Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you., April 15th, 2025. I am calling this meeting to order at 11 a.m. Present for committee today are committee members, Jennifer Kagiwata, James Hustis, Fresh Onishi, Holaka Inaba, Matt Kaneli, Ecline Felder, Rebecca Villegas, Michelle Galemba, and Heather Kimball. My name is Ashley Kirkwitz, Chair and Presiding Officer of the committee. At this time, we will be taking statements of the committee. I'm a member of the committee. I'm a member of the committee. I'm a member of the committee. I'm a member of the committee. I'm a member of the committee. I'm a member of the committee. I'm a member of the committee. I'm a member of the committee. I'm a member of the committee. I'm a member of Mr. Rook, Mr. Erracelli take care of that business. Thank you. Thank you so much, Chair. Just noting that you do not have testifiers at your multcycns. We do have a couple testifiers here in the Heelow Chamber as well as Zoom. So, what we'll do is we'll take our first two testifiers here in Heelow and then we'll transition to Zoom. zoom. So first up we have Michael Trask to be followed by Chris Hirose both testifying on bill 24. Michael when you begin you can unmute the mic by pressing the green button at the base of that mic. If you could just reintroduce yourself as you begin you'll have three minutes. All right thank you for having me. My name is Michael Trask. I'm a tugboat captain here in Hilo and in Kwaihai. And I live across the street of the cell tower that just went up in the subdivision up in Kalmana. And the process that we thought this thing was defunct already that they had not filed the permit in time was that And was the notes that we got from the county office here, but lo and behold, there it is going up. I am not against self-phone or towers of development. When I'm against this having it so close to the subdivision, I've read and had people, professionals come in and talk with our community about the dangers of this, such as cellular damage, especially in unborn children or very young children. And the idea that this would be permitted to have such close contact and go off right across the street from the subdivision is just to me as criminal. I mean, who wants their grandchildren or child subjected to this? Maybe you get it. Maybe you don't. I mean, that's just crazy to go ahead and permit this thing. And then to say that while we're just going to bypass the permitting process, that's even crazier. You know, if you just put that thing where it's supposed to go, which is further up above the subdivision, away to get out of that zone where it's dangerous or maybe even deadly, I'm not opposed to that at all. That's responsible government, but the way that it is right now, like I say, it's criminal to me. And I would hope that this council would take a really hard look at this because this thing needs to move. And that kind of proximity needs to be outlawed. And I would hope that this council decides not to allow this thing to start up. It sure looks like it's ready to go right now. And so that's my feeling. You know that any child or any person could suffer from this to me is criminal and a gross miscarriage of justice here. So I hope... child or any person could suffer from this to me is criminal and a gross miscarriage of justice here. So I hope you folks move this thing. 30 seconds. Thank you so much for your testimony. Chair, your next testifier is Chris Hirose to be followed by Deborah Green via Zoom both testifying on build 24 24. Chris, when you begin, if you could just reintroduce yourself, you'll have three minutes. I'm Chris Hirose from Mountain View. Please support Bill 24 and notify people of the five G-towers or five G- antennas. In my last testimony, I pointed out that at the National Institute of Health's PubMed, there are 554 results for cell phone radiation cancer and 1,129 results for cell phone radiation health. There is the clear danger especially to the next generations because of longer lifetime exposure and higher radiation exposures. Also children have smaller heads so the radiation penetrates further into their brains. There's one PubMed study, limiting liability with positioning to minimize negative health effects of cellular phone towers. The study said cell phone tower firms should not follow tobacco. Cell towers should not be located less than 500 meters, 1,640 feet, from the population, and at a height of 50 meters 164 feet. The telecon industry doesn't normally use the higher frequency waves for big cell phone towers because they don't bend around corners. But small 5G emitters don't have to bend the wave and use higher frequencies and are more dangerous. Because the small 5G emitters higher frequency doesn't bend, there has to be more of them and that makes it worse. For example gamma rays are the most dangerous EMF have the highest frequency and come off of nuclear bonds and radio active decay. 5G uses frequencies that are actually higher than microwave ovens. The power used is lower. 5G technology is based on a military phased array radar designed to concentrate the signal and to track multiple targets. A concentrated signal is more dangerous. The US military has developed a phased array and 10-a microwave weapon designed for crowd control. It can target individuals and make their skin have a burning sensation. If people are notified of the 5G towers, emitters they can mitigate the hazard. Some people paint their bedrooms with special paint. My cousin's friend is EMF sensitive and she stapled an aluminum screen to her walls and that worked. Even if people get cancer from the 5G there is a way to enhance conventional cancer treatments with antiparasitic drugs Ibermectin and Fnbendizol or Mbendizol. There are 337 PubMed peer-reviewed studies for Ivermectin Cancer and 223 PubMed studies for Mbendizzle Cancer. These drugs are op-patterned and don't make money for Big Pharma. Otto Warburg received the Nobel Prize in 1931 for cell respiration. Warburg's theory of cancer was that damage mitochondria caused it. When the mitochondria is damaged in cancer cells, the cells go into an ancient non-oxygen burning metabolism. Intestinal worms have the same metabolism. Professor Thomas Cypher-proved auto-warburg's theory. Dr. William Macus MD, a Canadian oncologist, has over 80% success rate on stage 4 cancer and aggressive turbo cancers using high doses of Ibermectin and Fnvent-Bendizel Mbendizel. Thank you so much for your testimony. Chair, your next testifier is via Zoom. Deborah Green to be followed by Naomi Malibut. Both testifying on Bill 24. Deborah, when you begin, if you could just reintroduce yourself you have three minutes. Hello again. I'm Deborah Green, Founding Director of Safe Tech of IEEE. Testifying on behalf of Safe Tech in support of Bill 24 and in support of the amendments put forth by