start there and then we'll come back to our testifiers here in Heelal and via Zoom. So Scott, if you could start us off, please. Thank you, Rayleigh. This afternoon we have Cindy Evans in support of Bill 24. Go ahead. State your name for the record and proceed Cindy. Thank you. I'm Cindy Evans, a resident of South Kohala. Okay. So a low-hot chair, Kirkowitz and members of the committee is great to see you today. I am offering comments and support of Bill 24. I have submitted written testimony, but it did get in. I got it in late. So I'm going to be reading it. So thank you. So I strongly advocate for additional language that promotes transparency and accountability and requests that the council address the following two issues offering draft language for your consideration. First requiring the owner of the tower and tenor or supporting equipment and structures to be in compliance with federal and state laws as amended and requiring facility owners that either own or lease tower antenna or supporting equipment and structures to be in compliance with federal and state laws as amended. When regulations are updated requiring that within 120 days to take action so that they will be in compliance. No action. If they take no action, then the planning director can terminate and require an application to be resummitted for approval and that they comply with current current federal state and county code. Second, if any time the planning director with approval of the council may adopt a resolution to designate high-risk components that pose a particular risk of damage to adjacent properties and require upon request documentation that inspections repair or replacement of high risk components has occurred. I again have submitted this online and thank you for your consideration. And I'm really I'm grateful for the continuing support of working on the nitty-gritty detail of this bill. There is a lot of detail to it, but I think that it is really moving in a really good direction and making our community feel a lot more confident that we are holding people accountable to transparency and meeting regulations. So with that, I want to thank you again for the opportunity to testify in and happy, Fools April Fools Day by Aloha. Thank you, city. That concludes testimony here in Kona. Thank you so much. Chair, your next two testifiers are gonna be via Zoom, Adrian Catalan to be followed by Dr. Deborah Green. And then we'll take Cyrus Johnison here in Hilo immediately after. Adrian, if you could please unmute your mic via zoom. You'll have three minutes to provide your testimony if you could just reintroduce yourself. Hello, everyone. Can you see me? Yes, we do hear me? Yes. Hi, my name is Adrian Cotula. I'm a local born and raised here. And I work for Crown Castle, a wireless infrastructure provider. That operates a communication network here on the big island. I'm here today to oppose Bill 24 and to request that amendments be made to provide clear guidance, practical application, and adherence to both our local interests and federal law. Telecommunications and wireless infrastructure are integral to our daily lives. Caponecare is increasingly virtual via telehealth. Arcaiqi are reliant on digital platforms to learn, engage, and connect with the world. And emergency services rely on swift and dependable wireless connectivity. No better example of first responders and first net was seen in the Lehighina fires that affected so many and where services such as telecommunications played a pivotal role, both during and in the aftermath when connection was reestablished. Bill 24 and its current iteration would inadvertently prohibit the ability to provide effective wireless service. Specifically, I'll address three points that mentioned some of the things that prohibit the ability to provide that service. The first is the bill needs to be a little clearer in distinguishing between new tower or new facility builds versus modifications to existing infrastructure. The bill should be amended to fully state it will comply with section 6409 of the Spectrum Act which is established federal law. This federal law is helpful because not only does it clarify the distinction between new builds and modifications, the FCC even provides examples telecom guidance from existing case law and lawsuits that have occurred in other states and other counties. Secondly, the bill often conflates antennas with towers. If the goal is to encourage co-location on existing sites rather than to build new sites, there should be unambiguous language that acknowledges the difference between new antennas and existing infrastructure. Specifically that antennas on existing infrastructure do not require the same level of regulation that a brand new. 30 seconds please. What obviously require. Finally, bill 24 proposes both a thousand 200 setback from property lines and a minimum lot size. These make it impractical to build in proximity to the very communities that need these services and is in direct contrast with the state's broadband efforts. In summary, we encourage and we hope you thoughtfully provide wireless development and accessibility rather than stipling this necessity. We appreciate the county's attention to this important matter and we urge you to postpone adoption of this ordinance until these issues can be properly resolved. Thank you so much for your testimony. Chair, your next testifier is Deborah Green to be followed by Cyrus Johnnison here in the Heelow Chamber. Deborah, if you could unmute your mic, you'll have three minutes if you could just reintroduce yourself as you begin, please. Hello again. My name is Deborah Green. I'm the founding director of Safe Tech Hawaii. I have a PhD in communication and I'm testifying on behalf of Safe Tech in support of Bill 24 and of the four amendments put forth by Council Member Villegas. The first amendment is inclusion of small cells. This is vitally important to keep pace with every evolving technologies. There's no point in adopting an ordinance that's already out of date. Small cells were included in Bill 194 that was fully vetted by Corporation Council and by state and federal authorities. But at the February 4th Committee meeting, unfortunately, the director misspoke when asked if small sales could be included. He cited HRS 206N4, but he skipped over 206N1, which is applicability. The state law does not apply to privately-owned or co-owned utility polls. The line-electric is a private company, and they own the polls here, so there is no prohibition. Small cells can and should be regulated. Next, regarding community notification, the biggest complaint people have is when a tower is put up without their prior knowledge. Bill 24 already has a notification requirement, but it's really vague. That's a loophole that can be exploited and the community will suffer. Since your intent is to notify folks, then please make the requirements clear. If certified mail is a hassle, then regular mail is fine, but in fairness to the community, people within 500 feet need to be notified well in advance and in writing. Next is a permit application form that clearly states the form marks the beginning of the 60 day shot clock and applies to all applications. I honestly can't think of a single reason not to do this. The county is required by law to comply with the 60-day shot clock, which is actually the purpose of Bill 24. So it should be made very clear to all parties exactly when the shot clock begins. A permit application form specifying this is a perfect solution. Finally, a 100-mile per hour sustained wind requirement as part of the building plans certified by a licensed structural engineer is crucial for accountability. Without it, no one is responsible for coming forward. Thirty seconds please. Thank you. Cell towers have been linked to devastating wildfires across California and elsewhere. It's just not worth the risk of noncompliance, especially after the Maui fires. It's better to be proactive and to include accountability. Thank you for your kind consideration. Thank you for all of the hard work you've done on Bill 24. And again, please adopt the four amendments put forth by Council Member V. A. Gersh. Thank you. Thank you so much for your testimony. Chair, your next two testifiers are here in the Heelow Chamber. Cyrus Johnison to be followed by Donna Graba. Cyrus, when you begin, you'll have three minutes. If you could just please reintroduce yourself as you start. Yeah, a lot of Council Members. chair, Kirkowitz, Vice Chair Kim Glimba, and then as well as Council Chair Inaba, Vice Chair Onishi, rest of the council, Happy Birthday, Council Member Kagiwata. My name is Ars Jhonison, I'm here today representing the Wireless Infrastructure Association. Mahalo for the time, the opportunity to testify in opposition to Bill 24, as currently drafted, into request amendments. Bill 24 imposes restrictive setbacks. It's a fairly limited, where wireless infrastructure can be placed, that proposed 1200 foot setback from residents of schools and hospitals. It's significantly stricter than the current standards with no real justification provided. Federal law is clear that local governments cannot regulate wireless infrastructure based on RF or emissions. And these towers are engineered for safety. So if setbacks must be adjusted, if setbacks must be adjusted, we propose a reasonable 120% setback, or a waiver option to prevent gaps in service. Also, this bill has a potential to disproportionately impact rural communities where connectivity is already a challenge. Area is a Ka'u, Hamakua, Bahala, Arvnaleu, Hamakua, Bahala. Depend on reliable service for emergency response, education, economic opportunities, you know, strict setbacks could leave these communities without