HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-12-12 to 2024-12-17 Additional Email Testimonies (45)From:Rebecca Melendez
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Cell Tower Protection Please! INITIATOR: COUNTY COUNCIL (PL-CCI-2024-000009) Bill 194 Dec. 19th meeting
Date:Thursday, December 12, 2024 9:51:08 PM
Aloha,
The Hawai'i County Director, Zendo Kerr, doesn't care about the people or the island because
he wants cell towers to go up everywhere without any real regulations or research on thehealth risks.
This is an island that is mostly built on a mountain, and most everything goes up, so if you
build a tower, the top of it will be directly across from some kind of building becauseeverything goes up the mountain.
Please read these articles that show cell towers cause serious health risks.
https://ehtrust.org/cell-towers-and-cell-antennae/compilation-of-research-studies-on-cell-
tower-radiation-and-health/
“Electromagnetic Fields: A Hazard to Your Health?” on Cell Tower
Radiation
“In recent years, concern has increased about exposure to radio frequency
electromagnetic radiation emitted from cell phones and phone station antennae.
An Egyptian study confirmed concerns that living nearby mobile phone base
stations increased the risk for developing:
Headaches
Memory problems
Dizziness
Depression
Sleep problem
https://mdsafetech.org/cell-tower-health-effects/
Evidence of Harm from Cell Tower Radiation Rising
While Using Flawed Exposure “Safety” Guidelines
Human Exposure Guidelines have been set by a self appointed international group, ICNIRP , and based
on short term (30 minute) exposures that result in the heating of tissue only, not on biological effects such
as DNA damage, hematologic (blood cell) effects, cancer, neurologic harm, developmental abnormalities,
immunologic dysfunction, cardiac effects, wildlife effects or the increased vulnerability of developing
children.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/cell-tower-radiation-harmful-to-humans-study-1.958047
"We're getting a mirror effect now, because the exposures close to cell towers now
are almost identical in frequency, in signalling characteristics and in long-term low-
level chronic exposure duration as that early microwave sickness paper from the
irradiation of the Moscow embassy."
In 1978, researchers at Johns Hopkins University published a study on the long-term
effects of that radiation exposure and found it led to several serious health problems.
Among them: eczema, psoriasis, allergic and inflammatory reactions, neurological
and reproductive problems, tumours and mood disorders such as depression,irritability and lack of concentration."
Please research on your own and learn that studies show cell towers are harmful to
humans, animals, and plants especially if they are directly across from where people
live.
Could you look at where the county has allowed cell towers?
There is a cell tower where the top of the tower is right across from this retirement
building on Hualalai St, right across from the retirement home. So this building is
getting full radiation effects all day and night.
A few towers are in the old industrial area, with the tops of the towers right across
from the highway, so all of us driving by are getting the full radiation.
In Hawi, a cell tower is right at the base of a gas station, and its top is directly across
from residential homes. So, these homes receive the full blast of radiation from thesetowers all the time.
There should be research on these kinds of places to see if anyone has become sick
because research shows issues with insomnia, cancer, memory loss, dizziness...
Cell towers need to be taken more seriously and a lot more seriously than the Hawai'icounty director Zendo Kern is taking them. I'm sure it's a money thing for him.
Please stand for the safety of all who live here and don't allow cell towers to go up
without properly understanding what the effects on the community will be.
Thank you,
Sincerely,
Rebecca Melendez
From:betsyduerr@gmail.com
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Support item # 2
Date:Sunday, December 15, 2024 2:40:26 PM
Please give a Favorable Recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194. Dozens of local jurisdictions have
implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and
antennas. It is aligned with all applicable Federal and State laws and offers important
updates to the code.
Adriana E Duerr
99 Honolii Pl
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Sent from my iPhone Betsyduerr@gmail.com
From:Amber Vantze
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Please support Bill 194
Date:Sunday, December 15, 2024 1:45:42 PM
Please give a Favorable Recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194. Dozens of local jurisdictions have implemented
ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and antennas. It isaligned with all applicable Federal and State laws and offers important updates to the
code.
Amber Vantze, LMHC
From:Angelika Hofmann
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Support Item #2
Date:Sunday, December 15, 2024 6:40:28 PM
Please give a Favorable Recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194. Dozens of local jurisdictions have implementedordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and antennas. It is aligned
with all applicable Federal and State laws and offers important updates to the code.
From:Anne A
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Support #2
Date:Sunday, December 15, 2024 9:43:40 PM
Please give a Favorable Recommendation to the County
Council proposed telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194.
Dozens of local jurisdictions have implemented ordinances
similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and
antennas. It is aligned with all applicable Federal and State
laws and offers important updates to the code.
From:Bobbie Best
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:agree with Bill 194
Date:Sunday, December 15, 2024 6:35:07 PM
Please give a Favorable Recommendation to the County Council proposed telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194.
Dozens of local jurisdictions have implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers
and antennas. It is aligned with all applicable Federal and State laws and offers important updates to the code.
mahalo for allowing public input
Bobbie Best
808-242-9119
From:Byrne 5165
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Support Item #2
Date:Sunday, December 15, 2024 5:23:35 PM
Please give a Favorable Recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194. Dozens of local jurisdictions have
implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and
antennas. It is aligned with all applicable Federal and State laws and offers important
updates to the code.
