regulation, placement, design, appearance,
construction, monitoring, modification and removal of telecommunications
facilities and towers.”
“Coverage is considered to be “adequate” within that area surrounding a Base
Station where the predicted or measured median field strength of the
transmitted signal is such that the majority of the time, transceivers properly
installed and operated will be able to communicate with the base station. In
the case of cellular communications in a rural environment like Warren, this
would be a signal strength of at least -90 dBm for at least 75% of the coverage
area. It is acceptable for there to be holes within the area of Adequate
Coverage where the signal is less than -90 dBm, as long as the signal regains
its strength to greater than -90 dBm further away from the Base Station.”
“Capacity is considered to be “adequate” if the Grade of Service (GOS) is p.05
or better for median traffic levels offered during the typical busy hour, as
assessed by direct measurement of the Personal Wireless Service Facility in
question.”
TOWN OF WARREN SECTION 29 – SPECIAL PERMIT FOR
TELECOMMUNICATIONS: FACILITIES AND TOWERS December 11,
2012, Warren website link
BURLINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS
Town of Burlington Policy Applications for Small Cell Wireless Installations,
October 22, 2018
Small Cell Committee drafted a policy with annual recertification fees. Verizon
withdrew its application, concerned by the precedent it would set and
questioning its legality.
Verizon attorney Mr. Klasnick stated “My client respectfully requests to
withdraw the petition rather than have a fee,” he said.(BCATTV)
The Town of Burlington Policy / Application for Small Cell Wireless Installations
approved by the Burlington Board of Selectmen on October 22, 2018 PDF.
According to BCATTV Verizon Drops Small Cell Wireless Booster Application in
Face of Fees:
“This week Selectman Jim Tigges, the board’s representative on the Small Cells
Committee, said the group had come up with a new policy for small cell
applications. The policy contains a number of provisions while filing an
application, including setting installation fees, listing the town department that
must receive a copy for review and setting up the timeline for approval.
The Verizon application, however, would not be subject to the policy because it
was submitted before its adoption. However, Tigges and the committee did have
a number of conditions for the project it recommended to the board. They
included:
– No apparatus on double poles
– An agreement to annual recertification
– Equipment shall be located on top of the poles, colored similarly to the polse
so as to blend in.
– Equipment shall not interfere with other equipment on the pole, nor obstruct or
interfere with access to or operation of street lights or traffic controls devices on
the pole.
– Poles must meet ADA standards.”
-NEWS: Verizon Drops Small Cell Wireless Booster Application in Face of Fees,
October 23, 2018
Holyoke, Massachusetts
Draft policy $500 fee for city inspection of rooftop poles/roofs every 2 years
Holyoke has submitted an order from councilor Bartley Roman to limit
equipment and require $500 apiece per small cell–$500 may exceed FCC
limits. At-large councilor Rebecca Lisi, on behalf of a Holyoke resident,
recently submitted to the town lawyer a copy of the ordinance drafted by
Pittsfield.
Information from https://www.lasttreelaws.com/ordinances.html
Pittsfield, Massachusetts
Proposed Section: Wireless Communications Facilities
Telecom company must prove prefered site/existing structure does not work
Above ground aesthetic requirements
Sound and light restrictions with emphasis on industry proving compliance
Pittsfield, Massachusetts: Proposed Section: Wireless Communications Facilities
PDF
Little Silver, New Jersey
Carriers should provide notice to property owners within five hundred (500’)
feet of the proposed Telecommunications Facility.
The applicant must demonstrate to the reasonable satisfaction of the Borough
that no existing personal wireless Telecommunication Service Facility within a
reasonable distance can accommodate needs.
Indemnification clause: “Each license grantee shall indemnify and hold the
Borough and its officers, employees, agents and representatives harmless
from and against any and all damages, losses and expenses, including
reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit or defense, arising out of,
resulting from or alleged to arise out of or result from the negligent, careless or
wrongful acts, omissions, failures to act or misconduct of the grantee or its
affiliates, officers, employees, agents, contractors or subcontractors in the
construction, operation, maintenance, repair or removal of its
Telecommunications Facilities, and in providing or offering
Telecommunications Services over the facilities, whether such acts or
omissions are authorized, allowed or prohibited by this Chapter or by a grant
agreement made or entered into pursuant to this Chapter.”
