Hawaii County Council postpones Bill 24 after debate over small cells, wind survivability and notice rules

HILO — The Hawaii County Council postponed final action on Bill 24, an ordinance updating county rules for telecommunications antennas and towers, after a full hearing that included public testimony both for and against the measure, several amendments adopted by the council and unresolved legal questions about small wireless facilities on privately owned utility poles. The council set the item for further consideration at its April 15 meeting and directed staff and corporation counsel to report back.

Bill 24 (planning director–initiated) proposes revisions to Chapter 25 of the Hawaii County Code to remove certain use-permit requirements, add application procedures and amend standards for installing towers and antennas. During the April committee hearing the council approved amendments on lighting, wind survivability and fire/backup-power documentation, and withdrew or deferred several other proposed changes while seeking clarification from corporation counsel and other departments.

Why it matters: The ordinance governs where and how fixed and small wireless telecommunications equipment can be sited across Hawaii County. Supporters of stronger controls said clear rules on notification, structural survivability and public notice will protect neighbors and critical infrastructure; industry representatives warned that overly broad or restrictive rules could hamper broadband deployment and emergency communications in rural areas.

What the council did and how it voted - The council amended Bill 24 with a lighting/shielding provision (communication 110.17) to require shielding for constant lighting on poles to reduce impacts on wildlife and neighbors. Motion by Councilmember Kaguewara, second by Councilmember Inaba; voice vote recorded as 9 ayes, motion carried. - The council approved a building-standard amendment (communication 110.2) reinstating a minimum 100 mile-per-hour sustained-wind survivability requirement to be certified in building plans by a licensed structural engineer, with the planning director to require compliance with the building code "or whichever is greater." Motion by Councilmember Villegas; the roll-call vote was 8 ayes, 1 no (Councilmember Kimble voted no). The motion carried. - The council approved an amendment (communication 110.22) requested by the Hawaii Fire Department to require documentation of compliance with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards and to consider on-site power redundancy for towers so sites can remain operational during emergencies. Motion made by Councilmember Inaba and seconded by Councilmember Eustace; recorded as 9 ayes, motion carried. - Several other proposed amendments dealing with small wireless facilities, notification timing language and an application-form clarification were withdrawn or deferred so staff and corporation counsel could evaluate conflicts with state law and existing county agreements (see Actions list). The council then voted unanimously to postpone Bill 24 to the next committee meeting on April 15 (motion by Councilmember Inaba, second by Councilmember Onishi; 9-0).

Public testimony and technical concerns Residents, public‑health advocates and industry representatives gave opposing views during the public-comment portion. - Cindy Evans, a resident of South Kohala, testified in support of Bill 24 and asked the council to require facility owners to comply with federal, state and county rules within 120 days of any regulatory change and to allow the planning director, with council approval, to designate and require remediation of "high-risk" components. - Adrian Casala, a Crown Castle employee who identified himself as born and raised locally, testified in opposition to the bill as drafted. Casala urged clearer distinctions between new tower construction and modifications to existing facilities, asked the council to reference Section 6409 of the Spectrum Act (a federal standard governing eligible facilities requests), and warned that broad setbacks and minimum-lot-size rules could make it impractical to site equipment where service is needed. - Deborah Green, founding director of Safetec Hawaii, urged the council to adopt four amendments introduced by Councilmember Villegas, including explicitly including small cells in the ordinance, clearer community-notification rules, a standardized application form to fix the start of the 60‑day shot clock for federal review, and a 100‑mph wind survivability requirement certified by a structural engineer. - Industry representative Cyrus Johnson, speaking for the Wireless Infrastructure Association, opposed the bill as drafted, saying proposed setbacks (testimony referenced a 1,200‑foot figure advanced by some critics) and minimum-lot rules could disproportionately harm rural coverage and remove leasing income for agricultural landowners; he urged objective design standards and more flexible siting on commercial properties. - Legal and technical experts and advocates (Zoe Berg of Environmental Health Trust and others) testified in support of including small wireless facilities and stronger notification rules so neighbors receive clear written notice (testimony often advocated certified or regular mail to property owners and tenants within a 500‑foot radius).

Planning department, fire department and legal issues Planning Director Jeff Darrow and planner Tracy Camaro explained technical and legal constraints the department faces. Darrow said the code and state law make a distinction between macro towers and small wireless facilities typically mounted on poles in public rights-of-way; those small facilities historically have been treated as permitted uses in the right-of-way and not subject to the same zoning review as large towers. The department’s practical concern is that if small wireless facilities are collapsed into the same definition and requirements as macro towers (lot-size minimums, large setbacks), small cells will not meet those standards and deployment in urban cores and right-of-way locations would be impossible.

Darrow told the council the planning department supported the 100‑mph minimum wind survival standard but urged the language to read "meet the building code or whichever is greater" so future code changes would not require ordinance amendments. He also cautioned that adding a broad notice procedure might create confusion about what rights neighbors would have: plan approvals have no public hearing by default, and the director is required to act within the federally governed review period if the application meets requirements.

Fire Chief Volpi (Hawaii Fire Department) explained that NFPA 76 provides guidance on tower construction for fire-resilience, and that on-site redundant power for critical sites improves public safety communications during disasters.

Legal questions and next steps Councilmembers and staff asked corporation counsel to clarify at least two legal questions before final passage: whether small wireless facilities located on privately owned utility poles (not county poles) are subject to county regulation given state statutes referenced by several testifiers (HRS 206N and federal rules), and whether existing county agreements (for example, FirstNet or similar emergency communications projects) could be affected by sweeping new local requirements. Councilmembers also asked staff to consult with Public Works about building-code and tower‑specific technical standards (including referenced industry standards such as TIA‑222) before the next hearing.

Ending Councilmembers amended parts of Bill 24 and paused the ordinance to allow corporation counsel and department staff to return with clarifications and refined language at the April 15 meeting. Pending items include clarified notification language, whether small wireless facilities should be explicitly included in the county definition, the starting point for the 60‑day application "clock," and technical coordination with Public Works and existing county emergency‑communications agreements.

"We need to make sure that what's allowed and what isn't is crystal clear," Councilmember Villegas said during debate after withdrawing one small‑cell amendment to let staff and counsel research outstanding questions. "We want to protect people and not unintentionally disrupt emergency services."