From:Dawn Singleton
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Support item #2
Date:Sunday, December 15, 2024 8:23:58 PM
Please give a Favorable Recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194. Dozens of local jurisdictions have implementedordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and antennas. It is aligned
with all applicable Federal and State laws and offers important updates to the code.
From:donna grabow
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:In Support of Item #2 on Bill 194
Date:Sunday, December 15, 2024 2:50:32 PM
Aloha County Council,
The next community meeting will be December 19 in Hilo.
Please give a Favorable Recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194.
Dozens of local jurisdictions have already implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194
to regulate the deployment of towers and antennas.
Mahalo,
Donna Grabow
Hilo
From:MESHGLASS
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Please give a Favorable Recommendation to the County Council proposed telecommunications ordinance, Bill
194. Dozens of local jurisdictions have implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment oftowers and antennas. It is aligned...
Date:Sunday, December 15, 2024 3:54:05 PM
Thanks Duncan M Kirk
From:Eric W Brandt
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Favorable Ordinance 194 - Support Item #2
Date:Sunday, December 15, 2024 5:50:07 PM
Dear Leeward Planning Commission members,
Please give a Favorable Recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194. Dozens of local jurisdictions have
implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and
antennas. It is aligned with all applicable Federal and State laws and offers important
updates to the code.
All the best and Aloha
Eric
"Discover the Source" with Metabolic Typing & Functional Diagnostic Nutrition
Eric Brandt CMTA Level 2, FDN, Cell - 808-226-3624
From:George Stewart
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Support Item #2
Date:Sunday, December 15, 2024 7:54:55 PM
Please give a Favorable Recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194. Dozens of local jurisdictions have
implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and
antennas. It is aligned with all applicable Federal and State laws and offers important
updates to the code.
Mahalo.
George S Mycroft (Capt ret'd)
From:Gina Alberto
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Support Item #2
Date:Sunday, December 15, 2024 2:50:28 PM
Please give a Favorable Recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194. Dozens of local jurisdictions have implementedordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and antennas. It is aligned
with all applicable Federal and State laws and offers important updates to the code.
Mahalo!
Gina Alberto15-2685 Mahimahi Street
Pahoa, HI 96778
From:Heidi Hirsh
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Favorable Recommendation on Bill 194
Date:Sunday, December 15, 2024 2:05:18 PM
Aloha,
Please give a Favorable Recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194. Dozens of local jurisdictions have
implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and
antennas. It is aligned with all applicable Federal and State laws and offers
important updates to the code.
This is vital to the health of Hawaii’s communities.
Thank you,
Heidi Hirsh
3721 Kanaina Ave, Honolulu, HI 96815
From:jasmine
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Support Item #2
Date:Sunday, December 15, 2024 9:53:23 PM
Please give a Favorable Recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194. Dozens of local jurisdictions have
implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and
antennas. It is aligned with all applicable Federal and State laws and offers important
updates to the code.
From:akya azarael
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Support #2 testimony
Date:Sunday, December 15, 2024 2:51:41 PM
Aloha .Please give a Favorable Recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194. Dozens of local jurisdictions have
implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and
antennas. It is aligned with all applicable Federal and State laws and offers important
updates to the code.
Mahalo
Jesica La Rue
From:John Seeley M.A.
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Support Item #2
Date:Sunday, December 15, 2024 3:15:28 PM
Hi,
Please give a Favorable Recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194. Dozens of local jurisdictions have
implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and
antennas. It is aligned with all applicable Federal and State laws and offers important
updates to the code.
Thanks,
John Seeley
From:Julie Dahl
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Bill 194
Date:Sunday, December 15, 2024 6:24:47 PM
To whom it concerns
Please give a Favorable Recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194. Dozens of local jurisdictions have
implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and
antennas. It is aligned with all applicable Federal and State laws and offers important
updates to the code.
For the safety of our people.....
Sincerely, Julie Dahl
--
From:Julien Bouetard
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Support Item #2
Date:Sunday, December 15, 2024 2:50:13 PM
Please give a Favorable Recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194. Dozens of local jurisdictions have
implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and
antennas. It is aligned with all applicable Federal and State laws and offers important
updates to the code.
From:kirstin morris
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Support item #2
Date:Sunday, December 15, 2024 3:19:33 PM
Please give a Favorable Recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194. Dozens of local jurisdictions have
implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and
antennas. It is aligned with all applicable Federal and State laws and offers important
updates to the code.
Mahalo nui loa, Kirstin Morris
Please give a Favorable Recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194. Dozens of local jurisdictions have
implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and
antennas. It is aligned with all applicable Federal and State laws and offers
important updates to the code.
From:Larry Turner, MSET
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Support Item #2
Date:Sunday, December 15, 2024 5:58:44 PM
From:Laurie West
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:SUPPORT ITEM #2
Date:Sunday, December 15, 2024 4:45:17 PM
Please give a Favorable Recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194. Dozens of local jurisdictions have
implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and
antennas. It is aligned with all applicable Federal and State laws and offers important
updates to the code.
