Hawaii County committee weighs competing telecom siting ordinances, postpones both to Feb. 18

The Hawaii County Council Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and Economic Development on Feb. 4 heard extensive public testimony and planning‑department briefings on two competing ordinances that would revise county rules for telecommunication antennas and towers, then postponed both measures for further work and amendments until the committee’s Feb. 18 meeting.

Committee Chair Ashley Kirkwitz presided over the meeting, which included testimony from residents, interest groups and agency representatives and presentations by planning department staff. The two measures under consideration were Bill 194, introduced by Councilmember Cindy Evans, and Bill 24, initiated by the County Planning Director and presented to the committee by planning staff.

Why it matters: The bills address where and how the county allows cell towers, antennas and small wireless facilities to be sited, and propose new plan‑approval requirements, setbacks, design standards, and safety provisions. Committee members and witnesses said the outcome will affect aesthetics, public safety, emergency communications and how quickly carriers can build infrastructure across Hawaii Island.

Public testimony and key claims

Several public witnesses, primarily affiliated with the grassroots group SafeTec Hawaii, urged the committee to support Bill 194 and oppose Bill 24. Deborah Green, founding director of SafeTec Hawaii, told the committee that "Bill 24 was written by former planning director Zendo Kern," and criticized what she described as limited public involvement in Bill 24 and possible influence by telecom industry testimony. Naomi Milaman (identified in the record as Naomi Malamed/Milaman), also testifying for SafeTec Hawaii, said "Bill 24 completely overlooks small cells," and urged the committee to adopt Bill 194 because it explicitly addresses small‑cell facilities and includes decommissioning, setback and fire‑safety provisions.

Cindy Evans, the councilmember who introduced Bill 194, described her work drafting the ordinance with community input and said she had consulted with state and federal agencies while drafting the measure. Evans told the committee she had discussed her draft with the former planning director and others and said the two bills could be combined to "get the best of both."

Chuck Flaherty, representing the Hawaii Island group of the Sierra Club of Hawaii, said the group "support[s] Bill 194 with the recommended amendments" and suggested raising the wind survivability requirement in Bill 194 from 100 mph to 130 mph and adding language to document Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act reviews.

Kazuo Tod, Fire Chief of the Hawaii Fire Department, emphasized the emergency‑communications role of towers: "We do enjoy communication towers because they provide the signals that come into our MDTs, our mobile data terminals," and urged planning for redundancy (generators, alternative backhaul) and careful siting so public safety communications are not compromised.

Planning department presentation and concerns

Planning staff (Jeff Darrow and Tracy Lee Camaro) summarized both bills and the department’s technical review. The planning presentation said both measures move telecom approvals from Planning Commission use permits to a plan‑approval process handled by the planning director, a change staff said was prompted by HRS 46‑89 (the statute cited in the record) and by prior contested‑case experience that delayed decisions. Tracy Camaro described the core effects of the planning‑director bill (Bill 24): remove the use‑permit requirement in certain zoning districts, add plan‑approval application requirements, and amend standards for siting and operation.

Staff noted elements that Bill 194 proposes (and that planning‑department amendments also incorporate): a new definition for telecommunication towers; minimum lot sizes (for example, 5 acres in agricultural districts, 1 acre in some residential districts, and none in certain commercial/industrial zones); a setback requirement equal to 120% of tower height measured from the property line; a 1,200‑foot buffer from "nearby residences and schools" in the draft language; requirements for FAA/FCC documentation; a mandatory structural certification that a fully built tower survive sustained winds of 130 mph; space for wildfire surveillance cameras in high‑risk areas; decommissioning/abandonment plans; and requirements to encourage co‑location on existing towers.

The planning department also flagged several proposed provisions in Bill 194 that staff said may exceed zoning authority or better belong in building, fire, flood or electrical codes (for example, some operational, engineering and maintenance standards). The department recommended revisions to avoid conflicts with state law and to preserve flexibility for Hawaii’s varied topography and development patterns.

Key committee discussion and amendments

Committee members debated which bill should be the base text and what specific provisions to merge. Councilmember Heather Kimball and others said they favored using Bill 24 as a starting point and adding elements from Bill 194 (for example, fire‑safety plans, maintenance plans and clear definitions distinguishing towers and antennas). Councilmember Rebecca Villegas said she preferred Bill 194, citing the community input that produced it.

Members raised multiple technical questions: how the 120% setback and the 1,000–1,200‑foot buffers were derived; whether hospitals should be included in buffer protections; how the plan‑approval process would coordinate with building permits and public works review; whether plan approvals under the new process would include neighbor notification; and how co‑location incentives or requirements would operate when existing tower owners have exclusive lease agreements.

Formal actions and votes taken

- A motion to table Bill 194 (moved by Councilmember Kimball; second not specified in recorded excerpt) passed. The clerk recorded the motion as carrying with 8 ayes; one council member (Kaneili E. Kleinfelder) was excused at that time. (This effectively paused immediate action on Bill 194.)

- The committee took up Bill 24 (planning‑director initiated). A motion to forward Bill 24 to the council with a favorable recommendation was made (mover: Councilmember Inaba; second: Councilmember Eustace). Later in the meeting the committee voted to postpone Bill 24 to the Feb. 18 committee hearing; the record shows the motion to postpone carried (the transcript records 6–7 ayes in sections of the roll call and later clarifying statements noting certain members were excused). The clerk later confirmed Bill 24 was postponed to the Feb. 18 committee hearing.

- Members then removed Bill 194 from the table (motion by Councilmember Kimball; second by Councilmember Inaba); that motion passed with 8 ayes and Bill 194 was back on the table.

- A motion to amend Bill 194 to add filing fees (per Communication 985.52: $500 for an antenna application and $3,000 for a tower application) was moved by Councilmember Inaba and seconded. The roll‑call vote on the fee amendment failed, recorded as 4 in favor, 4 opposed and 1 absent; the clerk announced the motion failed.

- A subsequent motion to postpone Bill 194 to the Feb. 18 committee hearing passed (recorded as 8 ayes). Both measures will be considered again on Feb. 18.

What remains unresolved

Committee members asked staff to prepare a set of recommended amendments and to provide clarifying background materials, including the legal basis for setbacks and buffer distances, how plan approvals will interact with building and fire codes, and model language for neighbor notification and co‑location priorities. Multiple members said they want a draft that combines elements of both bills (for example, Bill 24’s administrative approach to plan approval and Bill 194’s community‑driven siting, fire and maintenance provisions).

Next steps

Both bills were postponed to the Feb. 18 committee hearing so staff can prepare amendments and additional information. Committee members repeatedly requested specific, written amendment language in advance of that hearing.

Ending note

The committee adjourned at 6:54 p.m.; both measures will return to the committee for additional public comment, technical revisions and further votes on Feb. 18.