Council Member Villegas. First thank thank you for approving the 100-mile per hour sustained wind amendment. We appreciate that very much. Next, regarding community notification, as you know, the biggest complaint, as you just heard, is people complain when a tower is put up without their prior knowledge. People deserve clear notification requirements. At the last meeting, the director objected to this amendment saying it would give false hope, because there's nothing anyone can do to stop a tower. Then later, he said, there might be no tower, because the permit might not be granted. It seems contradictory, but never mind. Neither one of those are valid reasons to withhold notification. The bottom line is people deserve to know as soon as possible so they can make informed decisions that impact their quality of life, their property values, and the integrity and cultural character of their land. Next is the amendment for an application form that clearly states the form marks the beginning of the 60-day clock and applies to all applicants. The county is required by law to comply with the 60-day time limit, which is actually the purpose of Bill 24. So it should be made very clear exactly when the clock begins. An application form specifying this is the best solution. Next is including small sales, which were included in bill 194 that was vetted by court council and by state and federal authorities. If you're not going to include small cells in Bill 24, please at least do it for a valid reason. An HRS 206N4 is not a valid reason because that law doesn't apply to small cells on privately owned utility poles, which the poles here are, owned by Hualien Electric, which is a private company. Finally, something new that we just learned about, and I apologize for the lateness of this, Bill 24 advocates concealing towers by using monopine construction, which is fake pine trees. Thirty seconds. Thank you. But it turns out the fake pine trees are causing environmental harm. The needles and branches are made of plastics that quickly degrade in the sun. They break off and they cause ground contamination and get carried by wind and rain into water ways and end up in the ocean causing microplastic pollution. So if you care about the environment, we strongly urge you to remove the monopine option and come up with an environmentally safe alternative for concealing towers. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration in making this ordinance the best it can be. Thank you so much for your testimony. Chair, your next test of IRV Zoom is Naomi Melamita, supplying on Bill 24 to be followed by Kaleika Ilikini here here in the Heelow Chamber. Naomi when you begin you have three minutes if you could just reintroduce yourself. Aloha Chair and members of the committee. My name is Naomi Melamid and as the big Island leader of Safe Tech Hawaii, I represent a group of residents deeply concerned about the unregulated expansion of wireless technology. We're here today committed to advocating for safer technology alternatives to protect our island residents and the environment. Thank you for considering bill 24 and for incorporating the vital 100 mile an hour sustained wind amendment. Your dedication is greatly appreciated by our community. I fully also support council member viegas amendments focusing on three areas clarifying the community notification requirements. Adopting an application form that clearly defines the clock start date, and the importance of regulating small cell wireless infrastructure in our county. Regarding community notification requirements, the current language in Bill 24 is ambiguous with terms like notify affected community. These can be misinterpreted because there's no due process outlined to substantiate these terms. To prevent misunderstandings we need clear definitions. It's crucial to protect our community by mandating notification of individuals within 500 feet of any proposed installation via mail within five days of application submission. Concerning adopting a form that clearly defines the clock start date this measure is essential for the county's protection. There have been discrepancies about when the 60-day shop clock should start causing delays and exploitation. Bill 24 should specify that all permit application requirements must be fulfilled before the clock begins as supported by a recent night circuit court ruling. Lastly, I urge the committee to regulate small cells diligently. Although small these these installations can significantly impact our communities. Thoughtful legislation now will ensure a future that is both technologically progressive and protective of our communities well-being. Thank you for your invaluable work here and attention on these matters. Mahalo. Thank you so much for your testimony. Chair, your next testifier is here in the Heelow Chamber, Kalei Kalei-Likini, testifying on Bill 24. Kalei, when you begin, if you could just reintroduce yourself, you'll have three minutes. OK. Good afternoon or good morning. My name is Kalei Kalei-Likini, and I represent myself. and'm from Helo and my family. So I want to begin with the resolution, which I gave copies to some of the county council members and some of the county council members that are still on the board or part of the council. They were part of the resolution 678-20. That was July 2020 and that was a moratorium on, they voted of the nine members, eight voted for the moratorium only one voted against the moratorium. So in this resolution, it states that a moratorium would be on 5G until they would find more information research as to the safety of 5G electromagnetic frequency dangerous and so my concern and why I'm coming to talk about this is because I am very concerned about our children and senior citizens because that's who I am. And from tons of research and I have with me and I will give copies to the county council members and it's called links to scientific evidence dangers of 5G. This is 14 pages of websites and links and articles and research papers and books all talking about the dangers and how it affects our health. And the number one thing they're finding is brain cancers in children. This is so crucial. So I'm connecting your county, high county resolution number 67820 to saying more time until such time that we can say a no from evidence more evidence that 5G is safe. So now I have 14 pages because it's five years now since 2020 and in in my hands, I have 14 pages of links, scientific links, articles, books. And I did bring books with me as well. One is called Dirty Electricity by Dr. Samuel Milham, who did teach at the University of Hawaii Manua for about two years. And his book and his study was on how they found that electromagnetic frequencies from cell phone towers causes leukemia in young children. And that was in the mid-1980s. And I also have a book on Nikola Tesla that talks about this. And I want to end with thanking the Comkey Council but reminding them that you started a journey in 2020 on the moratorium. So I have to be in support of this bill 24. But again, I'm an activist to find out how to protect our children, our seniors, and everyone on Hawaii Island. Mahalo, thank you very much. Thank you so much for your testimony and Chair with that. Those are all the testifiers you have at the beginning of your meeting. Thank you, Mr. Araceli. Mr. Clerk, if we could please have a report. We have a report. We have a report. We have a report. We have a report. yourself for the record. process afterwards. Of course, please come forward. Introduce yourself for the record and you'll have three minutes to provide your testimony. Thank you. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going toinda's. So, Bill 24. So we don't have links. Like, I look at your meetings. I cannot find, I then Google Bill 24. Cannot find it. I don't know what it says. So cell towers, I'm wondering, have you guys done any research on the health risks? The health risks are now starting to be shown. And years ago, I looked at health risks for it with cell towers. And the American Cancer Society said, there is no evidence. Yesterday, this is years ago, yesterday, I looked American Cancer Society, and they are now saying possible evidence with, they also said, the experts are calling for more research. Okay, this is the ground floor right now. I've sent you guys my email that had different articles on the health risks. Okay, there are, I sent you pictures of cell towers, the tops of their towers, are right across from Queen K. Highway right next to the Kapuna housing residents and other condos as well right now. So we're on the ground floor. We are the experiment, okay, for cell towers and cell phones and all of this such. Granted, I use my cell phone. I want to use it. I want other people to use it. And there needs to be discussion before it goes further for the island on the health risks. In the 50s, okay, it was, the smoking was, they were the experimental people and no one knew how much cancer smoking caused. Okay, all of our families, all of the Kiki, every single person on the planet is now the experiment for what happens to the human body and to the wildlife. Honeybees are dying because of they're not being able to, you know, and stuff like that. So I sent you that article on Honey Bee's Wildlife. I sent you a few different articles to look at. That was my research. I'm hoping before you guys pass this, they you do your own research. And I would like to find a way to see your research on the health risks for the island for cell towers. You know, this is like this is the Grand Floor, guys. And I hope that you hear my voice on this because it's going to be really huge in the future. There are, I sent you videos on news that people all over the country are opposing cell towers near schools. The firefighting firefighters are now opposed to cell towers on their towers because people, their firefighters, have been known to have cancer. Okay, I think is that my three minutes? Okay, well thank you so much for listening. Thank you for allowing me to talk and I do apologize, Osley. Thank you for your testimony. Is there any additional testimony for Bill 24, draft three? We're in done. Bill 24, draft three, amendments chapter 25 articles, one, two, four, five, and seven of Hawaii County Code 1983. 2016 edition as amended relating to telecommunication attendance and towers. Planning director initiated the one written leave planning commissions forward their favor recommendations to remove the requirement for use permit to establish telecommunication attendance and towers in certain zone districts. Add application requirements and amend standards for the establishment of telecommunication attendance and towers. Introduced by Council Member Kirk-Wiss by request, this is Matt O'Rourke's post-pollum, February 4th and February 18th, March 6th and April 1st, 2025. And there's an motion on the floor by Council Member Thank you, Mr. Clerk. And I just want to call out in our Pinkie folder a communication received by police chief Benjamin Moskowitz regarding the department's opposition to Bill 24. It is the department's belief that the bill would discourage the new building of telecommunication towers hindering the betterment of cellular connectivity on our island and as we know connectivity is critical particularly for our first responders. At this time I also wanted to call up Fire Chief Kuzuotad who has relentlessly pursued our office in also communicating the fire department's opposition to certain aspects of bill 24 and wanted to provide you fire one the opportunity to share your concerns directly with this body and to be available for any questions folks might have. Chief Todd. Chief Todd from the Hawaii fire department so at least in the current iteration of this bill, there was a section in there with a 1200 foot distance requirement. So I can't, as a fire chief, speak to the health concerns or radio waves or anything else. That's outside my expertise essentially. And whether this is healthy, not healthier, things like that. All I can bring forward is that public safety side of the discussion. So the primary concern for a public safety perspective is that, at least currently, the way that we're able to communicate information both to our responders and to the public nowadays has shifted. And in the past, we used to send out alerts on the television. We'd send it out on the radio. And forming the public of what was going on that way. This has really shifted in the last 20 years. And nowadays, I would say most people are getting their messaging from their cell phones on Facebook or text messages and other things like that. So the infrastructure that goes into our cellular networks is become kind of into the domain of public safety because a resilient infrastructural system that supports cell phone communication and cellular communications is affecting whether people are getting the evacuation notice if the fire is coming through their town such as in Lake LaHina or you know the notice that there's Influenza or a tsunami might be coming and things like that. So all of these things are kind of reliant on this. So I do want to say I'd like some of the amendments that have been made in regards to bringing up the topic about resiliency in terms of data pathways to cell phone towers as well as power redundancy But one of my concerns in the current iteration of the bill is the 1200 foot distance requirement. And just on my math, if I'm saying a tower goes in and there can be nothing within 1200 foot for residential schools or schools or things like that, we basically say that 1200 foot to the right, 1200 foot to the left. So,400 feet, there can be nothing in that region. So we end