Laurie West
Hawai`i State Resident
From:Lisa Kerman
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Support Item #2
Date:Sunday, December 15, 2024 2:10:23 PM
Dear Concerned,
I am in complete support of the proposed telecommunications ordinance Bill 194. This
appears to be the best option to regulate the deployment of towers and antennas.
Thank you,
Lisa Kerman
Kauai
From:Paul Deeter
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Support item #2
Date:Sunday, December 15, 2024 6:03:09 PM
Please give a Favorable Recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194. Dozens of local jurisdictions have
implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and
antennas. It is aligned with all applicable Federal and State laws and offers important
updates to the code.
From:Roger Bloom
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Please support Bill 194 Item #2
Date:Sunday, December 15, 2024 1:42:37 PM
This bill 194 is reasonable and wise for the community. Unregulated communications
construction without oversight is not required even though heavily promoted by industrylobbyists. This council has the responsibility and the authority to only promote the welfare and
wishes of Hawaii residents. Support reasonable well researched bill 194
MahaloRoger Bloom
Papaikou
From:Sandy Lee
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Support Item #2
Date:Sunday, December 15, 2024 10:55:24 PM
Aloha,
Please give a Favorable Recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194. Dozens of local jurisdictions have
implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and
antennas. It is aligned with all applicable Federal and State laws and offers important
updates to the code.
Sincerely,
Sandra L Stokes
Sent from my iPad
From:Sandy Lee
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Support item #2
Date:Sunday, December 15, 2024 10:51:03 PM
Please give a Favorable Recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194. Dozens of local jurisdictions have
implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and
antennas. It is aligned with all applicable Federal and State laws and offers important
updates to the code.
Sent from my iPad
From:Sarah Hoffman
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Support Item #2
Date:Sunday, December 15, 2024 1:44:26 PM
Hello,
Please give a Favorable Recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194. Dozens of local jurisdictions have
implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and
antennas. It is aligned with all applicable Federal and State laws and offers important
updates to the code.
Thank you for your time,
Sarah Hoffman
From:Shen Gandolfo
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Support Item #2
Date:Sunday, December 15, 2024 4:43:49 PM
Aloha,
Please give a Favorable Recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194. Dozens of local jurisdictions have
implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and
antennas. It is aligned with all applicable Federal and State laws and offers important
updates to the code.
Mahalo,
Shen Kai Gandolfo
From:SJ Lawler
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Support Item #2
Date:Sunday, December 15, 2024 2:33:23 PM
Please give a Favorable Recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance,
Bill 194.
Dozens of local jurisdictions have implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to
regulate the deployment of towers and antennas.It is aligned with all applicable Federal and State laws and offers important updates to
the code.
Thank you.
From:susan higa
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:support item #2
Date:Sunday, December 15, 2024 1:35:47 PM
Dear Leeward Planning Commission,
Please give a Favorable Recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194.
Dozens of local jurisdictions have implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to
regulate the deployment of towers and antennas.
It is aligned with all applicable Federal and State laws and offers important updates to
the code.
Considerations in harmony with love always works out maximally for all.
Sincerely
Susan Higa
From:Warren Flake
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:
Date:Sunday, December 15, 2024 2:00:38 PM
Aloha ke Akua. Please give a Favorable Recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194. Dozens of local jurisdictions have implementedordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and antennas. It is aligned
with all applicable Federal and State laws and offers important updates to the code.
From:Dee Voytilla
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Cell towers
Date:Monday, December 16, 2024 10:22:59 AM
Please give a Favorable Recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194. Dozens of local jurisdictions have
implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and
antennas. It is aligned with all applicable Federal and State laws and offers important
updates to the code.
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
From:Adele Henkel
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Support Item #2
Date:Monday, December 16, 2024 4:20:00 PM
Dear People,
Please give a Favorable Recommendation to the County Council proposed telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194.
Dozens of local jurisdictions have implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers
and antennas. It is aligned with all applicable Federal and State laws and offers important updates to the code.
Thank you for taking our well informed position on this issue to heart.
Adele Henkel
Kailua Kona, HI
From:aerie waters
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Bill 194
Date:Monday, December 16, 2024 7:47:16 AM
Please give a Favorable Recommendation to the County Council proposed telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194.
Dozens of local jurisdictions have implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towersand antennas. It is aligned with all applicable Federal and State laws and offers important updates to the code. With deep concern, Aerie Waters
From:Alana Ross
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Support item #2
Date:Monday, December 16, 2024 9:13:24 AM
Please give a Favorable Recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194. Dozens of local jurisdictions have
implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and
antennas. It is aligned with all applicable Federal and State laws and offers important
updates to the code.
Mahalo,
Alana Ross
From:Mandi ReAnne
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Support for Item #2
Date:Monday, December 16, 2024 1:11:30 PM
(Item #2)
Please give a Favorable Recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194. Dozens of local jurisdictions have
implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and
antennas. It is aligned with all applicable Federal and State laws and offers important
updates to the code.
Safety and consumers health and wellbeing should always be paramount as they are
at the heart of the success for any telecommunications business.
