Two competing bills changing Hawaii County’s cell tower permitting process are set to face a showdown next month.

In August, Kohala City Councilwoman Cindy Evans introduced House Bill 194 at a council committee meeting, a measure that would require telecommunications companies to submit more paperwork in order to receive county permits for build facilities on the island.

A month later, the county Planning Department presented the Windward Planning Commission with a proposed measure — which has no bill number — that would ease regulations for telecommunications companies, allowing them to erect Unlicensed cell phone towers in some zoning districts.

The first measure also came before the Commission on November 1, where County Planner Tracie-Lee Camero outlined the similarities and differences in intent and execution between the two bills.

Although the two bills diverge significantly, they would both ultimately exempt telecommunications companies from the requirement to obtain permit approval from county planning commissions. House Bill 194 imposes more requirements on telecommunications companies, but, as long as the company meets the new requirements set by the measure and the county planning director approves the project plan, it permits telecommunications towers. cellular telephony in any zoning district.

Both bills also require that any new cell tower be built at least 120 percent of its height from any property line and at least 1,000 feet from any residence or school. They also demand that the telecommunications company submit a plan for the eventual closure and abandonment of the tower.

Where Bill 194 differs most from the other bill is in the list of documents a business must submit to obtain plan approval. It includes a litany of 16 reports, including elevation and electrical drawings, fire safety requirements, a statement about the facility’s potential interference with county broadcasting, an analysis of soil conditions, a plan maintenance, a report on radio frequency exposure levels, and more.

Unsurprisingly, Camero told the Commission that the Planning Department prefers its own bill to Evans’, concluding that House Bill 194 is rigid and, in some places, redundant to existing requirements, while requiring more work from the planning department.

Camero also suggested that House Bill 194 could conflict with federal law, which prohibits municipalities from setting radio frequency standards stricter than those of the Federal Communications Commission.

On the other hand, Evans told the Commission that while his measure needs refinement, it was drafted in consultation with federal and state agencies to ensure it does not exceed the authority of the county.

“I confidently believe that I have not gone overboard and gone above and beyond what we can do locally,” Evans said.

Evans added that telecommunications companies should be required to provide the community with more data on what they plan to do with each installation.

“When you co-locate (multiple antennas on a tower), it’s more than just a radio frequency, you keep adding more,” Evans said. “So if you can do four collocations on a tower, four different radio frequencies are being emitted by four different pieces of equipment. So what is the total radio frequency coming from this tower? »

The discussion resulted in more than 70 members of the public submitting oral and written testimony, largely in support of Bill 194.

“If we are considering an air pollutant, we must realize that unintentional exposure will be commonplace almost everywhere with the proliferation of this technology,” wrote Naomi Melamed, a member of the advocacy group Safe Tech Hawaii. “The least we can ethically do is outlined in Bill 194. People need to be informed, especially those who live nearby…and there needs to be a place where their voice can be heard.”

Almost all testimony raised concerns about the health risks caused by radio broadcasts, which are believed to be the cause of many diseases, including cancer.

The World Health Organization has found no causal link between exposure to wireless radiation and any observed adverse health reactions, and has determined that exposure levels from current telecommunications technologies are negligible at present. standards set by international governing bodies.

In any case, federal law states that health concerns related to radio frequency emissions cannot be used as a basis for denying a permit for the construction of a telecommunications facility.

The Commission, concluding that any decision on one bill will likely require an opposing decision on the other, decided to defer any action on the matter until its December 5 meeting, when it will evaluate the merits of the two bills. law and, eventually, will choose one. to recommend.

Email Michael Brestovansky at [email protected].