infrastructure in critical areas need to support modern communication and public safety. Additionally, there could be an impact on agricultural properties. And they must be considered, the current setback requirements could prevent farmers and ranchers from utilizing portions of their land, restricting property, their ability to operate effectively and efficiently. Many agricultural owners, land owners, lease small portions of their property for wireless infrastructure providing an important income stream for their families while improving connectivity for the community. Unnecessary large setbacks certain this beneficial arrangement. Lastly, we encourage the county to consider commercial properties as preferred setting locations as they offer natural screening and reduce visual impacts. Reciptive placement rules will make it nearly impossible to locate facilities where they are most needed. Instead of arbitrary size restrictions, we recommend the development of an objective design standards to address aesthetic concerns while preserving flexibility. Reliable cellular service and Wi-Fi services are essential for public safety, education and economic development, restrictive citing rules will leave rural areas, disconnected driver costs, create gaps and create gaps in emergency services. We urge councils to work with industry experts to refine the bill in a way that respects federal regulations, maintains community character and ensures connectivity for our residents. Small. Thank you so much for your testimony. Jail your next testifier is Donna Grapplet to be followed by Naomi Malamid via Zoom. Donna, when you begin, you'll have three minutes if you could just reintroduce yourself. You can turn that mic on by pressing that green button at the base. There you go. Hi, my name's Donna Grabo from HILO and I'm in support of Bill 24 In contradiction to the wireless company employees that say it's safe the small cells are not safe It's vital to our health to put regulations on radiation pollution. Those small cells and tennis are small in size. They have thick electrical cables that are able to pump out powerful microwave frequencies. Please support them, amendment, to include small cells in Bill 24. in the P-C U E D meeting on February 4th, the planning director incorrectly stated that small cells could not be regulated and cited subsection 4 as the reason, but he skipped over a crucial part of that law, namely, 206N subsection applicability under applicability. So, I think Deborah Green already talked about that, so I'll move on. Small cells can and should be regulated. I'm going to show a very quick video from the Washington, DC Council of Small Cell Technology. And I spend my time full time here in Washington, DC educating legislators regarding the health effects of biological and health effects from wireless radiation. And part of our team is cancer epidemiologists, toxicologists, cellular biologists, all the people that... Oh, come on. Where did it go? Hold on. I don't know what happened. I might not have to... I might not be able to finish this. The FCC do not employ. In fact, the FCC does not even have a health department. And the working around of health effects from wireless technology is really a set chapter. The industry, the whole country. And frankly, there's no nice way to say this. The wireless industry is lying about health and they're lying about this technology and how it needs to be implemented. And coming from California, we have more insight because they're already beginning to install. So we'll be talking about it. 30 seconds please. Yes. The wireless industry is lying. I appreciate the opportunity to speak today. Thank you. Thank you so much for your testimony. Chair next testifier is Naomi Malamette to be followed by Zoe Berg. Naomi when you begin, if you could just unmute your mic and reintroduce yourself, you'll have three minutes. Aloha, my name is Naomi Milamette. I am the big island leader for Safe Tech Hawaii. I'd like to give mahalos to the chair and committee for all of your attention and work today regarding Bill 24 and I'll use this time to express my support and discuss for crucial amendments introduced by council member B.A.G.S. The first amendment updates the definition of telecommunications antenna to incorporate evolving technologies, specifically small wireless facilities, 5G small cells. The current drafts definition does not adequately reflect the rapid advancements in AI and wireless technologies, and including small wireless facilities ensures our regulations are clear and specific, preventing confusion and potential legal loopholes. Given that most utility poles are privately owned, the amendment allows us to regulate small cells effectively, aligning with the community expectations and previous considerations in Bill 194. The Second Amendment adopts a standardized application form to clarify the start date of the 60-day shot clock for permit approvals. This form serves to prevent disputes and delays that have occurred in other jurisdictions. It will require all necessary documentation to be submitted before the shot clock starts, aligning with a recent 9th Circuit Court ruling. This ensures a smooth and transparent process, eliminating exploitation and fostering efficiency and handling applications. The third amendment verifies wind survivability requirements for telecommunications towers. High velocity winds pose significant risks as seen in other regions where tower failures have led to devastating wildfires. By reinstating this 100 mile an hour sustained wind requirement certified by a licensed structural engineer, we close the existing loop holes and ensure that our infrastructure is both reliable and safe. This requirement complements the existing 130 mile-and-hour wind standard in Bill 24. Finally, the Fourth Amendment provides clarity on community notification requirements. Terms like notify, engage, and affected community are currently a vague and can lead to misunderstandings and disputes. By defining explicitly these terms, we ensure that all parties are informed and engage appropriately fostering transparent and transparent communities. 30 seconds please. Community. In conclusion, the amendments are vital for advancing our infrastructure while prioritizing safety and clarity. Your support in implementing these changes will improve Bill 24 for the benefit of our community. I think you all for your time and efforts towards fostering more connectivity for the big island. Aloha. Thank you so much for your testimony. Chair, your next Zoom testifier is Oy Berg to be followed by Kalei Kailkini here in the Hilo Chamber. So when you begin, if you could just unmute your mic, you'll have three minutes, and if you could reintroduce yourself, please. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Aloha, my name is Zoe Berg. I'm a legal fellow with the Environmental Health Trust a science-based environmental health nonprofit organization that advocates for the responsible and thoughtful deployment of wireless telecommunications infrastructure. I am sure to speak in support of Bill 24. I would quickly like to address Mr. Cotelon's public comment the representative from Crown Castle. Bill 24 does not stifle the necessity of providing broadband access throughout Hawaii County. It merely ensures that wireless telecommunications equipment is responsibly and thoughtfully cited throughout the county. And also the wireless infrastructure associations claims that this bill will hinder rural broadband deployment is simply false. Nothing in this bill makes it harder for telecommunication companies to deploy. Again, it merely ensures that wireless equipment is responsibly and thoughtfully cited throughout the county and that the community is included in the process. I work with municipalities across the country to ensure that local governments are educated about the many ways in which they can regulate the placement of wireless facilities to protect scenic corridors and environmentally sensitive areas, safeguard public health and safety, preserve historic zones, protect property values, and ensure that residents are notified about pending and approved wireless antenna applications. I support all four of Council Member Viego's amendments to bill 24. I want to emphasize my support of the regulation of small cell antennas to the best of my knowledge at this time. Small cells in Hawaii County can be regulated and should be regulated. If installed in inappropriate locations industrial looking small cells will be visually intrusive, devalue property values and degrade the aesthetic integrity of communities throughout the county. I also want to emphasize my support of the written notice amendment. As it currently stands, the language provided in the draft ordinance is simply too vague. Written notice via certified mail within five days of a new wireless application, wireless telecommunications application submission, to landowners and tenants within a 500 foot radius of the proposed facility establishes a well-defined, clear cut process to ensure that those who would be most directly impacted By a proposed facility receive proper notice. So with that said, I respectfully urge this committee to support all four of council member Viego says amendments to bill 24 and I thank you for your time and consideration Thank you so much for your testimony chair your next two testifiers are here in the Hilo chamber Kalei Kailikini to be followed by Chris Hirosay Kale when you begin you'll have three minutes if you could just reintroduce yourself as you start Oh, you'll have to there you. There you go. Can you hear me? Good afternoon. Aloha, my name is Kalei Kailei Keene. And I represent myself and my family. I oppose the, I'm sorry, I support