Respectfully,
Amanda Bierbuam,
808-491-5707
From:cynthiaevans@aol.com
To:LPCtestimony; evans.kohala@gmail.com
Subject:Fw: Testimony LPC Dec. 19, 1p.m. agenda
Date:Monday, December 16, 2024 11:13:15 AM
Attachments:Evans Testimony Bill 194.docx
Resending because the subject line was inaccurate in the evans.kohala@gmail.com
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Cindy Evans <evans.kohala@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 11:08 AM
Subject: Fwd: Testimony WPC Dec.5, 1p.m. agenda
To: <LPCtestimony@hawaiicounty.gov>
Cc: Cindy Evans <evans.kohala@gmail.com>
RE: PL-CCI-2024-000009
Aloha,
I am submitting written testimony on Bill 194 (PL-CCI-2024-000009), December
19 agenda, asking the Commission for a favorable recommendation. For the
record, this testimony is from me as a resident of Hawai'i Island for 26 years. I
did author Bill 194 and submit to Council prior to the end of my term on the
Council.
Attached is the written testimony I submitted to the Windward Planning
Commission, December 5th agenda, which details the purpose of Bill 194, and abackground of research conducted. Also, it details my discussions with Planning
Department during my Council Term and background leading up to introduction
of Bill 194 to the Council.
Bill 194 is 1) compliant with federal law; 2) updates County Code to be compliant
with state law on required time to process an application; 3) requires copies of
information and specific documents providing for transparency and verification of
government compliance with regulations; 4) addresses emergency response forfire; 5)sets standards for review and approval; and 6) addresses safety
measures to prepare and respond to natural disasters.
Mahalo for your consideration. I am a strong believer in transparency andaccountability. Documentation and verification of applicant meeting government
regulations (E.G. Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Communications
Commission, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, State Historic Preservation
Division) is reasonable. What Bill 194 asks for the applicant to copy and send us
what they have done
Regards,
Cindy Evans
c: 808-345-5810
Please see attached (4 pages) testimony for:
PL-CCI-2024-000009 (Bill 194)
1
Testimony PL-CCI-2024-000009 (Bill 194)
December 1, 2024
Aloha Commissioners,
I write as the author of Bill 194 and Councilmember for Council District 9, North Kohala and South
Kohala, and ask for your favorable recommendation.
During the fall of 2023 I submitted a draft bill (now known as Bill 194) for review by Corporation
Counsel. The bill was a response to numerous meetings with residents of the North Kohala and
South Kohala communities who had concerns about lack of requirements for installation of cell
towers and antennas. The proposed application requirements and regulations for the installation
and up-keep of infrastructure should accommodate this ever-changing technology.
The biggest consideration when I wrote the bill was to find out what a county level ordinance could
legally do and not do. I did a broad search of local ordinances across the country for tried and
tested regulations. I talked with the FCC(Federal Communication Commission) , FAA (Federal
Aviation Administration) , HUD (Federal Housing and Urban Development), DHHL (State
Department of Hawaiian Homelands), DLNR (State Department of Land and Natural Resources,
PUC (State Public Utility Commission), County Fire department, County Department of Public
Works, County Civil Defense, and County Planning Department. Some specifc highlights of my
research are provided below.
FCC
Regardingr the provisions of Bill 194, FCC informed me that FCC’s regulations are a “floor” and
local governments may enact stricter laws (such as HRS 46-89) to create a higher “ceiling”, as long
as it didn’t give the power to outright prohibit or create a moratorium on broadband infrastructure in
anyway. One FCC requirement of note was that, if there are any disputes on the installation of a
given broadband infrastructure, they must be resolved within 180 days.
During the November 21 Leeward Planning Commission hearing on Bill 194, County lawyers sited
Chapter 47 subsection 7(c)(iv) of the USC that states that “no state or local government or
instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal
wireless services facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of the radio frequency
emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the commission’s (FCC) regulations
concerning such emissions.” During my discussions with the FCC, I raised all the provisions of the
bill that were a higher ceiling of regulation currently in USC Chapter 47, Hawaiʻi County Code or
Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes and they confirmed that they were all permissible under Federal Law
because none of them were in any way either a prohibition or moratorium on the installation of
broadband infrastructure, nor were they in violation of federal law under USC 47(c)(iv) because
none of the requirements proposed in Bill 194 uses a metric for RF (radio frequency) exposure to
provide any further regulation of broadband infrastructure. Whereas Bill 194 concerns itself with
construction parameters, planning parameters, zoning, disaster preparedness, notification and
transparency, as well as preservation of neighborhood characteristics. In short, The plan approval
2
will never be subject to what the RF (radio frequency) emissions are. The current bill language only
requires an affirmation relating to FCC compliance and RF (radio frequency) levels.
CORPORATION COUNSEL
Corporation Counsel, Elizabeth Strance, after reviewing draft bill in late 2023, asked me to pause
and wait for the Planning Department who was updating code on broadband related permits in
response to update of HRS (Hawaii Revised Statutes) 46-89, more specifically:
“A county shall approve, approve with modification, or disapprove all applications for
broadband-related permits within sixty days of submission of a complete permit application and
full payment of any applicable fee. If, on the sixty-first day, an application is not approved, approved
with modification, or disapproved by the county, the application shall be deemed approved by the
county.”
