Two competing bills changing Hawaii County’s permitting process for cell towers are set for a showdown next month.
In August, Kohala Councilwoman Cindy Evans introduced at a council committee meeting Bill 194, a measure that would require telecommunications companies to submit more documentation in order to receive county permits for building facilities on the island.
One month later, the county Planning Department introduced to the Windward Planning Commission a draft measure — which does not have a bill number — that would loosen regulations for telecom companies, allowing them to erect cell towers without a permit in certain zoning districts.
The former measure also came before the Commission on Nov. 1, where County Planner Tracie-Lee Camero laid out the similarities and differences in intent and execution between the two bills.
While both bills diverge significantly, they both ultimately would exempt telecommunications companies from needing permit approval by the county Planning Commissions. Bill 194 does place more requirements upon telecom companies, but, as long as the company meets the new requirements set by the measure and the county Planning Director issues plan approval for the project, it permits cell towers in any zoning district.
Both bills also require that any new cell tower be built at least 120% of the tower’s height away from any property line, and at least 1,000 feet from any residence or school. They also require that the telecom company submit a plan for the eventual shutdown and abandonment of the tower.
Where Bill 194 differs the most from the other bill is in the list of documents a company must submit in order to get plan approval. It includes a litany of 16 reports, including elevation and electrical drawings, fire safety requirements, a statement on the facility’s potential interference with county broadcasting, a soil condition analysis, a maintenance plan, a report on radio frequency exposure levels, and more.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, Camero told the Commission that the Planning Department favors its own bill over Evans’, concluding that Bill 194 is inflexible and, in some places, redundant to existing requirements, while requiring more work by the Planning Department.
Camero also suggested that Bill 194 could conflict with federal law, which prohibits municipalities from setting stricter radio frequency standards than the Federal Communication Commission.
On the other hand, Evans told the Commission that, while her measure does need additional polish, it was written with consultation with federal and state agencies to ensure that it does not exceed the county’s authority.
“I believe really confidently that I have not been excessive and gone beyond what we can do at the local level,” Evans said.
Evans went on to say that telecom companies should be required to furnish the community with more data about what they plan to do with each facility.
“When you co-locate (multiple antennas on one tower), it’s more than just one radio frequency, you keep adding,” Evans said. “So if you can do four co-locations on a tower, there’s four different radio frequencies being emitted by four different equipment. So what is the total radio frequency coming off that tower?”
The discussion drew more than 70 members of the public to submit oral and written testimony, largely in support of Bill 194.
“If we are considering an air pollutant, we must realize that involuntary exposure will be commonplace nearly everywhere with the proliferation of this technology,” wrote Naomi Melamed, a member of the advocacy group Safe Tech Hawaii. “The least we can do ethically is outlined in Bill 194. People must be informed, especially those living nearby … and there must be a venue for their voices to be heard.”
Nearly all testimony raised concerns about health risks caused by radio emissions, which has been claimed to cause any number of ailments including cancer.
The World Health Organization has found no causal link between wireless radiation exposure and any observed adverse health reaction, and has determined that the exposure levels from current telecommunication technologies are negligible at the standards set by international governing bodies.
In any case, federal law states that health concerns about radio frequency emissions cannot be used as the basis for denying a permit for the construction of a telecommunication facility.
The Commission, concluding that any decision about one bill will likely necessitate an opposite decision about the other, moved to postpone any action on the matter until its Dec. 5 meeting, when it will weigh the merits of both bills and, potentially, pick one to recommend.
Email Michael Brestovansky at mbrestovansky@hawaiitribune-herald.com.