the bill. But what I wanted to do and where I'm coming from is from health and wellness, your health. I'm concerned about your health. I'm a natural Catholic scholar, practitioner, 20s, four years now. And I'm 76 years old. I'm going to be 77 July 4th. So anyway, a gentleman by the name of Jeremy Johnson did a talk on TEDx. He was a very young engineer in Silicon Valley 15 years and he became a electoral hypersensitive EHS and so because of that he went on this journey to start to research all of this EMFs or electromagnetic frequency or electromagnetic fields and he found it to be super dangerous it causes brain cancer a lot A lot of brain tumors. My brain is the whole list. So I get very concerned because I'm elderly so I have to be concerned. Another thing that he found is that there are solutions and the solution is fiber optics. Yes, the telecommunications people do not want to hear this, but Hawaiian telecom is in fiber optics and it is a safer technology for you utilizing your cell phones iPads. So we need to look at that and see what is best for our health. And they found, and I don't want to take too long because you must have heard it many, many, many times, but I wonder. This is what I wonder. Why are us public or testifiers coming before our elected officials? And I do give you a lot of credit and I do respect you. But why are we coming to you with the information? I hope that you would do your research and find out because that gives you an edge every time you rerun for office It gives you an edge because now with technology and the internet we are finding out more than we ever did before I'm 76 years old and I know a lot of information So I'm just passing that tip along to you advice when you rerun also Another thing is I want to end with this and that is the resolution County of Hawaii resolution 6, 7, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8,'re going to put a moratorium on the use of 5G, including these small cell towers, because the Federal Communications Commission had conducted any long-term safety testing of the new 5G wireless technologies. Number one, number two, the telecommunications industry leaders publicly admitted they did not do any testing. So with that, this is your own resolution. Only one person opposed it. And I believe you're on this, Ashley, and I'm proud of you. I'm really proud of all the ones. Matt, yourself. Thank you, Mahalo. Sorry to take a picture. Thank you so much for your testimony. I have copies of it by the way if anybody wants a copy. Chair, your next test of fire is Chris Hirose. To be followed by Theodore Scarato via Zoom. Chris, when you begin, if you could just reintroduce yourself, you'll have three minutes. Please support Bill 24 and don't permit small 5G cell emitters on private Hawaiian electric telephone poles, even though they are allowed on public ones. The telecon industry doesn't normally use the higher frequency microwaves for big cell phone towers because they don't bend around corners. The higher the frequency the microwave, the more data capacity, but also the more dangerous the radiation. Microwave ovens use higher frequencies, but many small 5G emitters don't have to bend the microwave and use higher frequencies and are more dangerous. People in town will be most at risk, especially vulnerable or children because they have the greatest lifetime exposure and their bodies are still developing. UnpubMed there are 554 results for cell phone radiation cancer and 1,129 results for cell phone radiation health. The first study result for PubMed cell phone radiation cancer is. Evidence for a health risk by RF on humans living around mobile phone-based stations, from radio frequency sickness to cancer. The study abstract said, studies performed in real urban conditions, with mobile phone-based stations situated close to apartments, were selected. Overall results of this review show three types of effects by base station antennas on the health of people, radio frequency sickness RS cancered C, and changes in biochemical parameters CBP. Considering all the studies reviewed globally N equals 38, 73.6% 2838s showed effects, 73.9% 1723rds for radio frequency sickness, 76.9% 1013s for cancer and 75.0% 68s for changes in biochemical parameters. The study conclusion, in the current circumstances, it seems that the scientific experts in the field are very clear about the serious problems we are facing and have expressed this through important appeals. However, the media, the responsible organizations World Health Organization, 2015, and the governments are not transmitting this crucial information to the population who remain uninformed. For these reasons, the current situation will probably end in a crisis. The U.S. federal government puts corporate profits over people's lives. An example of this is when the FCC stopped Dr. David Brownstein MD from posting his successfully treated COVID patients testimonials on the internet. They said he had to take his posts down because there was no study. After he published a peer-reviewed study, the FCC said he needed a randomized control study that would put half his patients at risk of dying. The electronics manufacturing equipment lobby is the second biggest US industrial lobby after pharmaceuticals health products. They spent $253 million in 2024 with 1,670 lobbyists. 59.7% are former government employees. The revolving door causes the feds dizziness. The county needs to protect people from special interests. Thank you so much for your testimony. Thank you. Chair, your next testifier via Zoom is the Adora Scarado to be followed by Megan Isaac. The Adora, when you begin, if you could just reintroduce yourself, you'll have three minutes. Thank you, Aloha. I'm the Adora Scarado, and I'm honored to be speaking to you today, offering support of the four amendments put forth by a Council Member Behaehaz. I've been working in the field of health and environmental issues related to cell towers and wireless networks for over a decade, and my research and publications have focused on the policy and regulatory issues. While I'm here today speaking on my own behalf, I do work in the field. I'm not representing any organization in an official capacity, but I am director of the Electromagnetic Field and Wireless Program at Environmental Health Sciences, and I previously served as Executive Director of Environmental Health Trust, the organization that had a favorable ruling in the lawsuit against the federal government regarding the agency's refusal to update its 1996 radiation limits. Now in our case, the government, the FCC, was mandated to explain how the limits were adequately protected. They have not responded. However, the federal issues are far greater than the lack of adequate scientific review. They run deep because the U.S. federal policy regarding oversight and enforcement for wireless facility cell towers is essentially the honor system. And that is why local and state authorities have such an important role to play in enacting responsible, proactive safeguards to the degree that they have authority. So the amendments before you address critical issues, of course small cells should absolutely be included in the definition of antennas. And I can say that, you know, all antennas be they a part of a tall tower on a short pole or on a building. They are all part of a for-profit business. They are part of a commercial telecommunications or wireless network and they really should be responsibly regulated. And the other issue of transparency is absolutely key. Clarifying notification requirements serves everyone, all parties. I've worked with many communities, municipalities, and every time I hear it over and over again. How could I not have known? Why wasn't I informed? And they are absolutely in shock that a commercial wireless antenna site is going up near their home or child school. And they ask, you know, why wasn't I a part of this process to be getting, and they are furious. And what they find is that the responsibility for the lack of transparency and not being informed is 30 seconds please. Is the officials who did not ensure that they were fully informed with the beginning of the process? So this is really important and I thank you so much for your consideration of these amendments. Thank you so much. Thank you so much for your testimony. Chair, your next testifier is Megan Isaac to be followed by April Lee. Megan, when you begin, if you could just reintroduce yourself, you can unmute your mic and you'll have three minutes. Oh, sorry Megan, if you could just unmute real quick. There you go. Aloha. Aloha. Thank you for this opportunity to testify and thank you to people who've spoken very clearly. I do hope County Council that you are listening. There is a very disturbing pattern where very fundamentally implemented testimony gets completely ignored. It's as if people have not told you the things that you're hearing. This is a pattern I've noticed over months. So I'm just commenting as a preamble to what I'm going to say, just hoping that you will start to reverse that trend and show respect for people bringing you very critical information about the health and safety. We're in a brand new time that some people are calling the beginning of the fourth industrial revolution. Every single other industrial revolution, historically, has brought about massive amounts of suffering, and unfortunately, also, if you look in the history books, people perished. So we should take seriously this idea of a fourth industrial revolution. And it turns out it's not really something that we're asking for. The reason we need this technology is not just for our convenience, so our Netflix streams better. This is so we can have driverless cars. This is so we can