“No action shall be prosecuted or maintained against any county, its officials, or employees
on account of actions taken in reviewing, approving, modifying, or disapproving a permit
application pursuant to this section, or against public utilities resulting from such actions.”
Corporation Counsel suggested I work with Planning. I agreed.
RESEARCH: Local Ordinances
Staff and I researched municipalities that have passed ordinances that regulate the permitting of
broadband infrastructure. Note that many of these provisions go above and beyond what is stated
in Bill 194.
Davis CA: Permit approval of broadband infrastructure
• Annual or bi-annual RF emission monitoring report, including any FCC updates.
• At director's discretion, qualified independent RF engineer or consultant review, paid for by
the applicant.
• Optional periodic review by county.
• Prohibition in sensitive areas: habitats, school sites, and historical resources.
Calabasas CA: Permit approval of broadband infrastructure
• Provides for noise limits on broadband infrastructure, including a noise study.
• Decommissioning: Site must be restored reasonably close to original condition.
• Requires structural analysis by licensed engineer.
• All planned radio frequency emissions stated in proposal.
Copake NY: Permit approval of broadband infrastructure
• May hire independent consultants, paid for by applicant.
• Provides for monitoring protocol, paid for by applicant, including pre-testing and post
testing, to ensure compliance with FCC regulations.
• Requires radiated signal propagation studies, signed by a qualified radio-frequency
engineer, paid for by the applicant.
• Requires public hearing.
3
• 1500 ft setbacks for residences, schools, any public buildings.
• Prohibited in endangered species habitats and other areas; must submit an E.A. where
applicable under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
• Regular structural inspections, paid for by applicant.
Sallisaw OK: Permit approval for broadband infrastructure
• Residence setbacks of 1500 ft for towers having a height of 75 feet or less.
Euclid Ohio: Application Requirements
Written report demonstrating the applicant’s review and selection of tower locations in order of
priority, demonstrating technological reasons for the preferred site selected and written
certification by the applicant’s engineer of propagation studies showing the necessity for location
of the tower.
Permit fee schedule:
(a) New wireless communications tower- $5,000.00
(b) New wireless communications antenna/array-$2000,00
(c) Collocation of wireless communication antenna/array on existing tower or building:
$2,000.00
Liability Insurance:
Commercial general liability coverning personal injuries, death and property damage: $1,000,000
per occurrence/$2,000,000 aggregate
Fire Department
• Battalion Chief Palani Kurashige offered comments. Fire department would benefit from
having in code a plan approval requirement for cell towers that included MOA agreements
with all landowners that access road may cross for easy access through locked gates in
emergency situations, video monitoring option at tower in the event of fire or other emergency
situations, and vegetation plan for fire prevention. He approves of fire safety plans already as
part of the current use permit process for cell towers, so adding new provisions wouldn’t be
hard to do for the Fire Department.
DPW
• Supervising electrical inspector at DPW offered comments. Bill 194 language goes above and
beyond what is used to currently approve cell towers in Chapter 5, Article 3, Section 5-3-
1(b)(6): Television or radio communication towers, and that “ to erect, construct, enlarge,
alter, repair, relocate, convert, or demolish any television or radio communication tower that
is not regulated by the public utilities commission. Our 2020 National Electrical code does
not regulate communication construction in Article 90.20(B) (4): Installation of
communications equipment under the exclusive control of communications utilities located
outdoors or in a building spaces used exclusively for such installations. With that being said,
if a permit is required, then Section 25-2-74 would be appropriate permitting guidelines.
4
Planning
• Interacted on several occasions with Planning Director and Deputy Director. Aside from the
concerns of current code being in conflict with HRS 46-89, Planning did not provide a draft of
their bill. I forwarded my draft bill for review and comment.
• Deputy Director and staff offered comments which I incorporated. Said any public meeting
would be “informational only” given the constraints of HRS46-89. Commented my bill had
looked at more regulations and standards then what Planning had been considering.
• At the last interaction before introduction of Bill 194, they said their bill was not ready.
HUD
• HUD classifies cell towers as a hazard and a nuisance, requiring appraisers to make
adjustments to value due to the effect on market ability
DLNR
• The use of State lands triggers the environmental assessment requirements of Chapter 343,
HRS. Please contact the Office of Environmental Quality Control for their opinion of whether
an environmental assessment is required and the process to be followed.
In closing, Bill 194 includes important application and plan approval requirements, including:
a) fire, structural, electrical safety;
b) setback,separation, and fall zone;
c) affirmations and statements relating to FCC compliance, and RF levels;
d) in compliance with HRS 46-89
Mahalo for your consideration.
