Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PCPLUED 2025/02/04 (2024-2026)Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and Economic Development 311 Session Hawaii County Building 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii February 4, 2025 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and ORDER: Economic Development was called to order at 5:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, Hilo, by Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Chair. ROLL CALL: Present: Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Chair Ms. Michelle M. Galimba, Vice Chair Mr. James E. Hustace, Member Mr. Holeka Goro Inaba, Member Ms. Jenn Kagiwada, Member Ms. Heather L. Kimball, Member Mr. Dennis "Fresh" Onishi, Member Ms. Rebecca Villegas, Member Absent & Excused: Mr. Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Member STATEMENTS The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of FROM THE business, Statements from the Public on Agenda Items. PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS: The following individuals registered to speak and came forward when called by the Chair: Debra Greene: Naomi Melamed: Chuck Flaherty: Cindy Evans: Bill 194 (Comm. 985), in support; and Bill 24 (Comm. 110), opposed. Bill 194 (Comm. 985), in support; and Bill 24 (Comm. 110), opposed. Bill 194 (Comm. 985) comment; and Bill 24 (Comm. 110), in support. Bill 194 (Comm. 985) and Bill 24 (Comm. 110), in support. PCPLUED-3 February 4, 2025 Kazuo Todd: Bill 194 (Comm. 985) and Bill 24 (Comm. 110), comment. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, thank you. I'll ask Deputy County Clerk, Aaron Brown to begin Order of Business. We have two bills that are very similar, but not, Bill 194 initiated by former Council Member Cindy Evans and Bill 24 initiated by the Planning Department. We need to dispense of one of these measures today. There can be a base bill that we're working off of, and we can be inspired by the other bill and make amendments, but we need to dispense of one of the bills today. We cannot be forwarding both of these bills for a recommendation, because they are going to be obvious conflicts. So, I'm going to have our Deputy Clerk read in Bill 194. Planning Department will be doing the presentation. I'll ask someone to table the measure; we'll read in Bill 24, so that Planning Department can make the next presentation. Then at that point, committee members can speak to both bills globally. Okay, that is the plan. Deputy Clerk, let's move forward with Order of Business, Bill 194. BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, ORDINANCES: Bills for Ordinances. Bill 194: AMENDS CHAPTER 25, ARTICLES 1, 2, 4, 5, AND 7, OF THE HAWAI`I (2022-2024) COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO TELECOMMUNICATION ANTENNAS AND TOWERS Amends the definition of "telecommunication antenna" and adds a definition for "telecommunication tower", expands plan approval requirements, allows for telecommunication antennas or towers in any zoning district upon approval of the Planning Director, and revises siting, design, and operating regulations to align with State law. Reference: Intr. by: Referred to Planning Commissions: Postponed: Comm. 985 Council Member Evans August 23, 2024 January 21, 2025 (Note: There is a motion by Council Member Inaba, seconded by Council Member Villegas, to recommend passage of Bill 194 on first reading.) (Note: Comm. 985.54 from Planning Director Jeffrey W. Darrow dated February 4, 2025, transmitting a Power Point Presentation, was circulated.) Page 2 UQUIteloom February 4, 2025 ; and Comm. 985.50: From Managing Director William V. Brilhante, Jr., dated December 20, 2024, transmitting for Council's consideration and action, letters from the Windward and Leeward Planning Commissions. ; and Comm. 985.52: From Council Chair Holeka Goro Inaba, dated January 24, 2025, transmitting a proposed amendment to Bill 194. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Planning Department, please introduce yourselves for the record, and you can move forward with the presentation. (Note: At this time, Planning Director Jeff Darrow and Planner V Tracie-Lee Camero came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. DARROW: Thank you, Chair. Aloha, Jeff Darrow with the Planning Department. Also, with me is Tracie-Lee Camaro. She's going to assist with our presentation this evening. This is a unique situation, as mentioned. Two bills that are tackling the same subject. We will present Bill 194. We've toned it back a bit from the presentations that we brought before the Planning Commissions just because they were extremely lengthy, and we've kind of summarized them. So, Tracie will do the presentation and then we'll stay for any questions that you may have. Thank you. (Note: At this time, Tracie-Lee Camero provided a PowerPoint presentation to the members of the Committee. For viewing of the presentation, see the DVD copy of the proceedings on file in the Clerk's Office, or online at