“Little Silver New Jersey: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND
SUPPLEMENTING CHAPTER 16A “LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT
ORDINANCE” OF THE REVISED GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE
BOROUGH OF LITTLE SILVER, COUNTY OF MONMOUTH, STATE OF
NEW JERSEY AMENDING SECTION 16A-2 “DEFINITIONS” AND 16A-5
GENERAL PROVISION ADDING NEW SUBSECTION 5-28 “PLACEMENT
OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES”
New York
Ithaca , New York
Ithaca’s code of 250 feet
A 1500 foot setback between antennas (old code: 0 feet)
A 250 foot setback between antennas and homes/schools (old code: 8 feet)
Requiring proof of a significant gap in service coverage for any antenna,
proven by ‘in-kind’ testing (such as drive-by tests and dropped calls)
Clarifying that an applicant’s claim that it needs the proposed tower for “future
capacity” or to “improve coverage” is not sufficient to establish that it suffers
from a significant gap in coverage
Requring the least intrusive methods to fill any coverage gap for antennas
Requiring that a visual impact analysis be submitted for any new proposed
antennas
Requiring General Liability Insurance without a pollution exclusion
Allowing for random, unannounced radiation testing for all towers done by the
City at the expense of the applicant
Including fall-zone requirements that wireless facilities are maintained at a
sufficient distance from other structures and the general public
Allowing for revocability (a clause allowing the voiding of any contract
requiring its modification in the event of a regulatory change)
Mandating certified mail notices of any proposed tower be sent to people living
near a proposed site before approval, paid for by the applicant.
Establishing a procedure for any disabled persons suffering from EHS to
submit requests/grievances in accordance with the ADA
Establishing that the codes apply to all wireless transmitting antennas,
including any on private homes (aimed at the OTARD challenge)
Deputizing any citizen to test for RF emissions
Protecting against reductions in property values of properties situated near
wireless facilities
Requiring that everything submitted by the applicant is done so under oath
and penalty of perjury
Download PDF of Ithaca code here.
Scarsdale, New York
Scarsdale, New York Passed a Wireless Ordinance To Limit Cell Antennas 500
Feet From Homes, Schools and Daycares
1. Pre- and post-installation RF testing requirements by independent contractor;
additionally, routine annual monitoring
2. Pre-notification of small cell application to residents within a 1,000-foot radius
of proposed installation
3. Pre-notification of small cell application to President-At-Large of the
neighborhood association and to the president of neighborhood association in
which the wireless facility is proposed
4. Location preferences (restricted zones) that require special exceptions for
installations
Any location within 500 feet from a residential dwelling unit
Any location within 500 feet from a daycare facility or school
Any location within 500 feet from a house of worship
Any location within parkland
5. Village is insured against any liability for personal injury or property damage or
claims pertaining to RF exposure
6. Existence of appeals process (de novo hearing in front of Planning Board)
Copake New York
(Link to Copake NY code)
Pretesting and post testing by RF engineer
Annual monitoring of RF emissions by the independent RF engineer using actual
field measurements
Hempstead, New York
Wireless Communications Facilities
Requires a special use permit for cell towers that encourages location of new
wireless facilities so as to minimize their impact on historically sensitive areas
around residences, schools, houses of worship, day-care centers. Seven
consideration factors are listed in order from more to least preferred, with
existing towers being most preferred and new towers in residential zones
least preferred.
Prohibits towers from exceeding a height that permits it to operate without
artificial lighting
Allows the town to hire consultants and do inspections
Set a fee schedule of $500 per pole
Requires a 4 foot warning sign on the pole
Utilities at wireless installations should be underground when possible
Hempstead, New York: Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance
eCodeChapter 142
Other Links
https://mdsafetech.org/cell-tower-and-city-ordinances/
https://hempsteadny.gov/permits-and-applications/wireless-telecom-ordinance
Mason, Ohio
Zoning Ordinance – Wireless Communications Systems
No small cells in residential areas or within 100 feet of property used for
residential use
Small cells must be 2000 feet apart (unless colocated)
Small cells are between 20-30 ft high (may be able to exceed 30 ft if
colocated)
Every attempt shall be made to locate small cells on existing structures; if not
available, within public right of way
All related equipment should be underground or wholly contained so not
visible
Each facility shall consist of no more than 1 antenna/user and capable of
providing communication for at least 2 users
Mason, Ohio Zoning Ordinance PDF
Lancaster, Pennsylvania
Zoning Changes via Ordinance 9-2016
City Council rushed through zoning changes to declare many streets off limits
to new poles (said they could be much taller than existing ones)
Public Utility Commission stripped Mobilitie and other distributed-antenna
companies of utility status, meaning that they would not get any more
“certificates of public convenience” in Pennsylvania.
Lancaster, Pennsylvania Ordinance No. 9-2016 PDF
News Stories
http://www.philly.com/philly/business/comcast/philly-and-suburbs-brace-for-
attack-of-the-small-cells-20170601.html?arc404=true
http://www.govtech.com/dc/articles/Philadelphia-Braces-For-Small-Cell-
Future.html
Note: This list was compiled from EHT research of various sources and a special
thank you to Physicians for Safe Technology, My Streets My Choice and Last
Tree Laws for their extensive resources. Please contact EHT to add your Cities
information.