After December 2, I will be testifying as a resident of Hawai’I County. My Council term ends Noon,
December 2. My contact information is:
Cindy Evans
59-048 Olomana Rd
Kamuela, HI 96743
C: 808-345-5810
evans.kohala@gmail.com
Regards,
Cindy Evans
From:Limu Moss
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Testimonial About 5G 100" From My House
Date:Monday, December 16, 2024 3:59:48 PM
Dana G. Moss
53-4036 hiwahiwa Place Kapaau HI 96755
808 865 8206
res1z0vb@hawaiiantel.net
Please do not allow any 5G technology to be added to Hawaii Island communications
system until the FCC implements the changes to the guidelines. Ordered by a federal
court case brought forward by
Childrens Health Defense. childrenshealthdefense.org
We won! The U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit published its decision Aug.13,
2021 where it ruled that the FCC failed to consider the non-cancer evidence
regarding adverse health effects of wireless technology when it decided that its 1996
radiofrequency emission guidelines protect the public’s health. The Court ruled: “The
case be remanded to the commission to provide a reasoned explanation for its
determination that its guidelines adequately protect against harmful effects of
exposure to radiofrequency radiation…
COURT JUDGEMENT
United States Court of AppealsFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Argued January 25, 2021 Decided August 13, 2021
No. 20-1025
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH TRUST, ET AL.,Consolidated with 20-1138
CHILDREN'S HEALTH DEFENSE, ET AL
PETITIONERS
v.FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION AND
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
RESPONDENTS
______On Petitions for Review of an Order of the Federal Communications Commission
______
Edward Myers, Attorney for Environmental Health Trust Petitioners:
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. & Scott W. McCollough, Attorneys for Children’s HealthDefense
Petitioners:
According to the Court’s decision, the FCC failed to provide evidence to support its
decision in regard to the non-cancer health effects and that it also failed to respond to
the extensive evidence that was filed with the FCC (via the docket which is also called
“record”) that shows that the current radiofrequency emissions guidelines may cause
negative health effects unrelated to cancer. The court stated that, the FCC’s failure,undermines the Commission’s conclusions regarding the adequacy of its testing
procedures, particularly as they relate to children, and its conclusions regarding the
implications of long-term exposure to RF radiation, exposure to RF pulsation or
modulation, and the effects of wireless technologies that were developed since 1996.The court also found that the FCC 2019 decision was arbitrary and capricious in its
failure to respond to comments concerning environmental harm caused by RF
radiation.
The court’s decision continued to say: “…the FCC completely failed to acknowledge,let alone respond to, comments concerning the impact of RF radiation on the
environment…The record contains substantive evidence of potential environmental
harms.”
Government Failed to Consider
Evidence of Harm, Including to
Children, From 5G and Wireless
Radiation, Court Rules
In a recent landmark ruling in a case brought by Children’s Health Defense against
the Federal Communications Commission, the court ruled the commission’s 1996
health guidelines related to non-cancer harms from 5G and wireless-based
technologies were capricious, arbitrary and not evidence-based.
by Dafna Tachover, Esq
August 18, 2021
RSS
22 Comments
A recent landmark court ruling in a case brought by Children’s Health Defense (CHD)
against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) should concern anyone who
uses wireless technology (cell phones, iWatches and Wi-Fi), especially parents of
children who use these devices.
On Aug. 13, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled the FCC’s 2019
decision that its 1996 guidelines adequately protect the public from non-cancer harms
from 5G and wireless-based technologies was capricious, arbitrary and not evidence-
based.
In 2019, after an alleged six-year review of the science on the potential harms of 5G
and wireless technology, the FCC concluded the evidence showed no harm and
therefore its 1996 guidelines are sufficient to protect the public and no review of the
guidelines was warranted.
In the U.S., as long as a wireless-based technology complies with FCC guidelines, it
is considered safe, and no lawsuit can be filed for injuries.
However, CHD’s case revealed that while the FCC has been pushing 5G and forcing
Wi-Fi-based technologies on our children, the safety assurances made by the FCC
and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are not supported by evidence. As
the court’s ruling indicates, the contrary is true.
From:Joan Heller
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Support item #2
Date:Monday, December 16, 2024 3:50:45 AM
Please give a Favorable Recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194. Dozens of local jurisdictions have
implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and
antennas. It is aligned with all applicable Federal and State laws and offers important
updates to the code.
Joan Heller3820 Uakea Place Lawai, HI 96765
From:L Osterer
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Testimony in Support of Bill 194, Item 2 of Dec. 19 meeting
Date:Monday, December 16, 2024 10:45:11 AM
Local Regulation is absolutely needed for the deployment of telecommunications towers and
antennas.
Dozens of local jurisdictions have implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194. Other counties
will soon follow.
It is aligned with all applicable Federal and State laws and offers important updates to the
code.
Thank you for your consideration,
L. Osterer, Hawaii long time resident and concerned senior
From:Marsha Andreola
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:support Item #2
Date:Monday, December 16, 2024 3:55:03 PM
Please give a Favorable Recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194. Dozens of local jurisdictions have
implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and
antennas. It is aligned with all applicable Federal and State laws and offers important
updates to the code.
Thank you,
Marsha Andreola
302 Kealahou Street
Honolulu, HI 96825
From:Naomi Melamed
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Support Item #4
Date:Monday, December 16, 2024 9:00:07 AM
Attachments:WPC Testimony in Support of Item #4 Bill 194.pdf
Aloha, This is a list of attached resources mentioned in my testimony PDF attached:
Mahalo, Naomi Melamed
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.pdf
Florida
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
this chapter 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.