up with this 2,400 foot by 2,400 foot of land, which is essentially about 130 acres of land. And when I look at a lot of the areas of our island, the people I want to communicate with as a fire chief oftentimes are the places I'm setting my firefighters where I want to get data to our computers is in these little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a And I'm not four or against. I'm just saying that it seems a little bit weird and I have some concerns because it could effectively make it so that it becomes very onerous on cell phone towers to expand that service. And then eventually starts impacting the public safety domain where it becomes difficult for us to communicate to the public because we're relying on only a few hours to send those messages out and whether they're resilient or not could be an issue. So that's, I guess, from the public safety domain's my current concerns with that is that could effectively limit where we can place towers. And I think that's important. Any other questions for me? Thank you, Chief Todd. Please stick around for any questions folks might have for you, but your concerns are noted for the record. I just also wanted to share that we have planning director, Jeff Darrell here in Kona Chambers, and participating in Hilo, Tracy Lee Camaro, Planner Five, and Deputy Corporation Council for Planning Department, Jean Campbell, in case folks need to ask them any questions. Seeing lights on, Council Member, Kimble. Yeah, thank you, Chair. Actually, with Chief Todd's introduction there, I wanted to start by introducing the amendment that's included in communication 1 1 0.63. So motion to amend bill 24 draft 3 with the contents of communication 1 1 0.63. There is a motion by Council Member Kimbo, seconded by Council Member Glimba, to amend Bill 24, draft 3 with the contents of Communication 110.63. Council Member Kimball. Yeah, I know this looks like a pretty extensive amendment, but actually the main thing that it does is that it removes that extra clause about the 1,200 feet that was item 2, but that it also simplifies the language for that entire section into one phrase. So... the 1,200 feet that was item 2, but then it also simplifies the language for that entire section into one phrase. So the only significant substantive changes that removal of the distance so that 120% of the tower height is going to be the setback for all properties except where it's not required. Thank you, Councilmember. Any feedback from Planning Department on this proposed change? Director or Tracy? I'll go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and members of the Hawaii County Council, Jeff Darrow with the Planning Department. We hear you. Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, members of the Hawaii County Council, Jeff Darrow with the Planning Department. We are supportive of the change. It seems like it's been a contentious issue from the beginning. As I believe I had stated this previously, this was our attempt to have a starting line. We had done a lot of research throughout the nation on different setbacks, and this was a setback that was sort of in the middle. It wasn't too extreme, it wasn't too minimal. So we started with that in the particular bill, but we are amenable based on the information that we're receiving through testimony to stay focused on the actual building step back or the towers step back from the property lights. Thank you, Director. Council member Kimball, you still have the floor. Yeah, so just, I'm just gonna summarize by saying, you know, the 100 and, or sorry, 1,200 foot setback requirement would be a significant barrier to building out in some key areas that we need for continuity of coverage, especially for police and fire services. So the 120% deals with the physical safety requirements around the tower and this should be sufficient. And so I ask everybody to support this amendment. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions or comments? Seeing none, there is a motion on the floor to amend bill 24 draft 3 with a contents of communication 110.63 all those in favor please say aye. Any opposed. Mr. Clerk please do a roll call. Thank you. I'm the motion to amend bill 24 draft 3 with a contents communication 1 1 0.6 3 Council member golemma aye Council member Houston alright Council member Inaba no Council member Caguata aye Council member Connilly E. Kleinfelder aye Council member Kimball aye Council member Onishi aye Council member Reggaes no chair aye Chair, I have seven votes in favor with committee members Inama and the Agus voting no. The motion carries bill 24, draft three is amended. Thank you. Council member Vegas. Yes. I'd like to make a motion to amend the contents of bill number 24, dash three with the the contents of Communication 110.18. There is a motion by Council Member Viegas and the second by Council Member Inaba to amend Bill 24 draft 3 as amended with the contents of Communication 110.18. Council Member Viegas. Thank you, Chair. You know, we went round and round on this one during our last meeting and I went ahead to and withdrew it because there were commitments made by court council. Thank you to Jean Campbell and also by chair in order to come up with answers There seemed to be confusion Some council members were operating under the belief system that we didn't have to add the terminology. Small wireless facilities because it was already covered somewhere else. Planning's opinion was we couldn't do this because it then kind of essentially prohibited any passage of permits for these facilities and So I'm bringing this back today because it's my understanding that Court Council Campbell has some definitive answers and I really wanted the public to be able to get some clarity We have a number of community community members who are very passionate about this legislation. Very grateful for Bill 24. It puts us on the forefront as a county for creating some parameters and boundaries around our wireless facilities and towers which provides health and safety on one hand for our communities, especially with access to first responders. However, on the other side, there's potential health risks and there are people who are living in more rural areas because they don't want to be impacted by electromagnetic radiation or they are sensitive or have issues. So with that, I'll go ahead and hand it over to Corp Council Jean Campbell to go ahead and provide information about everything you were able to find out about this. Good morning. Thank you, Councilor Deputy Corporation, Councilor Jean Campbell. The question that I was asked to look into specifically was, does Bill 24 as it's drafted today conflict with state law? And as I mentioned to all of you in a memo that I provided earlier this week, As currently drafted, Bill 24 does go too far and does, in fact, conflict with state