have robotic functions everywhere. It's a complete conflict for most of us. The majority of us are not considering this to be a future that we want. Noah Yavall from the World Economic Forum has spoken eloquently about how it's actually going to make a lot of people obsolete. They will have no jobs. This is the future using the 5G technology. And then I'm quickly just going to run through some things that I sought to evaluate with the help of ChatGbt. And I asked for an evaluation about the claim that Wuhan was also a site for the rollout of 5D technology at the exact same time that COVID-19 appeared in that city. And it is confirmed that that's true. So what I want you to consider and that many of us are telling you is that radiation poisoning has very similar symptoms to a chronic respiratory flu and illness. And I would further say that there were plenty of videos put out at that time of people having cardiac arrests in the street. We're looking at a direct endangerment if these small cells go up to our healer district, to all of our urban districts, where there are schools, where there are elderly, where there are vulnerable people who will feel the effects the most. Thank you so much for your test and voting. I'm sorry but your time is up. We're gonna have to move on. Thank you so much. Chair your next testifier is April Lee. April if you are on the Zoom if you could unmute your mic you'll have three minutes once you begin again. April Lee if you are in the Zoom room if you could could please unmute your mic. This is your opportunity to provide your testimony. Chair, hearing nothing, no response from that request. Those are all the test the fires that you have at this time. Thank you, Rally. And let the record reflect that Council members, Viegas and Canaley E. Kleinfelder have joined us. Mr. Clerk, if we could please proceed with business of the day, bills for ordinances. Bill 24 draft to a men's chapter 25 articles, one, two, four, five, and seven of the Hawaii County Code 1983, 2016 edition as amended relating to telecommunication antennas and towers. Planning director initiated the Winward and Lee were planning commissions for their favorable recommendations to remove the requirement for use permit to establish telecommunications antennas and towers in certain zoning districts. Add application requirements and amend standards for the establishment of telecommunication antennas and towers. Introduced by Council Member Kirkowitz by request. This was postponed on February 4 and 18 and on March 6, 2025. Please note there's a motion on the floor by Council Member A. Nobles, seconded by Council Member Houston to recommend passage of Bill 24 on first reading. Thank you, Mr. Clerk. We have a series of amendments that have been filed for a deliberation today and to keep things fair and easy. I would like to start in order of communications as they have been filed. So Councilmember Kagiwata, we'll start with your communication. Thank you, Chair. I'd like to move to amend Bill 24, draft two with the contents of communication 110.17. Thank you. There is a motion by Councilmember Caguata and a second by Councilmember Inaba to amend Bill 24, draft two with the contents of communication 110.17. Councilmember Caguata. Thank you, Chair. Just in overlooking the entire bill and what was proposed before and meeting with both the Planning Director and the Deputy Director as well as staff. One of the things that I saw that I thought could be amended pretty easily was just broadening the point about light and light bothering people to include more than just shielding for migrating sea birds but also just to have run it for like neighbors and stuff. So this wording I worked on with the Planning Department and with the LRP basically to do that to make sure that neighbors are shielded from unnecessary light. Thank you Councilmember. Could I please call up representatives from the planning department. Thank you for being here today so that you could hear public testimony and for being available to answer questions from this body related to the amendments that are before us. If you could just introduce yourselves for the record, nice haircut director, and then provide the department's position on the amendment that Councilmember Coguata is putting forward. Thank you. Okay, let's get that guy out there. Good afternoon, Chair Kirkowitz and Vice Chair Glembun, members of the Hawaii County Council, Chef Dero, Planning Department, and with me is Tracy Lee Camaro, planner with our planning division staff. For the first amendment, we did work with Councilmember Kagiwata on this. This actually is a typical condition that's placed within our telecommunication permits. It was first given to us through the Department of Fish and Wildlife for protection of seabirds, but again it also applies as light pollution or whatever. It's constantly on. So it's requesting that shielding be implemented for any type of lighting on the polls. And the department just to be clear that the department is in support of this event. Okay, thank you. Questions or comments on this communication? Council member Yannava. Yeah, just wanting clarification. What is kind of the standard for human activity here? Oh, long day. I didn't mean to be that funny, but I just wanted to just want to clarify. We were having the same. Yeah. Typically, there's not much traffic going on at a cell tower site. You'll have maintenance once a month or once every other month. But you could have something that could happen at nighttime. And the light hope need to be there be there. But typically there's really not any human activity occurring at these cell sites and less again maintenance. So our thought was, you know, you have those sensor lights that when somebody's there and it walks by it'll come on, but when they're gone it'll go off. So it's just basically very limited human activity but if there is it'll come on if there isn't it should be off. Okay thank you the director, Sherry. Anyone else? Seeing none, all those in in favor, please say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries with nine aye votes. Bill 24, draft two is amended with the contents of communication 110.17. Council member V, I guess, would you like to introduce your amendment? Motion to approve. Motion to amend. Motion to amend. Bill 24, Draft 2 with the contents of communication, 110.18. There is a motion by Council Member Began, second by Council Member Inaba to amend Spill. 24, Draft 2 as amended with the contents of communication, 110.18, Council Member Began. Thank you. I just want to kind of present some of the rationale related to this amendment as we've all heard from our number of emails and testifiers and community reaching out is that the community overwhelmingly wants small cells or small wireless facilities to be regulated. This regulation was originally included in Bill 194, which had been vetted by Corp Council and approved of. According to HRS 206N1, this is applicable because HRS 206N only applies to mounting small cells on publicly owned poles. Where here in Hawaii County most utility poles are owned by Hawaiian Electric. A private company therefore HSR 206N doesn't apply to them, which is why it's necessary that we include this in Bill 24 small cells or small wireless facilities can and should be regulated. And this is our opportunity as a county to do so. That's why this amendment that is bringing for you is actually quite simple, but it includes small wireless facilities as the definition of telecommunications and TENA. I'm going to add a yield. Thank you for the overview. Planning Director, would you like to opine on the department's position on this amendment? It's, there definitely is a difference between a macro cell, which is our typical telecommunication tower in antennas, versus a small wireless facility. These are normally very small facilities that are placed on light poles or utility poles and they're located normally in right of ways and in urban cores. The concern I have by adding this language into the definition of telecommunication tower is that a small cell facility will be required to comply with the same requirements as a macro cell or a telecommunication tower. Minimum lot size, setbacks, whatever requirements are for these large towers, they're gonna be applicable to a small wireless facility. And again, when I look at 206 and 4 in regards to zoning, and we can get into the, you know, whether or not this is public or private or county or state or but as far as zoning it's saying that if these are in the right of way that they are shall be classified as permitted uses and notched and shall not be subject to zoning review or zoning approval if they are deployed in the right of way of any zone or outside of the right of way in properly in property not zone exclusively for conservation. so basically any other zoning. That's the concern we have in regards to this. But again, the bigger concern is if we apply the same restrictions to these, they're not going to meet them, because they normally are found in right-of-ways in urban course. So again, we can discuss this more, but I mean, in regards to the planning department receiving applications for a use permit from a small wireless facility, we haven't. We only get them for telecommunication, towers, and antennas. They don't come into us for these type of small wireless facilities. They're normally just implemented in the event course. Thank you director. Councilmember Kimball. Councilmember Kimball. Sorry you'll did I ask for the director. Thank you. So just some editorial or first of all, I don't you'll did I ask for the director thank you. So just some editorial, or first of all I don't necessarily, I looked up the Federal Communication Commission