Hawaii County committee amends telecom ordinance, postpones final action after public safety and preemption concerns

The Hawaii County Council Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use and Economic Development on April 15 amended proposed Bill 24 to change tower setback language, rejected an amendment addressing small wireless facilities, and postponed further action to May 20 for additional drafting and review.

The amended measure would revise Chapter 25 of the Hawaii County Code to update application requirements and standards for telecommunication antennas and towers. Committee Chair Ashley Kirkowitz presided over the meeting in Hilo with hybrid participation from Kona and Zoom.

Why it matters: committee members and members of the public said the ordinance touches public-safety communications, community notification and legal limits on county regulation of small wireless facilities. Fire and police officials warned the measure could affect first-responder communications; deputy corporation counsel said portions of the draft conflict with state law as written.

Public testimony and concerns

Several residents and community advocates testified on Bill 24. Michael Trask, a tugboat captain who said he lives across the street from a recently erected tower, told the committee he was not opposed to cell service but objected to towers placed “so close to the subdivision,” saying he and others had safety and health concerns. Chris Hirose of Mountain View urged support for the bill and for notification requirements, citing searches of PubMed and other material he said raised health questions about long-term exposure.

Deborah Green, founding director of Safetec Hawaii, testified in support of Bill 24 and of amendments proposed by Council Member Rebecca Villegas. Green praised inclusion of a 100-mile-per-hour sustained wind standard and argued the bill should require clearer community notification and an application form that defines when the 60-day statutory review clock begins. She also urged excluding monopine (fake-tree) concealment because of microplastic and environmental concerns.

Naomi Melamed, Big Island leader for Safetec Hawaii, asked that the ordinance mandate notification by mail to people within 500 feet of proposed installations and to adopt an application form tying the 60-day clock to a complete submission, referencing a recent Ninth Circuit ruling as support for defining when the review period begins. Several other residents reiterated calls for stronger notification and for the county to honor a 2020 moratorium resolution on 5G until more safety information is available.

Public safety and legal guidance

Police Chief Benjamin Moskowitz submitted a written communication opposing aspects of Bill 24. Fire Chief Kazuo Todd told the committee the department’s principal concern was resiliency: modern emergency alerts and evacuation notices depend heavily on cellular networks. Todd said a 1,200-foot distance requirement in an earlier draft could make siting new towers impracticable in many residential areas and limit the number of towers available to serve residents and first responders.

Deputy Corporation Counsel Jean Campbell told the committee Bill 24 as drafted would conflict with Hawaii Revised Statutes chapter 206N if it attempted to regulate “small wireless facilities” as that term is defined by state law. Campbell recommended explicitly excluding those small wireless facilities from the bill to avoid preemption by state statute.

Committee action and votes

- Amendment (communication 110.63): Council Member Heather Kimball moved to replace the 1,200-foot requirement with a standardized setback equal to 120% of tower height (removing the fixed 1,200-foot clause) and to simplify related language. Planning Director Jeff Darrow said the planning department supported the change. The motion passed on a roll call with seven votes in favor and two opposed; the clerk recorded votes including Galemba (aye), Eustace (aye), Nava (no), Kagiwada (aye), Kimball (aye), Onishi (aye), Villegas (no), and Chair Kirkowitz (aye). The committee announced the motion carried and Bill 24 draft 3 was amended.

- Amendment (communication 110.18): Council Member Rebecca Villegas moved to amend Bill 24 to address small wireless facilities; Deputy Corporation Counsel Jean Campbell advised that the proposed language would conflict with HRS chapter 206N and recommended excluding small wireless facilities from the bill or otherwise referring to the state definition. The motion to adopt communication 110.18 failed on roll call, 1–8 (Villegas voted aye; eight members voted no).

- Postponement: Committee members voted to postpone further action on Bill 24 draft 3 as amended to the committee’s May 20 hearing. The motion to postpone carried unanimously, 9–0.

What the committee asked for next

Members directed planning staff to work with corporation counsel to reconcile draft language with state law and to clarify application processes, notification requirements and whether and how small wireless facilities should be handled. Multiple council members emphasized the need to preserve meaningful notice and avenues for community input while complying with state and federal limitations on regulating emissions or health effects.

The committee recorded the public safety departments’ opposition to parts of the draft and the environmental and notification concerns raised by Safetec Hawaii and residents. The item remains pending; the committee set the next substantive consideration for May 20.

Ending

Bill 24 will return to the Planning, Land Use and Economic Development committee on May 20 for further amendments and discussion after planning staff and corporation counsel revise the draft to address the legal and procedural issues raised on April 15.