law. HRS, Chapter 206N, provides for a very, very limited ability of the counties to regulate what it defines as small wireless facilities and Bill 24, as it's currently drafted significantly further than that and so it would be in fact in conflict and so my recommendation is that bill 24 be amended to ex specifically exclude small wireless facilities as they are defined in chapter 206N from applicability of Bill 24. I think that's the cleanest and most direct way to do this. And if the county wants to look into how and where it's appropriate for the county to regulate small wireless facilities, I think that's a discussion for a different day. Thank you. Okay, so excuse my novice legalese here, but in lay woman's terms what that essentially is saying or what you're saying is Communication the amendment contained within communication 1 1 0.18 would not be legal for us to pass at this time and in fact We need to go back and delineate in Bill 24 that the legislation doesn't include anything to do with small wireless facilities. Is that correct? Yes, that's correct. I think the communication in communication 18 would in fact conflict with state law so not recommended. And then again, my recommendation would be to include, I believe it would go in a subsection. What is this? 2515, is this correct Tracy under subsection to there? You have a list of things that are are not included and my recommendation would be to add a subsection E That specifically identifies again facilities that are fall under the definition of small wireless facilities as that definition is set fourth in HRS chapter 206 in Thank you court counsel I suppose for the sake of conversation and for council members having an opportunity to ask questions related to this, regardless of if this amendment, you know, I will most likely be, I'm not sure what I'm going to do, but I'm also looking to chair for potential guidance of overall this piece of legislation may need to be postponed until these deeper adjustments are made because until this is clarified, all the other amendments seem very manini. Chair? Thank you for bringing this forward so that we could have the conversation. I hope all council members received the memo that was sent by Corporation Council Campbell. My intention is to postpone on this measure today because in further conversations with planning department, we just need to make sure we are going through this ordinance line by line so that we are not in conflict with any HRS or federal law. There was more new information that was brought to my intention in terms of how telecommunication towers and antennas have gone through the special permitting process. And it is my intention that this existing process be codified so that members of the public know exactly the parameters in which the industry must comply with. Councilmember Cannelli-Kyfilter. Thank you Chair. Ms. Campbell. The 206N section you spoke to in the HRS Does it provide a definition of small wireless facilities? It does Sorry, I have the wrong section open. Hang on. Thank you, Tracy. It's growing down a hair. It's small wireless facilities. It's kind of a long definition. Would you like me to read it to you? Or do you just trust that it's there? Sorry. Say again, it's couple. There's a rather lengthy definition of small wireless facilities in the HRS. Would you like me to read it or do you just simply trust that it's there? I just did it's there. Well, I trust you to tell me that it's there. I tell you that it's there. Thank you. So perhaps then, given what I think the council is trying to do and what you are bringing to our attention and the possible overlap there that we should just refer back to state code as far as what we consider small rather facilities are how to incorporate that into our own language. Yes, I would recommend that we simply refer back to the definition that's in state law because what we wouldn't want to do is essentially copy and paste state definition into our code because then we would need to update our code any time that the state law changes. And so, you know, simply for drafting purposes and ease of Council's going forward, not having to revise every time, you know, pay attention and revise every time the state law changes, it would be cleaner and simpler to simply refer to a car about saying anything that is defined under state law, which pre-empts us anyway, is this simpler way to do it? Okay. And then And then where again are the sections that are contradictory to state code in this bill 24 draft 3? I think there are actually quite a number of them. Essentially any of the obligations, any of the regulations applicable to cell towers in bill 24 that exceed the rather limited authority that we have as a county to regulate small wireless facilities, all of those would be in conflict. So I guess I'm differentiating between the difference between the definition of small and then our ability to regulate small wireless. Am I saying that correctly? Yeah, I think you are. So the definition of small wireless for us lay folks is essentially in, I'm going to say this totally wrong, it's a small antenna facility of some sort and I know that I'm misusing the word antenna. That's also a technical term in the cellular industry. But for our lay people's understanding, there are antennas that are smaller, and those are small wireless facilities. There are generally things to get put on utility poles for lack of a better kind of picture in our mind of what they are. There are those small wireless facilities. And those things are in fact significantly different than the things that the hardware and the software and everything else that goes into what we're intending to regulate as cell towers. Cell towers are obviously significantly bigger and they actually have a lot of things on top of them, right? So we're looking in Build 24 to regulate both the construction of the tower itself and the stuff that gets stuck on that tower. And so things like the setbacks. And again, this is a, for example, because you just took the setback away. But any number of those things that we're posing in Build 24 to regulate in you know, in your mind, that picture of the big tall cell tower, whether it's a, you know, a big triangular tower, whether it's a monopine, whatever it is, we've put in Bill 24 a lot of regulation and requirements around where those towers can go. And if we apply those to utility poles, essentially, the small antenna things that can go on a utility poll. We've gone significantly further in regulating those than the state law allows us to do. The state law does allow us to have some pre-published standards for where those small wireless facilities can go under state law. But it's a pretty narrow alleyway that we get to regulate there. Where can I find the regulations guiding where what the county's ability to legislate regarding small