Two competing bills changing Hawaii County’s permitting process for cellphone towers are scheduled for a showdown next month.

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

A month later, the county Planning Department presented the Windward Planning Commission with a draft measure — which does not have a bill number — that would loosen regulations for telecommunications companies, allowing them to erect cell towers without a permit in certain counties. zoning.

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

While both bills differ significantly, both would ultimately exempt telecommunications companies from needing permit approval by county planning commissions. Act 194 imposes more requirements on telecommunications companies, but as long as the company meets the new requirements set forth by the measure and the county planning director issues plan approval for the project, it allows cell phone towers in any zoning district.

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

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

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Camero told the Commission that the Planning Department prefers its own bill to Evans’, concluding that Bill 194 is inflexible and in some places redundant with existing requirements, while requiring more work from part of the Planning Department.

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

On the other hand, Evans told the Commission that while her measure needs further polishing, it was written in consultation with federal and state agencies to ensure it does not exceed the county’s authority.

“I really believe with confidence that we haven’t been over the top and we’ve gone above and beyond what we can do locally,” Evans said.

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

“When you co-locate (multiple antennas on a single tower), it’s more than just one radio frequency, you keep adding,” Evans said. “So if you can do four co-locations on a tower, there are four different radio frequencies emitted by four different equipment. So what is the total radio frequency coming out of that tower?”

The discussion drew more than 70 members of the public to give oral and written testimony, mostly in support of Bill 194.

“If we consider an air pollutant, we must realize that inadvertent exposure will be common almost everywhere as this technology proliferates,” wrote Naomi Melamed, a member of the advocacy group Safe Tech Hawaii. “The least we can do ethically is outlined in Bill 194. People need to be informed, especially those who live nearby … and there needs to be a place for their voices to be heard.”

Almost all of the testimony raised concerns about the health risks of radio emissions, which were said to cause a host of diseases, including cancer.

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

However, federal law provides that health concerns related to radio frequency emissions cannot be used as a basis for denying a permit to construct a telecommunications facility.

The committee, concluding that any decision on one bill would likely require an opposite decision on the other, decided to postpone any action on the matter until its meeting on December 5, when it would weigh the merits of both bills and , will eventually choose one. to recommend.

Email Michael Brestovansky at [email protected].