Title 47, Part 74, I'm not sure that this is the right reference for small wireless facilities. Has anybody had an opportunity to check that? I think that that's not the correct federal reference. That particular section has to do with like TV broadcasting. That one not, which is also in this clause. So I'm not sure that that's the right reference. But it would say that we have two things here. We have antennas and we have towers. And if you read in the definition of antennas, it means repeater equipment, wireless or broadband-related infrastructure. That's the current amended language. I would suggest that wireless is not, it doesn't specify large or small cell wireless. It's just wireless in general and that small cell would actually already fall under that definition. And it doesn't need to be included as an additional thing under antennas under 1A. Because it's already covered in the broad definition. So my suggestion would be not to include this in them because I think what council member Vickis is trying to do is already addressed and I think the reference from the federal side might be improper. Thank you. Thank you, council member. Council member Vick. Sure, my apologies if that is the case. I have been working with PhD researchers and people that are way beyond me and the expertise of this field. I suppose my question comes then back to it would be wonderful if it's covered already. I think that would be great but then I come back to a question Mr.rell, because if I remember quickly a few years ago, Councilmember Cunnelly, Kleinfelder and I both expressed some concerns about Hawaiian tail bringing small cell. They were having a community meeting and forgetting the exact specifics, but it turned a red flag for us because they were going into a residential neighborhood and going to start putting up 5G wireless antenna or wireless facilities within residential neighborhoods and there was no requirement for them to file an application or notify anybody. So if this is already covered, why haven't you seen any applications? Again, I think that in regards to state law that it is saying that these are permitted in zone in the right of way or outside of the right of way, except for conservation districts. So it's saying- You can find right of way just for the broader person that might not understand what the definition of right of way would be considered? Within the public right of way. So where these where you will find the utility poles where most times these small facilities will be located on. I think this particular area we really need to maybe step back and get some clear definition and the fine men of what because my understanding is the county also entered a agreement some time ago and I think it was through AT&T and this was part of the entire emergency network for communications and it was all inclusive. I can't remember the name of the entire project but it was like first alert first net and that was all just permitted it was moving forward and that was all covered. There was no request for any permits from planning or going before planning commission for any approvals. And again, in my time dealing with use permits for towers and special permits, there's never been an application for a small wireless facility. So I think it does. We really do need to get this defined and really hammered through so that all of us feel comfortable moving forward. As mentioned, if we end up defining it the same, they're not going to be able to be approved anywhere. They're just not going to meet the requirements of a tower. Thank you, Director Dero. I appreciate that. It feels like I'm living in a dystopian nightmare. I don't know how many movies you guys watch, but I watch a significant amount of movies and TV shows and sometimes art imitates life and the art being created in movies brings some serious concerns to me. This was my attempt to clarify and working with those that have expertise and are connected to national organizations and other municipalities that are doing their best to protect their communities from coverage essentially a 5G. There are cities where 5G is covering things and it is for self-driving cars. It is for high tech capacities. While I do I don't ever want it to be perceived that I would want to deny people in our rural communities from access to, you know, what digital, the digital world provides, I also want to point out some of the reasons why people live in rural areas is so they're not bombarded with electromagnetic potential harms. I mean, I myself just saw a practitioner yesterday, and she utilizes microcurrents for healing energies. And when managed appropriately, can be very beneficial to humans. But we're living in a world where we're exposed to so much more than we may ever know. One of my daughters classmates died of brain cancer at 25 years old last week and there are more and more instances of people being harmed no, it's hard to tie it back because it's invisible. But for me, this is my attempt to clarify, to rectify. I've heard that it's already in there, but I'm hearing that the state's approved it. So I'm not getting a clear answer, but what I'm looking for is a clear pathway for these small cell towers to be included. Because as we all know, assuming that like this cell phone this big from the 1980s is more powerful than this right here would be a foolish assumption, correct? So the size of the tower does not necessarily reflect the power or the emissions being generated. You know, I've worked with councilmember Evans who brought this forward to begin with and with some of the advocates and PhDs who work with And within this industry to help mitigate, and I would like to once again point out that those that have shown up and testified in opposition of this are people who work for telecommunications companies. So that is their job. Their job is to advocate for these things. Yeah. It will be up to my colleagues. I have a number of what I believe are simple amendments that cover what the people have been asking for, but I'll leave it to my colleagues to decide. Thank you. Councilmember came up. I'm gonna go to Councilmember Oñishi because he hasn't had a turn yet Councilmember Oñishi I guess I wanted to see if Chief, you have anything to say? He's here for another amendment later. Thank you. Oh, okay. Got it. Thanks. Okay. Are you okay? Councilmember Kimball. Yeah, I just wanted to offer a point of clarification. So the language around the definition of antenna includes wireless in Bill 24 in the language that we're adding in. It's not in there now, but it's in it's already in the bill. I'm just saying it they don't think it needs to be amended through the this particular. Right there on the top of section in section two telecommunication and tena means and equipment wireless or broadband related infrastructure since it doesn't qualify what type of wireless I would believe that I wouldn't think that it's reasonable interpret that that's already small so included in there and it doesn't need to be separately enumerated under 1A because it's already in that phrase in the bill. It's not in the code yet, but it's in the bill. I ask a question, Chair. So then, um, Director, would you agree with that statement and will that be the way that this bill, if passed, will be interpreted by planning? Thank you, Commissioner. I mean, Councilmember V. I'm sorry. Again, the difficulty would be that if we applied it exactly how we apply it now to other towers, they would not be able to be permitted. They would not meet the restrictions that would be placed on a tower. What I think we need to do is I- Wait, wait, wait, wait. Okay, so that's another issue from the question I'm asking about what council member Kimball is stating. Right. Because then what she's stating is it's already covered. What you're stating is then how it would be potentially perceived and acted upon which all actually comes back together to the reason for this specificity of small and Them not meeting the requirements is not my concern quite frankly Their need to meet requirements. they have billions and legal teams and all the different things to come up with the standards that are there for the health and safety of our communities. As I brought up earlier, I believe that county is in a contract or has already initiated a project that has utilized small cell facilities across the island within FirstNet. So we really need to make sure that if what we're saying is small cell facilities are included in this bill, it's going to have an impact to our emergency services around the island that have implemented first net. So we definitely want to make sure that number one, is it covered under this bill or is it exempt from this bill based on 206N-4? Or is there other exemptions that are applicable to these particular systems? I'm not sure. But I know that if I was to have to get a plan approval for a small cell facility and they have to meet the same requirements as a telecommunication tower in a right-of-way, they wouldn't be able to make it. They would just be denied. So is your recommendation then that we need to postpone this legislation until we have answers on this? Because it sounds like we're, as a county, we're potentially already in conflict, even with this draft as it's written, if it doesn't, in fact mean it includes wireless which you know Potato potato whether or not that small or large. Yeah up to this point We did not interpret wireless as small wireless facilities We as mentioned saw those as exempt systems under zoning. They are permitted uses in the right away and now to the right away, except in the conservation district. So, if just want to be clear on this matter moving forward, that's all. I don't see a big problem with any of the other amendments coming in. Maybe some minor adjustments, but this one is a real stickler that we should address. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you for acknowledging that, because I see the irony and the kind of dichotomy in all this. There's no clear answer. And at a time when loopholes become black holes for things happening that we may not and that the people are expressing, they do not want happening. I think it's pivotal that we get very clear on what's allowed, what's not allowed, what's already been committed to. So what would be, I'd like to move forward with the other amendments if possible. And I don't know what the process would be on this and perhaps as we get through the amendments, then we look at postponement because these are questions that need to be answered. Yeah, here's what I'm going to suggest. I think we're going to talk yourself around in circles today. I'm going to suggest that Corporation Council be posed a legal question, right? Because we, director mentions that this body had approved a resolution, answering into some kind of agreement with AT&T to install these small cells in public rights of way. And so So if the interpretation is wireless facilities also means small wireless facilities, we're in potential conflict here. And so I think it's really important to understand what we've adopted and how that agreement would be impacted or or not by this potential amendment. Corporation Council, is that something that we can get either you personally or the department's deputy to investigate in the next couple of weeks? She is saying yes, great. And at this time, Council Member Inaba, do you wanna weigh in on this? If not,, I'm just going to ask Councilmember Vigas to withdraw. We're in. Go ahead. Yes, real quick. Maybe just to make that question clear, if we can get a yes or no on whether small wireless facilities are covered under part 74, up title 47 FCC. Because that would ultimately tell us if the reference is correct here. I don't want to misreference. So yeah there's a couple of things. There's what you mentioned and then what council member Kimball mentioned which is she's interpreting the broader definition of telecommunication antenna where we say wireless to cover the small wireless facilities. Um, Corporal Council, I'll work with you on the question. Okay, thank you, Director. Thank you. Could I also add a review of 206N dashboard just so that we cover all of our faces? I, I, again, I bring up first net because I was involved in meetings. It wasn't a planning department initiative, but it was involving all of the different emergency operations in the county. I don't know if it got off the ground. I just remember there was quite extensive meetings on it and discussion, and it was in regards to that particular small cell facilities. Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you for that. Councilmember, would you like to withdraw your motion? Sure. Withdrawal. Motion with motion to amend Bill 24, draft two with the contents of communication number 1-1-0.18 is withdrawn. Great, thank you. Moving on to the next communication. I won't be bringing forth. There was a there was a mix up and 0.19 should have been different. It'll show up later as 0.23. Okay we are skipping 0.19 and moving to 0.20. 0.20. Motion to amend bill 24 draft 2 with the contents of communication 1 1 0.20. There is a motion by Council Member Villegas, second by Council Member Inaba to amend bill 24 draft 2 with the contents of communication 110.20. Council Member Villegas. Yes, thank thank you. Appreciate this. I'm going to move forward with... Some of the rationale for bringing forward this amendment. So we all know with current weather changes increased high velocity winds post a threat, a serious threat to residents from towers potentially failing and falling. Celtaur failure has been linked to destructive wildfires in California and Maui. Section 7, subsection 25-4-12F includes hard survivability for sustained winds of 130 miles per hour, but there's no way to verify this, no accountability. A sustained wind requirement of 100 miles per hour was originally included in the building plan requirements of Bill 24, but was removed. So now the only verifiable requirement is to meet building code minimum, but this creates a loophole. The building code doesn't have uniform requirements. Building code has different requirements for different building materials and different wind zones with different risk categories, and there are no specific requirements for towers. This complicates compliance, could jeopardize application deadlines, and creates a potential loophole to be exploited. Since 135-mile per hour sustained wind survivability is required in section 7, then it should be no problem for 100-mile per hour sustained wind survivability to be included in the building plan requirements section 5. Current building code sustained wind requirements started 135 130 miles per hour and go up to 160 miles per hour. This amendment would close the loophole and put back in the very reasonable 100 miles per hour sustained wind requirement as part of the building plan certified by a licensed structural engineer. Mr. Darrell would you like to share your perspective on this proposed amendment? Sure thank you council member Vegas. We had lengthy discussion on this I think in the beginning and there was a miles per hour within the bill. It was removed. And the language was meet the requirements of the building code. Planning department doesn't have any problem having a minimum of 100 miles per hour. I like the idea that it still has meet the requirements set forth in the building code, whichever is greater, so that we don't need to come back and amend the code if the wind speeds are amended in the future. So at least we have a minimum. My understanding was the minimum at this time was 100 miles per hour, but again, I'm not the expert in that field. So at this point, we're in support of it. Thank you, Director Daryl. I appreciate it. That's what we're doing. Yes, I do. Thank Thank you. Great. Any questions or comments from my colleagues? Okay. Saying none, we have a motion on the floor to amend bill 24 drafts who with the contents of communication 110.20. All those in favor, please say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries with 9. I'm sorry. I'm a no please. Mr. Clerk if we could please do a roll call vote. Thank you. On the motion to amend Bill 24 draft to communicate with the content so communication 110.20. Mr. Limbaugh. Hi, Mr. Hustis. Hi. Mr. Inalba. Hi. He's Kagi Water. Hi. Mr. Limba. Aye. Mr. Hustis. Aye. Mr. Inaba. Aye. Ms. Kagiwata. Aye. Mr. Kylie Kleinfelder. Ms. Kimball. No. Mr. Anishi. Ms. Vieguis. Aye. Charkar Kuwitz. Aye. Chair, you have eight votes in favor with one voting no, Ms. Kim. Okay, thank you. Bill 24, draft 2 is amended with the contents of communication 110.20. Next amendment. Motion to amend bill 24, draft 2 with the contents of communication 110.21. There is a motion by Council Member Vegas, second by Council Member Inaba to amend's bill. 24 draft 2 as amended with the contents of Communication 110.21. Council Member Vegas. Great, thank you. This amendment is being brought forward with the intention of clarifying the vague landwitch, such as notify, engage, affect, communicate, community and adjacent landowners, with some concern that it would be confusing and open to dispute. So this recommendation, this amendment, creates specific requirements needed to be defined for clarity and to avoid confusion with the attempt to remove any possibility of a loophole or exploitation and to protect, as was stated earlier, you know, my goodness, I hear from so many people on so many issues. How did I, I wasn't notified? How would I ever know that there was no, you know, and so I want to make sure that that's something that we can avoid in the circumstance by making very specific and clear language of how people and who would be notified and in what time frame that would be done. Thank you. Director Daryl, do you have any comments on this amendment? This one's a tough one. Again, I fully understand the need for informing people, informing neighbors, informing the community. The difficulty is in plan approval processes with all other plan approvals, there is no notification process. So we are adding a process for this particular plan approval application process. The concern is that it will give the misunderstanding that people can oppose the project in the sense of like there's a permit, like there's a public hearing and they can show up and testify against the hearing. they can submit testimony, but if the applicant has done what they're supposed to do as far as submitting the required information, the planning director is required to approve it within that 60-day time period. So again, the concern is just this false hope that might be given, that might indicate that I have, we're all going to get together and come and oppose this. And why didn't you listen to us? Why didn't you deny this? It doesn't mean that there aren't options that even if the director does approve that people can file a board of appeals out appeal through that process. But again, that's why we kept it more in the sense of having a community meeting or informing the adjacent landowners. I don't, I'm not against this, but again, I think that just the concern is that possibility of creating false hope that they may think there's a process they can submit a contested case or show up at a public hearing or something. I mean, we've seen the passion with people. Thank still have the fortune? No, but you may ask him questions if you'd like. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. I hear you. This is going to make your job harder. Yeah, because, um, yeah, because people, you know, might think that and I hear you on that that they might think that then there's a point to intervene. But on the flip side, what it gives people is an opportunity to decide that if a project goes forward, they can decide if they're going to move. They can decide if they're going to remove their own body, their family, whatever it is they want to move. But if they don't know, they aren't given that option. So I would say that here we advocate so consistently for education and people to know what's going on around them, so they can make educated decisions and whether or not they can come back and as you said protest or if the people who are putting in these projects are following through with everything they're supposed to do I think though that this amendment provides opportunity and it fulfills part of our responsibility as a county to notify the people who live in in areas it looks like you have something you wanted to share with us. Make him do it. She's the one that keeps me in line. There was a concern we had regarding this, and that is, and it's a simple one. Normally, with notification to surrounding property owners, we wait until an application is accepted, and then we give the applicant 10 days from the date of acceptance to send us the list of notification. That way, they don't prematurely send it out, and then we reject it. And then who knows how long it may take for them to come back to get the application submitted. So do you have a recommendation then for an amendment to this amendment that would rectify that potential issue? Hi. Hi. Thank you so much. Members of the committee. I apologize. I was going to call you the commissions as well. What I would possibly do is I would include this as a separate line item because the first line item is really the documentation of the proactive efforts that were made to meet with and inform the recent landowners of the effective community and that's going to be included in the application when they submit it or have this requirement that it be done before the submitter of the application. So it's not the five days after the application so. Okay so what I would propose then is I would be okay since we're still in committees to withdraw this today and can I reach out to you for some guidance on how to edit this in order to encompass what we want it to without adding undue burden. Yes. Okay and will you remind me of your name? I apologize. I apologize. I'm Tracy Camaro Planner within the planning division. Thanks, Tracy. We'll do. And with that, I'll make a motion to... No need to motion, just withdraw. I withdraw. Communication number 1-1-0.21. Thank you. The next amendment is mine so I'm going to ask someone to make a motion on my behalf please. Chair motion to amend the 24 draft 2 with the contents of communication 1-1-0.22. Thank you. There is a motion by Council Member Inaba, second by Council Member Hustis to amend bill 24 draft 2 as amended with communication 110.22. This amendment is being introduced at the request of our Hawaii fire department. We have fire 2 chief Volpe here to answer questions. Any questions folks might have, but this is to ensure that documentation related to compliance with National Fire Protection Association standards is met and filed with the fire department. And there was also a suggestion about redundant power supply on site. So chief, I will turn it over to you to provide greater details about what's being put forward here. And the final thing is after thorough corporation council review, there is one section that we are going to have to remove from the bill regarding installation of surveillance camera systems on these towers because it is it could be interpreted as a taking Chief Wolfie. Thanks for being here Sure. Thanks. Thank you everybody. Council members. Just to be again just to kind of just be re-interred kind of what you know Council member Kirkowitz mentioned is that NFPS 76 is a regulation that provides for fire protection that provides for the construction of cell phone towers in these large tower facilities to enable them to inherit fire risk. So things in fire detection, fire suppression, access to fire engines, things that will ensure that the tower in the event of an accident within the construction of the tower, within a surrounding area that the tower will hopefully withstand that threat. And again, with the interest of keeping the towers in service as long as possible. There are mentions, and there are some areas in the State Fire Code that do mention towers. It's not very specific, but Chapter 76 specifically does. NFVS-76 does refer specifically to these tower types of constructions. It generally recognizes a safe resilient means of building them. Again, nothing necessarily doesn't mean that they're going to withstand the wildfire as the wildfire pushes through. But in this will help prevent access to the tower by the fire department as well as provide some inherent safety within the tower and the facility itself. So that's why that recommendation was made. The other one regarding power we don't see. So this is something that you see in natural disasters, in elements in our radio system, and our microwave system, in communications island, why that when one of our radio sites goes down, we do see significant impacts to our radio communications. Understanding that cellular communication is a prom is going to be a primary way of sending emergency messages to the public as well as the public calling 911 and getting to our services We want to make sure that in times of natural disaster and times of other conditions outside of St. Wauwafire That's necessarily that there is some redundancy to the power to enable these towers to stay powered for 24 to 48 to 72 hours up to that time period. Again, hopefully as moves your emerging phase of an incident towards recovery, this allows the tower to stay up, stay running to allow for communication to go back and forth. Thank you for that additional context and I hope you are able to stay to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions, comments, council member Kimball? Yeah, thank you. So sorry I didn't get a chance to explain why I voted no on that other one. And that's because we're going to have some inconsistencies here with that amendment and this amendment. because that amendment puts in the 100 miles per hour. This one in a different section takes out what was 130 references the building code. And the comment was made that the building code doesn't include specifications for towers and whatnot and it actually does. based on it. I didn't have that fully in front of me right here, but I would suggest that we actually need to have DPW come in here and affirm what is actually covered by the international building code. It's not in our chapter five, but it doesn't have to be because we've adopted the 2018 code which has reference to tower requirements including wind requirements, climbing requirements, a bunch of requirements. So that's why I voted to know on the other one because I do support the changes in here. I think we have a little bit of a conflict now that we'll have to resolve at a future time. But I also think we need to have DPW come in and speak to what is actually already covered in either the International Building Code or something called the TIA222, which is what regulates the construction of towers of all kinds. Thank you. Thank you. I will work on getting a representative from public works here in a future meeting. Any other questions or comments? Seeing none, there is a motion on the floor to amend the bill before us with the contents of communication 110.22. All those in favor please say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries with nine eyes bill 24 draft 2 is amended with the contents of Communication 110.22 chief thank you for being here today. Councilmember V. Agas. Yes motion to approve bill 24 draft 2 with the contents of Communication 110.23. There is a motion by Council Member Villegas, second by Council Member Inaba to amend the contents of Bill 24, draft two with Communication 110.23, Council Member Villegas. Thank I just want to quickly go through the rationale and reasoning behind this particular proposed amendment is that other jurisdictions have disputed when the 60-day shot clock actually begins and so sometimes this confusion causes delays and provides a potential loophole that has been exploited by applicants. I believe that Bill 24 should include a form that specifies all permit application requirements must be completed before the 60-day shot clock begins. In a recent night, Circuit Court ruling of October 2024, the court clarified that 60-day shot clock regarding modification requests. The court upheld the FCC's decision that the EFR shot clock begins when an applicant satisfies just both of the following criteria. Takes a first procedural step that the local jurisdiction requires and submits written documentation showing that a proposed modification is an eligible facility's request. Under this rule, the county should adopt its own permit application form and require that all permit applications, including EFR application, must be made on that form to ensure that the first procedural step in triggering that this is the first procedural step in triggering the shot clock. Mr. Darrell, any reflections on shot clocks? No, I appreciate the clarity on this. We were talking about it as well. We have a term acceptance, but this seems to bring more clarity as to when that time starts. We do have a simple request, and that is if we could change the term permit, like in the first line, if we could instead of permit put plan approval. And for the second one, we just delete permit. So it says the director that