http://hawaiicounty.granicus.com. A copy of the presentation is made part of the record. See Comm. 985.94). CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Can I have a motion to table Bill 194? Vote on Motion to Ms. Kimball moved to table Bill 194. Seconded by Table: Ms. Kagiwada and was carried by the following voice vote: (Approved) Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Hustace, Inaba, Kagiwada, Kimball, Onishi, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz — 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder — 1. Excused: None. Page 3 PCPLUED-3 CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Clerk, if you could read in Bill 24. February 4, 2025 Bill 24: AMENDS CHAPTER 25, ARTICLES 1, 2, 4, 5, AND 7, OF THE HAWAI`I COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO TELECOMMUNICATION ANTENNAS AND TOWERS (Planning Director Initiated) The Windward and Leeward Planning Commissions forward their favorable recommendations to remove the requirement for a use permit to establish telecommunication antennas and towers in certain zoning districts, add application requirements, and amend standards for the establishment of telecommunication antennas and towers. Reference: Comm. I10 Intr. by: Council Member Kierkiewicz (B/R) Motion to Approve: Mr. Inaba moved to recommend passage of Bill 24 on first reading. Seconded by Mr. Hustace. (Note: Comm. 110.1 from Planning Director Jeffrey W. Darrow dated February 4, 2025, transmitting a Power Point Presentation, was circulated.) CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Planning Department, take it away. MS. CAMERO: Thank you, Chair. So, in an effort to shorten the 22 slides of so much fun information, I will do a brief summary of the slides. You guys do have copy of the slides, and I believe a copy of the slides are put up on the Laserfiche website under a communication that I just saw. (Note: At this time, Tracie-Lee Camero provided a PowerPoint presentation to the members of the Committee. For viewing of the presentation, see the DVD copy of the proceedings on file in the Clerk's Office, or online at http://hawaiicounty.granicus.com. A copy of the presentation is made part of the record. See Comm. 110.1). CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you so much, Tracie. Well done. Very comprehensive. I'm going to open it up to Committee Members for questions for the department. Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you. Thank you for the time that you put in this, and former Council Member Evans as well. I appreciate it. This is a complex topic and involves many levels of government. And so, that makes things complicated. Page 4 PCPLUED-3 February 4, 2025 I wanted to start with maybe just kind of a general question. And I presume that these towers/antennas do need to have their designs reviewed by Public Works as well, as part of the development process. MR. DARROW: That's correct. MS. KIMBALL: Okay. MR. DARROW: They have come in through the building permit process. MS. KIMBALL: Okay. So, then the basis of the 120 percent setback versus the 20 feet; as well as the 1,200 feet from residents and schools. What is the basis of those distance recommendations? MR. DARROW: This doesn't have the ability to go through a Commission hearing, as it normally did where conditions are placed on a particular application in regards to its own request. So, this is just a setback that's going to apply across the board for any tower. It's not just the setback though. It's also minimum building sites. So in the agricultural district, the minimum building site is going to be five acres for a tower. In a residential, it's one acre. MS. KIMBALL: Appreciate that. My question is more so, where do these limits in particular, as now the standard across the board, what's the basis for those numbers? We say 120 percent, because you know, it's going to fall over so you add a little bit of extra space. I mean, is that the logic here? MR. DARROW: That kind of is the logic, but basically, we reviewed codes from across the nation. And we looked at all the different requirements that were placed on towers through a number of municipalities. And we kind of looked at what seemed appropriate. So 120 percent was average. 100 percent, it seemed to always go beyond the 100 percent; 110, 120 (percent). Sometimes it would be more. Again, 1,000 feet, you know setbacks. Tracie did a lot of reviews of different municipalities and was able to come up with a lot of our background information that we could kind of look at and make a decision upon. Some of that was within the background report; some of the research that was done. Some if it came up, you know, questions would come up, how did you come up with this? It was basically, just thorough research going through this. MS. KIMBALL: Okay. This is one of the things I like about Bill 24 as opposed to Bill 194, is the percentage way of calculating this in advance instead of having a fixed distance. I am curious about the 1,200 feet, though. And I think it would