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
On Monday, November 18th, 2024 at 4:32 PM, Naomi Melamed <hinaomi@protonmail.com>wrote:
Aloha Commissioners,
Mahalo for your time and your work here reviewing an updated
solution for wireless infrastructure on the Big Island. My name is Naomi
Melamed and I am an Hawaii Island leader for Safe Tech Hawaii, a
voluntary group serving statewide for several years. We educate and
support our local communities and we engage with the legislative
process to promote the balance of connectivity and safety in Hawaii. We
are composed of thousands of local members that care deeply for the
protection of clean air space in Hawaii.
I would like to request that the planning department favorably
recommend Bill 194 to the council, and allow for the council members to
work out the differences between the two bills through their process. We
have seen that both the PD’s proposed ordinance and Bill 194 have some
language to be worked out. It is unfair, despite some kinks in both bills,
to favorably recommend one over the other. Especially as their was an
attempt early on in the process by the council member introducing Bill
194 to collaborate - which was not honored. I appreciate that both bills
will be heard alongside one another and careful consideration will be
made with regards to both of them.
I am not an authority on county code, but I include here links to dozens
of other jurisdictions that we follow. Many of them have more strictly
protective ordinances instated in their areas around the US, and similar
state laws, which have stood up in court. Bill 194 is in compliance with
usc 47 section 332, C-7-b-4 as it is not excessive in its request for
information from applicants, such as regarding the levels of EMF that
they emit. Bill 194 encourages more transparency with citizens and gives
valuable information, taking those who may be disabled from EMF
exposer into account. I appreciate that the RF emission has a mechanism
for update with each co-location. Our group has conducted a state-wide
monitor of EMF emission from towers and we have found some
extremely high levels, which is a genuine concern for our population,
regardless of zone.
As some other testifiers have noted, there was a court ruling on the
federal level in 2020 stating that the FCC’s failure to update their
acceptable levels for EMF exposure to humans and the environment was
“arbitrary and capricious” and they IGNORED (judges words) the
evidence (11,000 pages of it in court!) from multiple reputable sources in
their most recent review. The FCC is under close watch at this time. Bill
194 does not impose stricter EMF standards than the FCC. It is simply
asking to know what the emissions are and have a process outlined for
how to go about measuring.
Bill 194 was in the works for about a year. It has been crafted with
careful consideration taken from a wide-range of community members
and groups. Even the planning dept. was approached for collaboration,
but chose to take another path. Our group was pleased to offer our
expertise where appropriate, particularly as we document other
jurisdictions who have enacted protective ordinances related to wireless
infrastructure.
Bill 194 is robust legislation as it accordingly reflects the will of the
residents of this island over the desires of big business from abroad.
Simultaneously, it lays out a process which allows for connectivity for
all. I appreciate that two bills related to the same topic coming through
the Commission can be confusing, but I encourage the Commission to
favorably recommend Bill 194 and allow the elected council members to
make sense of both bills upon equal ground.
Technology is changing rapidly and one thing I appreciate from Bill 194
is it includes the regulation of small cells, which are a new and untested
part of 5G. Small cells pose greatly increased exposure due to their
buildout and must be considered in any modern-day legislation. In
contrast, they are not mentioned in the Planning Director's proposed
bill. This is a very important point which was not outlined in the Nov.
1st Commission meeting as a difference between the PD proposed
ordinance and Bill 194.
The Big Island is in great need for Bill 194 to protect the beauty, safety,
well-being, and property values of all who live on or frequent our island.
Council member Evans bill goes into great detail about a fire plan, and
site approval requirements, which puts me as a resident at ease. In
contrast I have noticed that in the Directors bill, there are question
marks about who will operate security cameras, also a lack of easements
for access by the fire department, and lack of a comprehensive fire plan,
despite there being other provisions.
I do not see it as a competition, as I support collaboration and
consideration. But I must admit that after following both Bill 194 and
the Directors bill, the timing of the two has been interesting, and I hope
for cohesion moving forward.
Thank you very much for reading my testimony.
Mahalo for your time and consideration,
Naomi Melamed
Safe Tech Hawaii, Hawaii Island Leader
Sent from Proton Mail
From:Sara Patton
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Support Item 8
Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 1:49:31 PM
Please give a favorable recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194, as it is written. Dozens of local jurisdictions
have implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers
and antennas. It is aligned with all Federal and State laws and offers important
updates to the code.
Mahalo for your service.
Sara Patton
160 River Road
Wailuku, HI 96793
From:Sarahlee Kittons
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Bill 194
Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 3:31:46 PM
Hawaii County Goverment,
I have studied the telecommunication ordinance being brought forward, and am asking, to
please give a favorable recommendation to the County Council proposed telecommunicationsordinance, Bill 194, as it is written.