wireless facilities? Everything that we are authorized to do is in chapter 206N. I don't have, again, I didn't know that. We have the book. It's fairly small. And we have the ability to adopt. I don't have the language again in front of me, apologies. Reasonable design standards. And it didn't just go to design. Tracy, do you have the language in front of you? What we are allowed to do? Anyway, there are standards that we are allowed to adopt for the placement and operation of small wireless facilities. And it's, we're allowed to adopt those. They need to be published ahead of time before they become applicable. There's obviously they would need to be in line with federal law because the FCC is really the governing body for regulating small wireless facilities. So we're allowed to, again, adopt a small amount of standards. To my knowledge, I honestly do not know whether the county has ever adopted that. That wouldn't be something that's done by the Planning Department. Okay. Here's the language. We're allowed to have pre-established non-discriminatory feasible design and co-location standards. And I am not technically adapted enough to tell you exactly what those are. Okay. So just to summarize then, right now, Miss Campbell feels that this bill has stepped outside of the allowable activities by the county under 206N. Yes, as it regard, if you are intending to include small wireless facilities in Bill 24, if you specifically exclude small wireless facilities, then you don't have a conflict with 206N. Got it. Okay, are you up there? Thank you very much, Ms. Campbell. Thank you. Anyone else on this? Councilor Brinava. Yeah, I'm just wondering, how come we're only finding out this now? There's been two bills on this topic and this is a planning department initiated bill that has been in the work for months. To my knowledge, the planning department's original bill didn't anticipate the regulation of small wireless facilities. So somebody amended bill 24 to include the small wireless and that's where we ended up in the trouble right now. No, it's being proposed. That's what's being proposed in I believe it's communication 18. No, I know, but your recommendation is that the bill as it currently stands needs to be reverted to exclude the small wireless facilities, right? I think to clarify, it would be a better practice. Again, I don't think that there was an anticipation that the bill as originally drafted by the planning department was in fact brought enough to include small wireless facilities. Okay, well, I think at this point, we've been postponing, postponing, postponing, and we still don't have it right. So, pardon the director, if you can please be sure to work with Deputy Corporation Council and whichever Council member is gonna be engaging in this, but we need to either get it right or end this because we keep going in circles. And I think we're wasting the public's time every time they come to testify. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, anyone else? Director Daryl. Thank you, Chair. If I could just kind of back up a little bit, this was again a very unique situation. I don't ever recall it happening similar in the past where we had two bills come before council that were at the same time regarding the same topic to try to regulate a particular area. Both bills received favorable recommendations from the planning commissions and came forward. At the time, it made more sense to take a bill and then rework that bill, incorporating some of the areas within the other bill into this bill that made sense. And so that's what we've been working on. Small self facilities were actually in bill 194. They were not included in bill 24. Now it's being proposed to be put in bill 24. So that's where the issue of small self-assilities are coming up. But again, it is a difficult situation to try to come up with a combination bill that incorporates the best of both to come out with that. and we're working diligently on that, and we'll continue to work diligently until we get that final product. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Bacchistis. I just had a question for Director Mahal. In regards to the two bills just for clarification, Bill 194 conversations with that council member and the planning department to kind of work through that process at the same time the planning department was bringing 24 forward? Yes. So we had worked in conjunction. Council member Evans was working with a member of corporation council, as well as working with staff. We were trying to assist in answering questions, but there was a clear direction change in regards to which way Bill 194 was going versus Bill 24. Thank you, Director. Anyone else? Councilor Maviega, is in light of the discussion that we are having, would you like to withdraw this motion or would you like us to move forward with the vote? I actually want to move forward with the vote just because I would like for the public to know that attempts have been made here to pass legislation that would ideally take care of some of their concerns, whether or not it's feasible or not. It's the statement also, I suppose I'm disappointed, but regardless of how much effort I've made on this, that we still end up and I get different stories from different sources. So it leaves me wondering what the truth is. And then we're navigating something as important as this. It's important to know what's included or not included. So for public record, we could vote this up or down and then move forward with the postponement. Mr. Clerk, we have a motion on the floor to amend bill 24, draft three as amended with the contents of communication 110.18, roll call vote please. When the motion is stated by Chair Kirkowitz, Council member Golemba. No. Council member Houston. No. Council member Enaba. No. Council member Kagiwata. No. Council member Connilly Kleinfelder. No. Thank you. Council member Kimball. No. Council member Onishi. No. Council member Viegas. Aye. Chair. No. Checkerunichee. No. Councillor Villegas. Aye. Chair. No. Chair Kirkwoods, you have one member voting in favor. Councillor Villegas, remaining eight members voting. Opposed? The motion is lost. Thank you. There are other amendments that you have put forward. Councillor Villegas, would you like to take those up today? I guess I would ask for court council's advice on this, Renee. If this is going to be postponed and potentially rewritten and whatnot, is it doesn't make sense as far as time and energy for me to try and pass these amendments. Because in prior conversations in our last meeting and through my conversations with Council Campbell, since then, these amendments reflect the slight changes in terminology and verbiage that were discussed at our last meeting. And so... I want to get these included in if can, but if we're going back to the drawing board with the whole thing. Good