be —I don't think that makes sense. I don't actually think there's a scientific basis for that. So, I'd actually like to see that reduced as the Page 5 PCPLUED-3 February 4, 2025 standard. And maybe that's a discussion we can have offline in terms of the tapes of data that you dove into. Because part of what I'm getting from my community is cell towers, yes please. Cell towers with 5G (Gigabyte), yes please. I mean, it's kind of a different mentality than other parts of the County. But there's such a major issue with telecommunications in the Hamakua district, because of the geography. I have people that's like, what do I do to get the cell phone tower in my back yard, like I want one, right? It's very different maybe for some other communities. MR. DARROW: Council Member Kimball, just real quick. Again, part of the research you'll find in the background on Page 13, it addresses that very issue. Thank you. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you. Just a legislative drafting comment on the language in Section 25-4-12 (g). The first phrase of that saying, "Telecommunication antennas and tower shall comply with all applicable ..." blah, blah, blah. I actually kind of resist the statement that we'll follow rules that already exist that we have to follow anyway in our Code. So, I would recommend removing that first clause, because that's going to happen anyway. Because I would recommend removing that first clause, because that's going to happen anyway whether or not we put that statement in there. The second one, yes, of course, in terms about the shielding. That's something that's different. But the first clause seems unnecessary, because that's going to happen anyway. I've got one other thing. This is also probably —it seems like Section 25-2-74, Item (2) has the proposed amendments. This is again, why I asked about the DPW (Department of Public Works) involvement question. This doesn't seem like a Land Use Planning Department purview, maybe it doesn't belong in Chapter 25. Just my editorial thought on that. MR. DARROW: As part of plan approval, you need to submit plans. And so, that's what these are, the plans for telecommunication towers. MS. KIMBALL: Okay, we'll look at it. It seems maybe not related to Land Use. But I'm willing to be wrong about that. Page 6 PCPLUED-3 February 4, 2025 MR. DARROW: We don't, you know, look at it. These plans are going to go forward to the Building Department. And so, we need to look at the plans they're going to be submitting. Normally, we're looking at the site plan. MS. KIMBALL: Okay. Maybe this clause just gets limited to the fact that you get the plan and not the requirements of the plan. That's where I don't really think it's your purview. Does that make sense? MR. DARROW: Sure. MS. KIMBALL: Then the next one, 25-2-74 (7). This kind of pertains to the conversation we were having earlier about, like ambiguous agreements to meet and get community feedback. You have the statement that, some effort has been made to meet with the adjacent landowners. Would you be open to considering an amendment that actually specified —I'm thinking about, like the notification process. Have they been at least notified? This feels a little bit too ambiguous for there to be like real decision making about the community having been affectively consulted. So, I'd like to see some more specific language about how that meeting would be satisfied. I realize you can address some of it in rules, but I think it's maybe a little too vague. MR. DARROW: Thank you for that, Council Member Kimball. So, real quick, normally plan approval does not require notification. But we were, you know, discussing this particular requirement as part of plan approval for telecommunication towers. So it is something that we can consider as part of that is placing it within that telecommunication section for plan approval to require the notification. Thank you. MS. KIMBALL: Okay, yeah, I just wanted something a little bit more fixed there. You know, there's some other components with Bill 194. Chair, I would like to start with Bill 24 and add in a couple things from Bill 194, but those changes that I suggested now would be kind of the place to start. I'll save the commentary for later about Bill 194. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: The floor is still yours if you still want to identify elements of Bill 194 that you'd like to lead into Bill 24. MS. KIMBALL: Bill 194. But I'll yield for now to hear from my colleagues. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Council Member Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you to the Planning Department for putting these two presentations together. However, I feel like I would be remiss if I didn't point Page 7 PCPLUED-3 February 4, 2025 out that they're probably unavoidable, but there's some bias in the presentations as far as what's been presented for Bill 194; much less information, all the problems with it. Lots of support for Bill 24. I have a lot of concerns with that because I take very seriously, the testimony of the experts who provided insights prior. And I do look at the way this all landed, and it doesn't sit well with me. So, in following my gut and my na`au with this, I would prefer Bill 194 and with some amendments or any kinds of things that need to happen. But I would prefer to go with the legislation that was created by a legislator and her time of service on the Council. And in connection and collaboration with experts in the industry. And so, that's kind of where I stand right now, and I won't be supporting Bill 24; I will be supporting Bill 194. Thank you. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Council Member Kagiwada. MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you. Alright, this is all very new to me. But can you tell me a little bit more about this co -location proposal and what it does? And is it in both, or is it only in Bill 24, the co -location recommendations? MR. DARROW: It is in both. The idea is, you know, we've done this as long as I can remember. Whenever a cell tower comes in for a special permit or use permit, we've always encouraged co -location. And what that is, is different antennas on top of a Monopine or a Monopole to be able to minimize the amount of towers that we have. And you know, there is that element of competition and things like that, but we found that it seems to work. You know, a lot of these towers do have co -location on them. So you know, if you have a tower that's pretty close, we don't want to just start permitting towers so close. But the Section in law that we're all responding to, Section 46-89 does not say we have to approve the request. It say's we don't approve, right? If we see somebody come in, and there's a tower very close, that we definitely can look at co -location. We have that option to say, no, we're going to, you know, probably not have multiple towers in such an area. But that's the objective, is to minimize these towers and try to have them consider co -location. MS. KAGIWADA: Okay, that makes sense. Do we have any, you know, carrot or stick for those who already have the first location, to get them to accept or to negotiate with people who want to come in? Do we have a way to encourage that? MR. DARROW: I'm not sure. I mean, normally what happens is a telecommunication company will approach a property owner of a location that Page 8 IK49911"�3t1 February 4, 2025 appears to be a viable area. They get into a lease agreement for a particular amount of time. My understanding is that's for that particular tower and company. So, I would think that as you co -locate on there, that becomes more a better lease agreement with the owner at least. I don't know if it's going to help any of the cell towers. But it may also include a cost from the co -locator to pay the cell tower that owns the tower itself. MS. KAGIWADA: Okay. Thank you. And then going back to our Fire Chief s question about the 1,200 feet away from residential and schools. Have you looked at that? I mean like, if you mapped it out in Hilo, would there be places that you could actually locate things? MR. DARROW: Yeah, I mean, it's something —we went with a more maximum in our review with the idea of, you know, this is adjustable. We're not solid on that figure. Council Member Evans has 1,000 feet, we had 1,200 feet. Testimony came in saying you should go 1,200 feet; other testimony is saying, it's too much. So, we're trying to find that balance. MS. KAGIWADA: Okay, but if you map it out, this is residential and schools? Is that correct? MR DARROW: Correct. And in Bill 194, it's including hospitals as well. Ironically, the hospitals have towers on them. MS. KAGIWADA: Okay. Alright. I'm still learning. I'm going to listen in. Thank you, I yield for now. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Council Member Inaba. MR. INABA: Thank you, Chair. Just wanted to confirm Director, both of these bills are proposing to make it a plan approval rather than through the Planning Commissions? MR. INABA: Okay. And I know this wasn't initiated by you, but just wondering, you know, why we didn't have amendments ready to present either to the commissions or to the Council for a bill that was already in process; speaking to Bill 194. MR. DARROW: I think that there is a little confusion on how it all initiated. We, from the Planning Department, initiated our bill with response to the contested case that Tracie had referred to earlier back in December of 2023. This was for a tower in Ocean View, and somebody filed a contested case. Page 9 PCPLUED-3 February 4, 2025 There was confusion in regards to this application of 46-89 to this particular permit. Well, what ended up happening, which really seemed to frustrate the community, was that the permit was passed because it went beyond the 60 days. So, at that point, the Planning Department was rushing to try to get a bill to be able to fix this. You know, this situation, we didn't want to have another tower come in with a use permit and we not meet that