states all requirements are due. application for plan approval on a form approved for such purpose by the director that states all requirements, all requirements are due before the 60 day shot clock begins and that submission of said form is the first procedural step in triggering a 60 day clock. The form includes eligible facilities, requests EFR and Shelby accompanied by the following. Which my understanding is the list of everything you have to do. Yes. Yes. So that makes it pretty clear. I would be happy to make those adjustments. And if the best form of procedure would be to withdraw this and bring forth the amendment with those agreed upon changes in our next meeting. I'd be happy to do so. Great. I'm going to allow folks to weigh in on the contents of this communication before you do that. Thank you. Councilmember Kagibata. Thank you. First, generally supportive of the time. Wondering about the term shop clock, maybe not being the general term that we use in our code, maybe just clock or not sure, but maybe we can change that. And then I just want to go back to the notifications. Are we going to have issues if we say this, if we're going to allow notifications to happen after or we just need to make sure that when we word that, that we're cognizant that we're putting this amendment in as well. So we might have to look at how we do that. I'm asking, I guess I'm asking planning if that's something we can do. Thank you. Council member, Kajiwata. So the term, Shot Clock, my understanding is a term used by the telecommunication towers or the laws that trigger that. That's what they've been terming it as the Shot Clock. It's been kind of a term used for some time now and they bring it up quite often. I agree it's up to you folks if you feel like adding that term or not adding it's not going to make a difference. We in our code we have a period of time to accept an application within a 15-day period we have the time to reject it. So if we they submit an application and we go through everything it takes us a time when they submit and we haven't rejected within 10 days we'll want to see if that's what we end up changing. We will want to see that list before we will accept it. The list to the notification to surrounding property owners. So then does the time start after you see the list or when they actually times for the 15 day review would be when they submit. Because if we, Let's say we accept on the 11th day, that first 11 days counts as part of the 60-day clock. That's what I'm asking about. So the time that after you get the list, that's... The 60-day starts when you do the, when they submit the paperwork. Yeah, but when you get the list is not going to change the time here. We can make that time less if 10 days seems too long because they will be trying to get their requirements in line. five days is sufficient but it it seems like they'll want an indication that their application is pretty complete by that time. The concern is again that you know we end up somehow rejecting the application and then notice when out and we start getting all the letters coming in and we don't have an application yet. So we have to wait for the application to get some resubmitted and then we compile everything back and try to figure out what's going on. Okay. Thank you. And I just want to thank you for bringing that up because we had this discussion also of, and thank you to the maker for being persistent with these amendments. Thank you for letting the public know the realities around this because I do think it's really important and even if they can appeal it, what they're appealing is, this is my understanding correct me if I'm wrong, they're appealing that the applicant didn't do all the things that are that check all the boxes and do all the things that are required. They're not really appealing your decision so much as if those things were or were not followed because if they are followed you do not have a decision to reject it correct correct yeah it puts puts us in a tough spot you know because basically we have to follow the law and the law has said we have to do this within this time frame. And the way it was going was in all honesty, the correct way to do it, to allow the opportunity for people to participate in the process, to engage, to be able to testify, submit, and test the case, bring their concerns forward. This process basically streams lines it. Okay, thank you so much. All right, thank you. Councilmember Husses. Thank you, Chair. Director, there's no other sort of terminology other than shot clock. Clock? Just clock. Yeah. Because in just for the maker, if you want to put it in quotes or something, it's a borrowed term, like a kind of a colloquial term if we want to use shot clock, but it's not really like a proper term for planning purposes. Chair is it okay for me to just respond? I'll have a wrap up these comments. No, just a recommendation if you want to use that, just put it in quotes or something. Thank you. Just in a quick response, I did notice that already later on in the sentence, it says the first procedural step in triggering the 60-day clock. So I'll just remove the shot, although I do tend to like them sometimes, different kind of shots, and just go with clock. Did you say birthday shots? Yeah. Okay. So thank you, Councilmember Coguata for bringing that up as a point of sensitivity, and also to Councilmember Houston's for the suggestion for terms like that. Quotation marks can be helpful. I'm going to ask councilmember Galimba to share Herman Aul and then we'll wrap up this conversation. Councilmember Galimba. Thank you. Director Dero and Tracy or and or Tracy. I'm a little bit, this is kind of a, maybe a silly question, but I'm just trying to understand and visualize the difference here between all requirements are due before the 60-day clock begins and the first, that form being the first procedural step in triggering the clock. So this form, is it like perhaps there's some requirements that come in before the form and that it doesn't actually trigger. So if they turn in a map before they turn in the form, is that kind of what we're trying to say here? I'm not understanding what the difference is. My understanding council member, Gilema, is that it goes hand in hand. The application has to be submitted with all of the requirements that follow this sub-section. So if you see the last sentence there, the form includes eligible facility requests and shall be accompanied by the following. And then in the, so if they just submit the application form, we would reject it. It wouldn't meet the requirements to be a completed application. Okay, so in that second, then it's maybe this is to the maker. I'm not really understanding how it would be anything different than the form being the first step. It's like a situation where the form would not be the first step in triggering the 60 days? I obviously that's the first step. So I think that's what the maker of that motion is doing is making it clear what the process is and when we identify a completed application or an accepted application. If you just submit the form without all of the requirements, the clock does not start. Right. So again, I think the key thing for us here is the fact that it identifies because I think what was lacking before was a clear identification of when the clock starts. Which is when all the requirements required by the form which specifies sledge. Yeah right. Okay thank you. Thank you. And if there is a cleaner way to work with the semantics, if that's the right terminology, when I reach out to you to talk about the other amendment, perhaps we can navigate some of that together. Yes, we can definitely look at that. Okay, thank you. Appreciate it. And with that, I will withdraw communication 1-1-0.23. Let the record reflect that the motion has been withdrawn. Seeing as there are no other amendments, anyone, amendments, not at this time, okay. I just want to make sure that we know what actions are coming out of this meeting. There's a legal question that I'm going to post a corporation council regarding small wireless facilities. And councilmember Vegas is going to be making some adjustments to the notification, the certified mailings amendment, as well as the clarification for application for plan approval and when the 68 clock starts ticking. Did I miss anything? Council member Kimball. Yeah, just also consulting with a DPW regarding that. And then I also, I only got a chance to kind of personally review it with this lens, but I do think we might have some confliction or conflation of tower versus antenna. Not all towers have antennas, but all antennas are on towers or something like that. So I think I'm happy to do that with the department or if you want to do it, but I do think we just kind of need to walk through the bill one more time and make sure that the references are correct on that. Are you volunteering to take that on? I will. Great. Wonderful. I'm with Jeff and Tracy. Thank you. I know they're great people. And yes, I will work with public works to get a representative here to talk about building code and wind speed and survivability. Thank you for taking on clarifying the definitions. May I please have a motion to postpone this bill to our next meeting, which is Tuesday, April 15th. Thank you, Council Member Inaba. Motion by Council Member Inaba, second by Council Member Oni Shita, postponed bill 24, draft two as amendment two hour. April 15th committee hearing, any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor please say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries with nine aye votes. Bill 24 is postponed to our Kona meeting April 15th. We are at the end of the agenda. I am a journey committee today at 3.24pm. Thank you.