morning, Renée Show and Corporation Council. I really think it's up to this body as to how you want to proceed. It makes sense to me if it's going to be postponed that all of the proposed amendments be I guess discussed with the Planning Department and our office prior to it coming before the body. they have been discussed with the planning department and our office prior to it coming before the body. If they have been discussed with the planning department and the Corp Council prior and these are reflected of those conversations I've already had then bringing them forward now for the discussion is advisable? Well, I'm hearing that there might be other work that is being done to what is in front of the body right now. So while you may be discussing the amendments, they in light of the fact that there are other things to be considered may make your amendments moved. Okay, so if I hold off on them I can bring them back when we discuss whatever version built 24 ends up in once it's fixed. You know, clear, and I'm not trying to, please let me know if I'm violating any Sunshine Law Corporation Council. But it was brought to my attention in conversations with Planning Department about how one would go about erecting a new tower and how a carrier would apply to co-locate an antenna on an existing tower. And in review of the bill, these distinctions are not clear, and the processes for both are very different. And I want those processes to be abundantly clear to everyone. And so would like to revise Bill 24 to reflect that. If you would like, I'm happy to work with Corporation Council to include what you have here today, Councilmember. We can also just review as a body right now these amendments that you've worked on. Okay. Do to go ahead and hold off. I would appreciate for these amendments to be taken into consideration because it was said on public record during our last meetings that planning. I thought that these were okay and these are amendments that I have worked on and community members who are experts in the telecommunications industry and what's currently going on with legislation and litigation around the country have advised for amendments. Thank you. and just noting that your amendments have to do with notification clarity around notification of neighbors and ensuring that there is a complete submission of an application before the 60-day review commences. Thank you. Yes, no longer shop clock. Okay, thank you. Thank you for that. Councilmember Kimball. Yes, so I think the one that actually the 60 day clock, I think we kind of all agreed on that. And I think that that one is probably okay to go in. But yes, having, as I promised to do last time, looked at antenna versus tower and some inconsistencies through the bill about when we were talking about antennas and towers or just antennas or just towers. There may be some reorganization necessary, where I think this particular one is okay, but maybe not the other one. So I think we could go ahead with 10. Sorry, 1 1 0.65 at this time. Thank you for that. Councilmember can you leave Kleinfelder? Well, thank you. Are we really amendment or just the bill is all? globally bill is all yes. Okay. Thank you. Just a director. I was reading to the yesterday what caught my attention is we've shifted the language for antenna and tower from meeting a use permit to being Director approved is that correct plan approval correct it's a approval which is by the director no public scrutiny whatsoever correct and and again this was based on state law a change in 46-89 in the Hawaii Revised Statutes that require 416 or 416. 46-89. Okay. And it says that it puts a timeline and action. So it says within 60 days an application needs to be approved, approved with modifications or tonight. And so our process with the use permit could not be done realistically in 60 days especially because it offers the opportunity for a contested case. And once a contested case is filed, timing is not really clear at that point. It could take months and months, sometimes years. And by basing that, if you do not make that decision within 60 days, it's automatically approved. And so that's why we had to make this shift. Okay. And then with that in mind, we also allowed this bill would allow for all zoning to be permitted to have towers and antennas in them. Correct. Correct. Was it that way before? Is that a requirement of state law? It was allowable with a use permit. Right? So you have to go through a use permit. It wasn't just permitted. There are certain districts, it's permitted, but still required planning approval like commercial industrial districts. But in certain districts, residential and open and agriculture, it would require a use permit, which goes before the Planning Commission and House of Public here. I appreciated that component of the public scrutiny on a tower or antenna in an area that has density. And that we moved away from that in this bill. I think was, I think is worrisome, but also I think it goes against the intention of Cindy and maybe even what is being asked by the public as far as what they wanted from this bill. Because we've taken away the public component now, because now it's just a director approval or a planning department approval, which is really Yerkuliana or youruties. And then we've also opened up the zoning for the implementation of this infrastructure and removed all public tie-in to any of the process. That to me, and while I understand I've sat in planning commission hearings regarding cell phone towers and they're very contested in some cases. But given the public testimony that we've had, looking at the direction of this bill, I would really like the department to think on what the public is asking for, what we've just done with this bill and this language that I guess entitles two together. Do they still create the same intention and guidelines for the public? And I understand the state and the federal laws kind of move us towards making this decision quickly and take away some of our rights, but I am unwilling to give sometimes, and we're told we have to do it x, y, and z. There's always, there's always room for us in the county to make room for our residents. If I could respond to that. That's great. Thank you. So in one of Council Member Viegas' amendments, it asks for the applicant to send out notification within 500 feet of the proposed hours through certified mailings. That will give notification as well as the other areas within the bill that talk about attempts to do community meetings and those kind of things. Again, what I was trying to say previously is that there's no opportunity for a contested case as you did in a use permit. Notification will inform them that this is happening. The only ability to challenge it would be as if they did not do specifically what is required in the plan approval section They