deadline. Especially, if we had a contested case. At the same time, Council Member Evans was drafting a bill, and there was collaboration between the Planning Director and the Council Member. But I think there were different directions that they were going. So, I think what the understanding was, and again, I wasn't really connected with this particular project. The understanding was to bring both bills together thinking that it would morph into one at some point, at the commissions or ultimately at Council. I know; it's extremely unique. MR. INABA: Okay. You know, there are parts to Bill 194 that I really appreciate; the definitions to be one of the first. I think the definitions that are proposed there help to, in my mind, distinguish between towers and antennas. And I don't know if that is something that we are trying to distinguish. Do you folks have any thoughts on that? MR. DARROW: I do. I would like to make one comment on that, and that's the reference to small cells. That actually is in HRS (Hawai`i Revised Statutes) 206N-4, where it says they're exempt from zoning. And normally small cell towers, these are connected to usually infrastructure, like light poles and utility poles, and they're found in right-of-ways, usually in the urban cores. Obviously, they wouldn't be able to meet the standards of these conditions. But again, based on law, it is exempt from these types of requirements. MR. INABA: Sorry, which part is saying small cell towers? I'm not seeing it in any of the definitions. MR. DARROW: Small wireless facilities; it's in the definitions under Bill 194. MR. INABA: Got it, okay. MR. DARROW: Thank you. MR. INABA: Okay. Usually, I feel like I'm not confused. But when we have two bills on the similar topic. But I'll admit I'm confused here. So, I'm not necessarily ready. I know Council Member Evans provided me an amendment for Bill 194. We're not on it right now. So, I'll yield. Page 10 PCPLUED-3 February 4, 2025 CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Council Member Galimba. MS. GALIMBA: Thank you. I think for me personally, I also would like to start with Bill 24 and bring in some of the elements of Bill 194, just because I think it's sort of a foundation that we could add on, which I think is better than just subtracting. So, that's kind of my very simplistic way of looking at it. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Do any members of the Committee want to suggest what elements of Bill 194 they like. So, we can start having a conversation about potential amendments to be worked on and presented at the next Committee hearing? Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you. So, I did have concerns about the last thing we spoke about with the small cell and the definition with Bill 194. But do like the idea of this definition of telecommunication tower. The other thing, I thought 1,200 (feet) was a little too far. This suggests 1,000 (feet), but does include hospitals. So, I do like the smaller distance, but would actually not include the hospitals. I like the idea of the Fire Plan. I think that's a good idea. The Fire Plan, the maintenance plan; I like plans. Those sound like things that belong in here. The statement from the applicant that there's no interference with the land mobile and the emergency communications, I think is an important clause. MR. DARROW: Council Member Kimball, if you could do us a favor and reference the section. MS. KIMBALL: Sorry, go more slowly and yes, okay. So, we're talking about Section 25-2-74, Item 7, which is the Fire Safety Plan. Item 9, which is the statement regarding the potential for interference, or that there is no interference. Item 13, which has the filing of a Maintenance Plan. Then if I go to the next Section 25-4-12, Item (d) there. I said I like that distance, 1,000 (feet), but to a school and residential only, as opposed to the 1,200 (feet). I liked (f), although with modifications, I think it would be good for the County to have ongoing right to inspect just in case on these sites. So, I don't think we're the right people to determine if we're violating any FCC (Federal Communications Commission) standards, but I would like the ability —I'm sorry, this is (f) under 25-4-12, to have open access for later inspections. I actually like (h), which would be a reflection of the priorities. So, if we're in a place where we're looking at four or five different lots, there would be maybe Page I I PCPLUED-3 February 4, 2025 a reflection from the Council about where we would prefer to see that. If you had choice from, you know, four different locations, what would be our ranking in terms of what is most suitable for that tower? Yeah, those are the key ones right now. I'm happy to take your input. But I did like the prioritization. MR. DARROW: Well, thank you. This one was a tough one because when somebody comes in, they come in for a particular property. We really don't have an option to say, well, let's look at our list of priorities here. You're like last. Okay, we still got to