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
Testimony in Support of Bill 194
Aloha Commissioners,
Mahalo for your time and dedication in reviewing the updated solution for wireless
infrastructure on the Big Island. My name is Naomi Melamed, and I am a Hawaii Island leader
for Safe Tech Hawaii, a voluntary group that has been serving statewide for several years. Our
mission is to educate and support our local community by engaging with the legislative
process to promote a balance between connectivity and safety in Hawaii. We are composed
of thousands of local members who deeply care about Hawaii.
Request for Favorable Recommendation
I kindly request that the planning department favorably recommend Bill 194 to the council,
allowing council members to address any di erences between the two bills through their
established process. Both the planning department's proposed ordinance and Bill 194
contain language that requires revision, and it doesn't make sense to recommend one over
the other at this stage. The initial attempt by the councilmember introducing Bill 194 to
collaborate was not honored, but I appreciate that both bills are now being considered
together, allowing for thoughtful deliberation.
Compliance and Transparency
Although I am not an authority on county code, I have included links to dozens of other
jurisdictions with more protective ordinances around the US. Bill 194 complies with USC 47
section 332, C-7-b-4, as it does not excessively request information from applicants, like EMF
levels. Instead, it encourages transparency and provides valuable information, considering
those with EMF exposure sensitivities. Our group has conducted a statewide monitor of EMF
emissions from towers, revealing excessively high levels. This is a genuine concern for our
population, irrespective of zoning.
Expertise and Precedent
Many electricians and field technicians already use measuring meters, similar to those used
by local utility companies. The meters may be, though language refinement may be beneficial.
Furthermore, a federal court ruling in 2020 criticized the FCC for not updating their EMF
exposure levels, deeming their inaction "arbitrary and capricious."
Bill 194 does not impose stricter EMF standards than the FCC but seeks to document
emissions and outline measurement processes.
Addressing Concerns about FCC Standards
As highlighted by other testifiers, a significant federal court ruling in 2020 criticized the FCC
for failing to update their EMF exposure levels for humans and the environment. The court
deemed this oversight "arbitrary and capricious," emphasizing that the FCC neglected to
consider substantial evidence, totaling over 11,000 pages, from multiple reputable sources
during their review. This ruling places the FCC under scrutiny, questioning the reliability of
their outdated regulations.
Importance of Updated EMF Measurements
Bill 194 does not impose stricter EMF standards than those currently set by the FCC. Instead,
it aims to document emissions and establish a clear process for measuring them. This
initiative is crucial, as it ensures transparency and provides essential data, particularly for
community members with EMF exposure sensitivities. While the language of the bill could be
refined to enhance clarity, it does not warrant an unfavorable recommendation.
Maintaining Lawfulness and Safety
The ordinance remains solid in its legal foundation, aligning with existing laws while
acknowledging the need for updated information on emissions. By focusing on measurement
and transparency, Bill 194 responsibly addresses the community's concerns without
contravening federal guidelines.
Addressing Safety Concerns
Council member Evans' bill includes detailed fire plans and site approval requirements,
providing reassurance to residents.
While Bill 194 does not regulate cell towers and antennas based on environmental concerns,
it highlights a crucial issue that local jurisdictions must address to protect their constituents'
interests. The bill balances community needs within the necessary legal framework of the
state and USC 47 section 332, C-7-b-4. I hope the planning commission recognizes this and
recommends Bill 194 favorably.
Robust Legislation
Bill 194 has been in development for about a year, incorporating input from diverse
community members and groups. Although the planning department was approached for
collaboration, they chose a di erent path. Nonetheless, our group is pleased to o er our
expertise, particularly in documenting other jurisdictions with protective ordinances.
Bill 194 is robust legislation reflecting the will of island residents over external business
interests while ensuring connectivity for all. I understand that having two bills on the same
topic can be confusing, but I encourage the commission to recommend Bill 194, allowing
elected council members to evaluate both bills equally.
Importance of Small Cell Regulation
Technology is evolving rapidly, and one valuable aspect of Bill 194 is its inclusion of small
cells regulation, a new and untested component of 5G. These cells pose increased exposure
risks due to their buildout and must be included in modern-day legislation. The planning
director's proposed bill does not mention small cells, making this an important distinction.
Concerns with the Director’s Bill
The director's bill raises questions about surveillance camera operators, potentially implying
the use of private consultants? It is unclear because it’s yet to be determined. Additionally,
while it mentions decommissioning, it lacks a clear process for deconstruction, unlike Bill 194.
Co-location Documentation
Bill 194's co-location documentation requirement is commendable. It mandates plan
approval for co-location, whereas the PD Bill only requires new plan approval for "substantial
changes," as defined by the FCC. Without new permits at co-location points, there's no
regulation or knowledge of EMF emissions from updated towers. This oversight could lead to
fire or fall hazards, as unregistered pre-existing towers co-locate without scrutiny.
Conclusion
The Big Island greatly needs Bill 194 to protect its beauty, safety, well-being, and property
values. Council member Evans' bill includes detailed fire plans and site approval
requirements, providing reassurance to residents.
In conclusion, the call for transparency and documentation in Bill 194 is a reasonable and
necessary step forward. This approach aligns with both legal standards and community
safety needs, advocating for a balanced consideration rather than an unfavorable
recommendation.