could file an appeal to the board of appeals What's unclear is once that 60-day clock is finished? Regardless if it's in an appeal or not if it's automatically. Yeah, the previous cases that I sat through and watched by the time they were hitting the court because we got sued by AT&T. It had to be dismissed because we required automatic approval as well as dropped away we went and the tower went in and the community was angry. I mean that's the end result. So there really is a piece missing here. I think Cindy was trying to rectify to help the community feel heard, give them a chance to weigh in and have it be of some value and not just an automatic approval process that just lets us go on circles and let everyone get mad at us for being required to do with the federal and State bodies have enacted via legislation So again, I think what we are all trying to do here is come up with the best bill that captures everything we want to see To be submitted by these telecommunication communication companies part of their submittal, so that the public is heard now through this process and it's codified as part of the submittal for plan approval. I agree. So I think what I'm saying right now is if we do postpone this great, if this comes back to us, those are my big issues with it is we've taken away the public and they're asking for our help and making sure these don't go up in their backyards. And that's where we have to do a little bit better. And I just put it out there. The Federal Communications Act of 1996 is outdated by like 30 years. And so if we're basing, because everyone's basing their buildouts and their requirements based on that act of 1996, that things outdated. That was before we even had some of the stuff we all carry on our pockets right now. So our guiding light being a very outdated piece of legislation from the federal government, that's problematic in itself. So I'm not laying this on planning department, even the state. We just don't have a lot of anything new to work with. Ayo, Chair. Thank you. Councilmember Houston. Thank you, Chair. Just for general conversation here, and just to partner up with Director Daryl-Sed about the best bill moving forward. And I'd like to refer back to Communication 11019. In terms of, for me, the best bill is about the language and the language piece within the bill. And what's proposed in 1-1065, this other additional language may not be necessary. So Council Member Villegas, I thank you for bringing these measures forward in these amendments. But your measure of 1-1019 that was reviewed by LRB So really already had that kind of matching language that we see an ordinance So I kind of like to shift back to what what's in there if you're bringing it back forward That's my recommendation. Thank you Thank you Corporation council. So, as we're moving through this process with the planning department, it's very clear that the current process, the special use permit process, was in conflict with HRS. And in the process of trying to create this plan approval process, you know, we've been hearing members of the community come out and express their frustration about public health impacts related to telecommunications. And I think we're all feeling a little bit stuck because we hear our community, but it feels as if our hands are tied in the, are we unable to regulate public health through this ordinance? You are so per federal law, we're not able to regulate based on health and radio active emissions. So yeah, the council is precluded from going there per federal law. Okay. Thank you for sharing that for the record because I know members of this body are really trying. We're certainly in conflict on the federal side and I think that's why it's so important that for these processes that we are reviewing that they're crystal clear to the community and ample communication be provided to residents that may be impacted by these new towers, additional antennas, But you know, to the point that Director Darryl mentioned earlier with the notifications, wanting to make sure that we're managing expectations because there is a public perception that if you get this letter, there is some kind of appeals process and what I'm hearing is there would no longer be that with this bill. If I could respond to that. Okay. Okay. Whenever the director makes a decision on any internal type of approval process, there's always the opportunity to appeal the decision to the board of appeals. But they are looking at whether the director aired or did not air in the decision making. And if the applicant did exactly that is required by plan approval, there's no area to air. It's just did they submit this? Yes, they submitted this. It's not a difficult discretion type decision. Okay, thank you. And I'm going to go back to, we're going to work together to make sure that every aspect of the application, everything that you are requiring is noted in the code so that everybody is aware of what needs to be provided to the department in order to make the decision. Any other questions or comments? Councillor Vocagiuana. Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to mention the communication from the police chief regarding this bill because I don't know based on the information he provided. I don't understand what the specifics are. So I just think if you're going ahead, you might want to have a deeper conversation with him to find out what his serious concerns are here. That's all. Thank you. Okay. Anyone else comes by. Yes. At the risk of not following exact procedure, I will just make the statement that I'm going to wait then on bringing forward the other amendments at this time. Okay. Are you okay? Anyone else? Seeing none. May I please have a motion to postpone bill 24, draft three as amended to our next committee hearing, which I believe is Tuesday, May 6th. So moved. Thank you. There was a motion by Council Member Kimball, second by Council Member Inaba to postpone. Bill 24, draft three as amended to our May 6th Committee hearing. Any discussion? Seeing none? Go ahead. Yeah, do we think that the issues can be resolved by May 6th? It is my sincere hope. OK. I just would like to put in there that if there is some wisdom in adding another two weeks that that might be advisable given the burden that's already on everybody. Thank you. I would recommend that to give us a month. I will withdraw the motion and motion move to the May 20. That is the next committee. So move to postpone to May 20. Okay. Thank you. There is a motion by Councilmember Kimball, second by Councilmember Inaba, to postpone Bill 24, draft three, as amended to our May 20th Committee hearing. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries with nine aye votes. The measure is postponed to May 20th. That brings us to the end of our agenda. We are adjourned at 12.11 PM. Thank you. Have a lunch. you