go. MS. KIMBALL: That's why I said that maybe it needs some modifications with the writing. It's more from like in advance, we've got a telecommunications person that says, "I want to build a tower." And they haven't acquired or identified a property yet, we want to reflect somewhere that from us, we prefer to see it in an industrial before we see it in a residential. And granted, yes, when they come in, it's going to be wherever it's going to be. But I like the idea of having somewhere they can reference when they're doing their initial citing investigations, this is what the priorities are from the Council and Legislature. Does that make sense? MR. DARROW: Thank you. Yes. MS. CAMERO: Just to add to that, I do think we should add in something in that language as we craft it, so that we're not holding back on some of the plans. So, we had thought with that wording, is that, if you're in Residential, we're holding off on your plan until an Agricultural one comes in, and so forth. And that was going to be detrimental for that HRS timeframe with HRS 46-89. So, yeah, we can work with that. MS. KIMBALL: No, I'm looking at it in a slightly different way in terms of a way to kind of signal to the people that might be looking to place these where we would prefer to see them. So, yeah, thanks. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Anyone else want to identify aspects of Bill 194, that they really appreciate and would like to weave into Bill 24? I still plan to keep this measure in Committee. We're nearing the 7:00 o'clock hour, and I do want to make sure we're taking time to work with the Planning Department to do a thorough review of the recommendations by this body. And we can have a suite of amendments that we are proposing and discussing at the next meeting later this month. Okay. Alright, I think everybody's kind of tapped out already. MS. KIMBALL: So, you want a motion to postpone? Page 12 PCPLUED-3 February 4, 2025 CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: I would like a motion to postpone Bill 24. MS. KIMBALL: So, February 18tn? CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: I'd like to keep this moving, actually to the February 18th meeting. Motion to Postpone: Ms. Kimball moved to postpone Bill 24 to February 18, 2025. Seconded by Mr. Kagiwada. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Any discussion? All in favor, please say, "aye." Any opposed? Vote on Motion The motion to postpone Bill 24 to February 18, 2025 to Postpone: was carried by the following voice vote: (Approved) Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Hustace, Inaba, Kagiwada, Kimball, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz — 7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Kdneali`i-Kleinfelder and Onishi — 2. Excused: None. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Bill 24 is postponed to February 18, 2025 Committee hearing. I need a motion to remove Bill 194 from the table. Vote on Motion to Ms. Kimball moved to remove Bill 194 from the table. Remove from Table: Seconded by Mr. Inaba and carried by the following (Approved) voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Hustace, Inaba, Kagiwada, Kimball, Onishi, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz — 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder — 1. Excused: None. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Bill 194 is back on the table officially for discussion. I don't feel comfortable getting rid of it just yet, so would like to entertain a motion to postpone this as well. Yes, Mr. Inaba. MR. INABA: Sorry, there was an amendment for this bill that I would like to take up, a simple amendment. Page 13 PCPLUED-3 CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. February 4, 2025 Motion to Amend: Mr. Inaba moved to amend Bill 194, with the contents of Comm. 985.52. Seconded by Mr. Onishi. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Council Member Inaba. MR. INABA: Thank you. This was something brought forth by former Council Member Evans just with regards to filing fee. $5,000, sorry, $3,000 for a towerI can't find it. I just found it in front of me at this point. I just lost it. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: So, it's $500 for an antenna and $3,000 in the case of a tower. MR. INABA: Okay, thank you. So, I just wanted to put that forth by request, and ask for your support. I yield. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Any comments from the Planning Department about the filing fee? Are there currently any fees associated with filing, say the use permit? MR. DARROW: There's a filing fee for use permits of $500. But there are no filing fees for plan approvals. So, this would be unique. It would be clearly for a plan approval for a telecommunication tower and/or an antenna. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. Council Member Inaba. Do you have a sense of where the $3,000 amount came from? MR. INABA: I do not. Former Council Member Evans could answer that. Again, this is just by request, that I'm providing this communication. Council Member Evans, would you like to explain where the $3,000 fee comes from? (Note: At this time, former Council Member Cindy Evans came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. EVANS: Cindy Evans speaking on Bill 194 and an amendment to add a filing fee. Yes, in my research looking across cities and municipalities, they were charging fees. MR. INABA: Okay. And the $3,000 is average? MS. EVANS: Oh, they went up to $5,000 and $10,000. I was just trying to bring it down more. Because there was a report done by the Finance Director that showed all the different fees that the Planning Department charges. And it Page 14 PCPLUED-3 February 4, 2025 had a spreadsheet of the different fees, and you know, they were small fees up to really high fees. And I was kind of getting a little bit more in the middle to high, because they have to do the work, right? MR. INABA: Okay, thank you very much. Chair, I yield. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Any questions or comments on the amendment? Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, I have a little hesitation about this from the standpoint of, it would be the only plan approval process that would have a fee associated, and that seems odd. I wasn't prepared to be thinking about this one, but I would think that there's maybe some other mechanisms to look at than a charge for a filing fee that would be unique within Chapter 25, as the only time you would be filing a fee for a plan approval. I think there's other ways we could look at. Maybe collecting some fee, but maybe not that mechanism. That's my thought. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, anyone else. If not, we'll go to —oh, Council Member Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: You know, I'm willing to support the mechanisms being presented here. Just because we haven't done it doesn't mean it wouldn't be a good thing to do. And you know, yeah, it's interesting in your district people are begging for that. My initial question is, are those the new people moving into your district, or are those the old school? Because in my district, people are very hesitant about all of these towers and things going up, or this small cell. I mean there was a proposal years ago during my first term, and I just kind of intended to start slapping on light posts in neighborhoods that people had no idea about. So, I am highly sensitive to this issue, and I think depending on the relationships and agreements, landowners have the potential to make big money for putting towers on their property. And we know the telecommunications industry makes big money off providing these services. So, striking a balance in for the work that it would entail for you guys, I would support this fee and just being courageous in moving forward in putting that amendment into this piece of legislation. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Council Member Kimball. Page 15 PCPLUED-3 February 4, 2025 MS. KIMBALL: Let me just suggest an alternative, Perhaps it's our property tax policy that would actually, you know, highest and best use, we now have another structure that has a higher value, that maybe that is the more appropriate place to have a fee associated with this use on a particular property. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: I like that idea. We can marinate on that and maybe discuss it further at our next Committee hearing. But seeing as there is a motion on the floor, Mr. Clerk, can we do a roll call vote? Vote on Motion The motion to amend Bill 194, with the contents of to Amend: Comm. 985.52 failed by the following roll call vote: Failed Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Inaba, Onishi, and Villegas — 4. Noes: Committee Members Hustace, Kagiwada, Kimball, and Chair Kierkiewicz — 4. Absent: Committee Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder — 1. Excused: None. MR. BROWN: The motion fails. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Back to the main motion for Bill 194. If there's no further discussion on this bill, can I have a motion to postpone Bill 194 to the February 18, 2025 meeting? Vote on Motion Mr. Onishi moved to postpone Bill 194 to February 18, 2025. to Postpone: Seconded by Mr. Hustace and was carried by the following (Approved) voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Hustace, Inaba, Kagiwada, Kimball, Onishi, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz — 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder —1. Excused: None. Page 16 PCPLUED-3 February 4, 2025 CHR. KIERKIEWlCZ: Bill 194 is postponed to the February 18, 2025 Committee hearing. And that brings us to the end of our agenda. Committee is adjourned at 6:54 p.m. Thank you. ADJOURN- There being no further business, Chair Kierkiewicz adjourned the meeting MENT: at 6:54 p.m. Approved: shley L. Kieriiewicz, Chair Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and Development AK/dt 110 12X 7 I (Date) Page 17