Mahalo for reading my testimony and for your consideration.
Naomi Melamed
Safe Tech Hawaii, Hawaii Island Leader
From:Darlene Waddell
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Bill 194
Date:Monday, December 16, 2024 8:58:46 AM
To Whomever This Concerns,
Please give a Favorable Recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194. Dozens of local jurisdictions have
implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and
antennas. It is aligned with all applicable Federal and State laws and offers
important updates to the code.
Warmest Aloha,The Waddell Ohana
From:Debra Greene
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Support Item #2
Date:Tuesday, December 17, 2024 3:12:14 AM
Attachments:Leeward written testimony 12-16-24.pdf
Aloha,
Attached please find written testimony for Item #2 for the upcoming Leeward
Commission meeting. 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 telecommunications ordinances. I hold a PhD in
Communication, and am the Founding Director of Safe Tech Hawaii, a grassroots, all-volunteer
coalition, educating and advocating for safe technology across the islands. I’m writing in
support of County Council Bill 194.
We’re asking for a favorable recommendation for Bill 194 because it represents an ideal
balance between the needs of the community for connectivity, while providing important
safeguards for tower and antenna deployments. People want cell phones but they don’t want
towers or antennas because they’re unsightly and they emit wireless radiation. But there is a
way to minimize exposure to them without compromising connectivity. That’s what Bill 194
does.
It accomplishes this by updating the definition of antennas and towers to stay current with
these ever-evolving technologies. Hawaii County already has in place a protective Resolution
regarding 5G deployments that was adopted four years ago. Bill 194 includes 5G small cell
infrastructure, whereas the other bill doesn’t. This is a major advantage of Bill 194 as small cells
are a novel and untested technology that require regulation for the good of the public. The
County Council’s ordinance is a follow-up to their already adopted Resolution, and it
accomplishes this while bringing County code into compliance with HRS 46-89.
Further, it creates Application Requirements and standards including increased setbacks, and
an order of priority for siting the wireless facilities. All of this is fully within the purview of
Planning and is similar to ordinances already implemented in dozens of local jurisdictions across
the country. Hawaii county has even more reason to regulate towers and antennas because of
aesthetics. People value the beauty of nature here. They don’t want towers and antennas
everywhere, and neither do visitors.
Another important difference between the two bills is that Bill 194 includes application
requirements with provisions involving the Hawaii Fire department, a fire safety plan, and
access easement for fire suppression purposes. In light of the increasing fire risks on Hawaii
island and the devastating fires on Maui, these provisions provide essential protections.
In July 2018, the Hawaii Wireless Fast Track Bill, HB 2651, was signed into law. One of the
sponsors was then-legislator Cindy Evans, who wrote and introduced Bill 194 here. HB 2651
codifies Federal law and says that Counties can and should regulate. It lists 15 permitting
requirements, and says that County regulation is needed before any of those requirements can
be used. That’s because Federal law grants local jurisdictions the authority to regulate towers
and antennas.
In the Telecommunications Act, Congress preserved local governments authority to regulate
the placement, construction and modification of wireless facilities subject only to five
constraints.
In implementing regulations, local jurisdictions:
1) Can’t discriminate among providers
2) Can’t prohibit personal wireless service
3) Must act upon any application in a reasonable amount of time
4) Can’t regulate on the basis of environmental effects of radiation, to the extent that they still
have to comply with FCC emission guidelines (which haven’t been updated since 1996 when
smart phones and WiFi didn’t exist!)
5) Must document in writing with substantial evidence any decision to deny an application
Bill 194 fully complies with these requirements and any suggestions to the contrary are entirely
arbitrary. Sadly, the former Director, Zendo Kern, gave Bill 194 an unfavorable recommendation
while advancing his own ordinance, an 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. We couldn’t help but notice that timing.
Council members are elected to enact legislation in a democratic process - we elect them and
they represent our needs. Cindy Evans who authored Bill 194 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, and contacting
officials at the Federal, State and County levels 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.
In contrast, we couldn’t help but notice that under the “Pubic Comments” section of the former
Director’s proposed ordinance, he listed nothing but telecommunications corporations and
telecommunications advocacy groups. There was no actual input from the community - only
from telecom.
Below I address each of the concerns the former Director used to justify his unfavorable
recommendation and show how the majority of them are unfounded.
1) Bill 194 Section 25-2-74(1)
This Subsection requires a plot plan showing the location of the proposed antenna or
tower and all buildings and uses within 300 feet thereof. The former 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 former 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 former Director simply asked, as the draft
ordinance was shared with Planning over six months before the he introduced his
ordinance. Cooperation was demonstrated by Council Member Evans, but not by the
former Director.
2) Bill 194 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 former Director raised three concerns:
First: He 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, his 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 former 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 former 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) Bill 194 Subsections 25-2-74(6), (7), (8), (12), (13) and 25-4-12(i)(3) & (4)
These Subsections constitute plan approval application requirements. The former
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) Bill 194 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 former 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.
Then former Director Kern 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 former 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 former 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) Bill 194 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 former Director stated five concerns.
First: His stated concern was 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 was this even a concern? 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 an ordinance.
Third: The former 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 he gave 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. Was the Former
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 former 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, his 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.
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