We are finding alignment with a positive process for better planning. Dozens of local
jurisdictions have implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment oftowers and antennas. It is aligned with all Federal and State laws and offers important updates
to the code.
As a concerned woman who believes we have a path to create a more healthy and productiveworld we can find this as the steps from good logical intelligent thinking and planning.
Thank you
Sarahlee Kittons
From:Shanel Lang
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Support item #8
Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 12:09:40 PM
Please give a favorable recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194, as it is written. Dozens of local jurisdictions
have implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of
towers and antennas. It is aligned with all Federal and State laws and offers
important updates to the code.
From:SJ Lawler
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Support Item #8
Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 5:29:03 AM
Please give a favorable recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194, as it is written.
Dozens of local jurisdictions have implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to
regulate the deployment of towers and antennas.
It is aligned with all Federal and State laws and offers important updates to the code.
Thank you.
From:Darlene Waddell
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:5G
Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 10:13:28 AM
Aloha,
Please give a favorable recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194, as it is written. Dozens of local jurisdictions
have implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of
towers and antennas. It is aligned with all Federal and State laws and offers
important updates to the code.
Mahalo,
The Waddell Ohana
________________________________________
From:Tim Hailey
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Support Item #8
Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 10:03:13 AM
Please give a favorable recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194, as it is written. Dozens of local jurisdictions
have implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers
and antennas. It is aligned with all Federal and State laws and offers important
updates to the code.
Mahalo Nui,
Tim Hailey
From:Trevor Sawyer
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Support item #8 please!
Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 8:38:31 AM
Please give a favorable recommendation to the County Council proposed telecommunicationsordinance, Bill 194, as it is written. Dozens of local jurisdictions have implemented ordinances
similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and antennas. It is aligned with all
Federal and State laws and offers important updates to the code.
Thank You!
Trevor Sawyer
Sent from my iPhone
Please excuse the brevity and typos
From:Cynthia Groves
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:RE Bill 194 Concerning Bill 194 and particularly #8
Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 1:09:59 AM
Aloha Hawaii County Council Members,
RE: Cell tower Ordinance Bill 194. particularly #8
Testimony due Monday, Nov 18 by noon.
I urge you to set an example for all of Hawaii and pass Bill 194, and particularly #8. of
to the County Council proposed telecommunications ordinance bill as it is written.
My husband is a retired home invester and apprentice electrician who has been using
electronic radiation detecting meters to determine the safety of an area and
particularly of homes in the last four years on Oahu for us personally. As a formerhealth and environmental consultant and existing resident / citizen of Hawaii, Ihave found it very challenging to even find a home to buy on Oahu that is radiation
safe in the last four years, hence found only one rental home next to a neighborhood
dog park and walking trail in Kailua. For us who understand and feel the issues
with over-radiation, it is to determine if and how we can personally even live in a
home. On Oahu most condos we have tested currently test over the safety threshold
perpetuated by the FCC in tourist areas, and homes vary mostly from moderate to
heavy risk in residential homes. Rarely does it test in what I what call a green zone if
looking just at colors from green, yellow, orange and red, let alone number readings.
Young children with developing brains and nervous systems are our futuregenerations are particularly at risk both in their schools and in their homes. Most are
unaware environmentally of why they have the symptoms they do!
Please do not be fooled into thinking cell tower ordinances are pandering toconspiracy theorists. I see an article proposing to represent science against
organizations attempting to help America, such as Americans For Responsible
Technology which show examples of successful cell tower and antenna ordinances
at https://www.americansforresponsibletech.org/tool-kit
If further support is needed, a number of counties and municipalities have
used Attorney Andrew Campanelli who has worked with countless counties
reviewing the regulation of cell towers and antennas.
Attorney Andrew Campanelli:
https://campanellipc.com/attorneys/andrew-j-campanelli/
I pray you are properly informed and protecting Hawaii for our current generations
and future generations to come. Stand firm. Onipa'a.
Unmani Cynthia Groves
Health and Environmental Consultant, retired
Health care practice management consultant for 20 years, retired
150 Hamakua Dr #340
Kailua, HI 96734
(808) 745-1001
From:william gogreensolutions.com
To:LPCtestimony
Cc:Greene PhD Debra
Subject:Re: Suppport Item #8
Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 12:31:36 PM
Dear Councilmembers:
(Item #8):
I would like to provide my favorable recommendation i support of proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194, as it is written. Dozens of local jurisdictions
have implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers
and antennas. It is aligned with all Federal and State laws and offers important updates
to the code.
Best regards, William Meurer
Whitehaven Farm
28-3311 Beach Road
Pepeekeo, Hi 96783